Patterns of Care Following a Positive Fecal Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Regional Safety-Net Health System over a 10-Year Period: Lessons for Population Health.

BACKGROUND: Despite national policy efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, rates in vulnerable populations remain suboptimal. Many types of interventions have been employed, but their impact on improving population-level rates of CRC screening over time is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of 10 years of different in-reach and outreach strategies to improve CRC screening and identify factors associated with being screen up-to-date (SUTD). DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-74 years from 12 community-based primary care clinics in an integrated, regional safety-net health system. INTERVENTIONS: Multiple system-level interventions were implemented over time (visit-based electronic health record [EHR] reminders, quality measurement, annual preventive service letters, and mailed fecal immunohistochemical stool tests [FIT]). MAIN MEASURES: CRC SUTD rates by calendar year among those with a primary care (PC) visit in the prior 1 and 3 years and their multivariable correlates. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 31,786-40,405 patients/year. In 2011, mean age was 58.9, 63.9% were women, 37.0% were Hispanic, 39.3% Black, 16.8% White, and 6.6% Asian/Other, and 60.5% were uninsured/Medicaid. Three-quarters of patients had ≥ 1 PC visit in the prior year. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, annual prevention letters) had limited impact on SUTD rates (2-3% rise). Implementing system-wide mailed FIT increased rates from 51.2 to 61.9% among those with a PC visit in the past year (40.5 to 46.8% with a PC visit ≤ 3 years). Stopping mailed FIT due to COVID wiped out these gains. Higher screening rates were associated with the following: older age; female; more comorbidities, PC clinic visits, and prior FITs; and better insurance coverage. Hispanics had the highest SUTD rates followed by Asians, Blacks, and Whites (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a system-wide mailed FIT program had the greatest impact on SUTD rates. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, and patient letters) had limited effects.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Cost Effectiveness of Mailed Outreach Programs for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Analysis of a Pragmatic, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs. RESULTS: Mailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained. CONCLUSION: Mailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.

Experience, Perceptions, and Recommendations Concerning COVID-19-Related Clinical Research Adjustments.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA and NIH altered clinical trial requirements to protect participants and manage study conduct. Given their detailed knowledge of research protocols and regular contact with patients, clinicians, and sponsors, clinical research professionals offer important perspectives on these changes. METHODS: We developed and distributed an anonymous survey assessing COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustment experiences, perceptions, and recommendations to Clinical Research Office personnel at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Responses were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 94 of 109 contacted research personnel (87%) responded. Among these individuals, 58% had >5 years' professional experience in clinical research, and 56% had personal experience with a COVID-19-related change. Respondents perceived that these changes had a positive impact on patient safety; treatment efficacy; patient and staff experience; and communication with patients, investigators, and sponsors. More than 90% felt that positive changes should be continued after COVID-19. For remote consent, telehealth, therapy shipment, off-site diagnostics, and remote monitoring, individuals with personal experience with the specific change and individuals with >5 years' professional experience were numerically more likely to recommend continuing the adjustment, and these differences were significant for telehealth (P=.04) and therapy shipment (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research professionals perceive that COVID-19-related clinical trial adjustments positively impact multiple aspects of study conduct. Those with greatest experience-both specific to COVID-19-related changes and more generally-are more likely to recommend that these adjustments continue in the future.

Using Local Anesthesia for Inguinal Hernia Repair Reduces Complications in Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most common general surgery operation in the United States. Nearly 80% of inguinal hernia operations are performed under general anesthesia versus 15%-20% using local anesthesia, despite the absence of evidence for the superiority of the former. Although patients aged 65 y and older are expected to benefit from avoiding general anesthesia, this presumed benefit has not been adequately studied. We hypothesized that the benefits of local over general anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair would increase with age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 87,794 patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project who had elective inguinal hernia repair under local or general anesthesia from 2014 to 2018, and we used propensity scores to adjust for known confounding. We compared postoperative complications, 30-day readmissions, and operative time for patients aged <55 y, 55-64 y, 65-74 y, and ≥75 y. RESULTS: Using local rather than general anesthesia was associated with a 0.6% reduction in postoperative complications in patients aged 75+ y (95% CI -0.11 to -1.13) but not in younger patients. Local anesthesia was associated with faster operative time (2.5 min - 4.7 min) in patients <75 y but not in patients aged 75+ y. Readmissions did not differ by anesthesia modality in any age group. Projected national cost savings for greater use of local anesthesia ranged from $9 million to $45 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should strongly consider using local anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair in older patients and in younger patients because it is associated with significantly reduced complications and substantial cost savings.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Local Anesthesia for Inguinal Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have identified racial disparities in healthcare, but few have described disparities in the use of anesthesia modalities. We examined racial disparities in the use of local versus general anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair. We hypothesized that African American and Hispanic patients would be less likely than Caucasians to receive local anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 78,766 patients aged ≥ 18 years in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who underwent elective, unilateral, open inguinal hernia repair under general or local anesthesia from 1998-2018. We used multiple logistic regression to compare use of local versus general anesthesia and 30-day postoperative complications by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: In total, 17,892 (23%) patients received local anesthesia. Caucasian patients more frequently received local anesthesia (15,009; 24%), compared to African Americans (2353; 17%) and Hispanics (530; 19%), P < 0.05. After adjusting for covariates, we found that African Americans (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.86) and Hispanics (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87) were significantly less likely to have hernia surgery under local anesthesia compared to Caucasians. Additionally, local anesthesia was associated with fewer postoperative complications for African American patients (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Although local anesthesia was associated with enhanced recovery for African American patients, they were less likely to have inguinal hernias repaired under local than Caucasians. Addressing this disparity requires a better understanding of how surgeons, anesthesiologists, and patient-related factors may affect the choice of anesthesia modality for hernia repair.

Local Anesthesia is Associated with Fewer Complications in Umbilical Hernia Repair in Frail Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The optimal anesthesia modality for umbilical hernia repair is unclear. We hypothesized that using local rather than general anesthesia would be associated with improved outcomes, especially for frail patients. METHODS: We utilized the 1998-2018 Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program to identify patients who underwent elective, open umbilical hernia repair under general or local anesthesia. We used the Risk Analysis Index to measure frailty. Outcomes included complications and operative time. RESULTS: There were 4958 Veterans (13%) whose hernias were repaired under local anesthesia. Compared to general anesthesia, local was associated with a 12%-24% faster operative time for all patients, and an 86% lower (OR 0.14, 95%CI 0.03-0.72) complication rate for frail patients. CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia may reduce the operative time for all patients and complications for frail patients having umbilical hernia repair.

De-implementation of cervical cancer screening before age 21.

In 2012, United States consensus guidelines were modified to recommend that cervical cancer screening not begin before age 21 and, since 2014, the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a health plan quality measurement too, has included a measure for non-recommended cervical cancer screening among females ages 16-20. Our goal was to describe prevalence over time of cervical cancer screening before age 21 following the 2012 guideline change, and provide information to help understand how rapidly new guidelines may be disseminated and implemented into clinical practice. We used longitudinal clinical and administrative data from three diverse healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium to examine annual trends in screening before age 21. We identified 55,316 average-risk, screening-eligible females ages 18-20 between 2011 and 2017. For each calendar year, we estimated the proportion of females who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. We observed a steady decline in the proportion of females under age 21 who received a Pap test, from an average of 8.3% in 2011 to <1% in 2017 across the sites. The observed steady decline suggests growing adherence to the 2012 consensus guidelines. This trend was consistent across diverse geographic regions, healthcare systems, and patient populations, strengthening the generalizability of the results; however, since we only had 1-2 years of study data prior to the consensus guidelines, we cannot discern whether screening under age 21 was already in decline. Nonetheless, these results provide data to compare with other guideline changes to de-implement non-recommended screening practices.

Computer-tailored intervention increases colorectal cancer screening among low-income African Americans in primary care: Results of a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although African Americans have the highest colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates of any racial group, their screening rates remain low. STUDY DESIGN/PURPOSE: This randomized controlled trial compared efficacy of two clinic-based interventions for increasing CRC screening among African American primary care patients. METHODS: African American patients from 11 clinics who were not current with CRC screening were randomized to receive a computer-tailored intervention (n = 335) or a non-tailored brochure (n = 358) designed to promote adherence to CRC screening. Interventions were delivered in clinic immediately prior to a provider visit. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors of screening test completion. Moderators and mediators were determined using multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Significant effects of the computer-tailored intervention were observed for completion of a stool blood test (SBT) and completion of any CRC screening test (SBT or colonoscopy). The colonoscopy screening rate was higher among those receiving the computer-tailored intervention group compared to the nontailored brochure but the difference was not significant. Predictors of SBT completion were: receipt of the computer-tailored intervention; being seen at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic; baseline stage of adoption; and reason for visit. Mediators of intervention effects were changes in perceived SBT barriers, changes in perceived colonoscopy benefits, changes in CRC knowledge, and patient-provider discussion. Moderators of intervention effects were age, employment, and family/friend recommendation of screening. CONCLUSION: This one-time computer-tailored intervention significantly improved CRC screening rates among low-income African American patients. This finding was largely driven by increasing SBT but the impact of the intervention on colonoscopy screening was strong. Implementation of a CRC screening quality improvement program in the VA site that included provision of stool blood test kits and follow-up likely contributed to the strong intervention effect observed at that site. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00672828.

A randomized trial of mail and email recruitment strategies for a physician survey on clinical trial accrual.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. A challenge to capturing physicians' insights about trials has been low response to surveys. We conducted a study using varying combinations of mail and email to recruit a nationally representative sample of medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists to complete a survey on trial accrual. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible physicians identified from the American Medical Association MasterFile (n = 13,251) to mail- or email-based recruitment strategies. Mail-based recruitment included a survey packet with: (1) cover letter describing the survey and inviting participation; (2) paper copy of the survey and postage-paid return envelope; and (3) a web link for completing the survey online. Email-based recruitment included an e-mail describing the survey and inviting participation, along with the web link to the survey, and a reminder postcard 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Response was higher for mail-based (11.8, 95% CI 11.0-12.6%) vs. email-based (4.5, 95% CI 4.0-5.0%) recruitment. In email-based recruitment, only one-quarter of recipients opened the email, and even fewer clicked on the link to complete the survey. Most physicians in mail-based recruitment responded after the first invitation (362 of 770 responders, 47.0%). A higher proportion of responders vs. non-responders were young (ages 25-44 years), men, and radiation or surgical (vs. medical) oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians assigned to mail-based recruitment actually completed the survey online via the link provided in the cover letter, and those in email-based recruitment did not respond until they received a reminder postcard by mail. Providing the option to return a paper survey or complete it online may have further increased participation in the mail-based group, and future studies should examine how combinations of delivery mode and return options affect physicians' response to surveys.

Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort.

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.

Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50-64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT, 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy, 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19-2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy.

Patterns and predictors of repeat fecal immunochemical and occult blood test screening in four large health care systems in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Effectiveness of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends on annual testing, but little is known about patterns of repeat stool-based screening within different settings. Our study's objective was to characterize screening patterns and identify factors associated with repeat screening among patients who completed an index guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study among people who completed a FOBT between January 2010 and December 2011 to characterize repeat screening patterns over the subsequent 3 years. We studied at 4 large health care delivery systems in the United States. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with repeat screening patterns. We included individuals aged 50-71 years who completed an index FOBT and had at least 3 years of follow-up. We excluded people with a history of CRC, colonoscopy within 10 years or flexible sigmoidoscopy within 5 years before the index test, or positive index stool test. Consistent screening was defined as repeat FOBT within every 15 months and inconsistent screening as repeat testing at least once during follow-up but less than consistent screening. RESULTS: Among 959,857 eligible patients who completed an index FIT or gFOBT, 344,103 had three years of follow-up and met inclusion criteria. Of these, 46.6% had consistent screening, 43.4% inconsistent screening, and 10% had no repeat screening during follow-up. Screening patterns varied substantially across healthcare systems, with consistent screening proportions ranging from 1 to 54.3% and no repeat screening proportions ranging from 6.9 to 42.8%. Higher consistent screening proportions were observed in health systems with screening outreach and in-reach programs, whereas the safety-net health system, which uses opportunistic clinic-based screening, had the lowest consistent screening. Consistent screening increased with older age but was less common among racial/ethnic minorities and patients with more comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with annual FOBT screening is highly variable across healthcare delivery systems. Settings with more organized screening programs performed better than those with opportunistic screening, but evidence-based interventions are needed to improve CRC screening adherence in all settings.

The Promoting Activity in Cancer Survivors (PACES) trial: a multiphase optimization of strategy approach to increasing physical activity in breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant, empirically supported benefits of physical activity, the majority of breast cancer survivors do not meet recommended guidelines for physical activity. A variety of effective strategies to increase physical activity in breast cancer survivors have been identified. However, it is unknown which of these strategies is most effective or how these strategies might be combined to optimize intervention effectiveness. METHODS: The proposed trial uses multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) to evaluate four evidence-based intervention strategies for increasing physical activity in breast cancer survivors. We will enroll 500 breast cancer survivors, age 18 and older, who are 3-months to 5 years post-treatment. Using a full-factorial design, participants will be randomized to receive a combination: 1) supervised exercise, 2) facility access, 3) self-monitoring, and 4) group-based active living counseling. The primary outcome, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) will be measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months using an Actigraph GT3X+. To evaluate intervention effects, a linear mixed-effects model will be conducted with MVPA as the outcome and with time (3 months and 6 months) as the within-subjects factor and intervention (i.e., supervised exercise, facility access, self-monitoring, and active living counseling) as the between subjects factor, along with all two-way interactions. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the PACES study is to evaluate multiple strategies for increasing physical activity in breast cancer survivors. Results of this study will provide in an optimized intervention for increasing physical activity in breast cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03060941 . Registered February 23, 2017.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests. METHODS: Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy.

Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.

Recommendation of colorectal cancer testing among primary care patients younger than 50 with elevated risk.

In the era of precision medicine, efforts are needed to identify and tailor screening recommendations among elevated-risk patients. Individuals younger than 50years are an important target population, as they comprise 15% of colorectal (CRC) cases and often present with more advanced disease than their 50+ counterparts. In this large study, 2470 patients ages 25-49 used a tablet-based program that assessed risks, matched risks with screening guidelines, and generated tailored printed guideline-concordant recommendations for patients and their providers. The tablet-based program identified 121 (4.9%) patients with risk factors warranting screening before age 50. Likelihood of risk warranting screening was greater for ages 40-49 than <40years (OR: 2.38), females than males (OR: 1.82), and African Americans (OR: 1.69) and non-Hispanic Whites (OR: 2.89) compared to Hispanics. Most common risk factors were family history of polyps (23.1%), personal history of inflammatory bowel disease (19.8%), and combined family history of CRC+polyps (18.2%). Receipt of guideline-concordant screening within 6months of identification was low, including only 5.3% of those who needed colonoscopy and 13.3% for whom colonoscopy or FIT was recommended. Although elevated-risk patients younger than 50years can be readily identified, more than notification is necessary to facilitate screening participation.

Adherence to Recommended Risk Management among Unaffected Women with a BRCA Mutation.

Identifying unaffected women with a BRCA mutation can have a significant individual and population health impact on morbidity and mortality if these women adhere to guidelines for managing cancer risk. But, little is known about whether such women are adherent to current guidelines. We conducted telephone surveys of 97 unaffected BRCA mutation carriers who had genetic counseling at least one year prior to the survey to assess adherence to current guidelines, factors associated with adherence, and common reasons for performing and not performing recommended risk management. More than half of participants reported being adherent with current risk management recommendations for breast cancer (69 %, n = 67), ovarian cancer (82 %, n = 74) and both cancers (66 %, n = 64). Older age (OR = 10.53, p = 0.001), white race (OR = 8.93, p = 0.019), higher breast cancer genetics knowledge (OR = 1.67, p = 0.030), higher cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.07, p = 0.002) and higher physical functioning (OR = 1.09, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with adherence to recommended risk management for both cancers. Responses to open-ended questions about reasons for performing and not performing risk management behaviors indicated that participants recognized the clinical utility of these behaviors. Younger individuals and those with lower physical functioning may require targeted interventions to improve adherence, perhaps in the setting of long-term follow-up at a multi-disciplinary hereditary cancer clinic.

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.