Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.

Challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 objectives for cancer-related preventive services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010.

INTRODUCTION: Healthy People (HP) is the US program that formulates and tracks national health objectives for the nation. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a designated data source for setting and evaluating several HP targets in cancer. We used data from the 2008 and 2010 NHIS to provide a benchmark for national performance toward meeting HP 2020 cancer-related objectives. METHODS: HP 2020 cancer screening, provider counseling, and health care access objectives were selected. For each objective, NHIS measures for the overall population and several sociodemographic subgroups were calculated; the findings were compared with established HP 2020 targets. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2010, rates of breast and cervical cancer screening declined slightly while colorectal cancer screening rates increased by 7 percentage points. Rates of cancer screening and provider counseling were below HP targets. Meeting HP targets seems less likely for subgroups characterized by low income, no health insurance, or no usual source of care. Meeting HP targets for access to health services will require an increase of 18 percentage points in the proportion of persons under age 65 with health insurance coverage and an increase of 10 percentage points in the proportion aged 18 to 64 with a usual source of care. CONCLUSION: Whether HP objectives for cancer screening and health care access are met may depend on implementation of health care reform measures that improve access to and coordination of care. Better integration of clinical health care and community-based efforts for delivering high-quality screening and treatment services and elimination of health disparities are also needed.

Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries.

CONTEXT: This article compares cervical cancer screening intensity and cervical cancer mortality trends in the United States and the Netherlands to illustrate the potential of cross-national comparative studies. We discuss the lessons that can be learned from the comparison as well as the challenges in each country to effective and efficient screening. METHODS: We used nationally representative data sources in the United States and the Netherlands to estimate the number of Pap smears and the cervical cancer mortality rate since 1950. The following questions are addressed: How do differences in intensity of Pap smear use between the countries translate into differences in mortality trends? Can population coverage rates (the proportion of eligible women who had a Pap smear within a specified period) explain the mortality trends better than the total intensity of Pap smear use? FINDINGS: Even though three to four times more Pap smears per woman were conducted in the United States than in the Netherlands over a period of three decades, the two countries' mortality trends were quite similar. The five-year coverage rates for women aged thirty to sixty-four were quite comparable at 80 to 90 percent. Because screening in the Netherlands was limited to ages thirty to sixty, screening rates for women under thirty and over sixty were much higher in the United States. These differences had consequences for age-specific mortality trends. The relatively good coverage rate in the Netherlands can be traced back to a nationwide invitation system based on municipal population registries. While both countries followed a "policy cycle" involving evidence review, surveillance of screening practices and outcomes, clinical guidelines, and reimbursement policies, the components of this cycle were more systematically linked and implemented nationwide in the Netherlands than in the United States. To a large extent, this was facilitated by a public health model of screening in the Netherlands, rather than a medical services model. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-country studies like ours are natural experiments that can produce insights not easily obtained from other types of study. The cervical cancer screening system in the Netherlands seems to have been as effective as the U.S. system but used much less screening. Adequate coverage of the female population at risk seems to be of central importance.

A History of Health Economics and Healthcare Delivery Research at the National Cancer Institute.

With increased attention to the financing and structure of healthcare, dramatic increases in the cost of diagnosing and treating cancer, and corresponding disparities in access, the study of healthcare economics and delivery has become increasingly important. The Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was formed in 2015 to provide a hub for cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics research. However, the roots of this program trace back much farther, at least to the formation of the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in 1983. The creation of a division focused on understanding and explaining trends in cancer morbidity and mortality was instrumental in setting the direction of cancer-related healthcare delivery and health economics research over the subsequent decades. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of health economics and healthcare delivery research at NCI, describing the organizational structure and highlighting key initiatives developed by the division, and also briefly discuss future directions. HDRP and its predecessors have supported the growth and evolution of these fields through the funding of grants and contracts; the development of data, tools, and other research resources; and thought leadership including stimulation of research on previously understudied topics. As the availability of new data, methods, and computing capacity to evaluate cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics expand, HDRP aims to continue to support this growth and evolution.

Are physicians' recommendations for colorectal cancer screening guideline-consistent?

BACKGROUND: Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians' recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities. METHODS: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians' screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models. RESULTS: Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice.

Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Although use of colonoscopy has increased substantially among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, no one has described colonoscopy-related adverse events in a representative sample of Medicare patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk for adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in elderly patients. DESIGN: Population-based, matched cohort study. SETTING: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas. PATIENTS: Random 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, age 66 to 95 years, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between 1 July 2001 and 31 October 2005 (n = 53 220), matched with beneficiaries who did not have colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: Medicare claims were used to measure the rate of serious gastrointestinal events (bleeding and perforation), other gastrointestinal events, and cardiovascular events resulting in a hospitalization or emergency department visit within 30 days after colonoscopy compared with matched beneficiaries who did not have colonoscopy. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted predictive risks for adverse events and to assess whether these events varied by age, comorbid conditions, or type of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Persons undergoing colonoscopy had a higher risk for adverse gastrointestinal events than their matched group. Rates of adverse events after colonoscopy increased with age. Patients having polypectomy had higher risk for all adverse events compared with their matched group and with the screening and diagnostic colonoscopy groups. Comorbid conditions increased the risk for adverse events. Patients with a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, or congestive heart failure had significantly higher risk for serious gastrointestinal events. LIMITATION: The analysis relied on the diagnosis and procedure codes recorded on the Medicare claims. CONCLUSION: Risks for adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries were low; however, they increased with age with specific comorbid conditions and depending on whether polypectomy was done. These data may inform decisions on whether to perform colonoscopy in persons of advanced age or those with comorbid conditions.

Comparison of approaches for estimating incidence costs of care for colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the costs of medical care vary across patient populations, data sources, and methods. The objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the incidence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using similar patient populations, but different data sources and methods. METHODS: We used 2 data sources, linked SEER-Medicare and Medicare claims alone, to identify newly diagnosed CRC patients aged 65 and older and estimated their healthcare costs during the observation period, 1998 to 2002. Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. We compared mean net costs, measured as the difference in total cost between cases and controls, for: (1) a SEER-Medicare cohort, (2) a Medicare claims alone cohort, and (3) a modeled phase of care approach using linked SEER-Medicare data. The SEER-Medicare cohort approach was considered the reference. RESULTS: We found considerable variability across approaches for estimating net costs of care in CRC patients. In the first year after diagnosis, mean net costs were $32,648 (95% CI: $31,826 and $33,470) in the SEER-Medicare cohort. The other approaches understated mean net costs in year 1 by about 16%. Mean net 5-year costs of care were $37,227 (95% CI: $35,711 and $38,744) in the SEER-Medicare cohort, and $30,310 (95% CI: $25,894 and $34,726) in the claims only approach, with the largest difference in the 65 to 69 age group. Mean net 5-year costs of care were more similar to the reference in the modeled phase of care approach ($37,701 [range: $36,972 and $38,446]). Differences from the SEER-Medicare cohort estimates reflect misclassification of prevalent cancer patients as newly diagnosed patients in the Medicare claims only approach, and differences in years of data and assumptions about comparison groups in the modeled phase of care approach. CONCLUSIONS: CRC incidence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the strategy and data source for identifying newly diagnosed cancer patients and methods for estimating longitudinal costs. Our findings may inform estimation of costs for other cancers as well as other diseases.

Inventory of data sources for estimating health care costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an inventory of data sources for estimating health care costs in the United States and provide information to aid researchers in identifying appropriate data sources for their specific research questions. METHODS: We identified data sources for estimating health care costs using 3 approaches: (1) a review of the 18 articles included in this supplement, (2) an evaluation of websites of federal government agencies, non profit foundations, and related societies that support health care research or provide health care services, and (3) a systematic review of the recently published literature. Descriptive information was abstracted from each data source, including sponsor, website, lowest level of data aggregation, type of data source, population included, cross-sectional or longitudinal data capture, source of diagnosis information, and cost of obtaining the data source. Details about the cost elements available in each data source were also abstracted. RESULTS: We identified 88 data sources that can be used to estimate health care costs in the United States. Most data sources were sponsored by government agencies, national or nationally representative, and cross-sectional. About 40% were surveys, followed by administrative or linked administrative data, fee or cost schedules, discharges, and other types of data. Diagnosis information was available in most data sources through procedure or diagnosis codes, self-report, registry, or chart review. Cost elements included inpatient hospitalizations (42.0%), physician and other outpatient services (45.5%), outpatient pharmacy or laboratory (28.4%), out-of-pocket (22.7%), patient time and other direct nonmedical costs (35.2%), and wages (13.6%). About half were freely available for downloading or available for a nominal fee, and the cost of obtaining the remaining data sources varied by the scope of the project. CONCLUSIONS: Available data sources vary in population included, type of data source, scope, and accessibility, and have different strengths and weaknesses for specific research questions.

Comparison of approaches for estimating prevalence costs of care for cancer patients: what is the impact of data source?

BACKGROUND: National prevalence costs of medical care can be key inputs in health policy decisions. Cost estimates vary across data sources, patient populations, and methods, however, the objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the prevalence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using different data sources, but similar patient populations and methods. METHODS: We identified prevalent CRC patients aged 65 and older from: (1) linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry-Medicare data, (2) Medicare claims only, and (3) the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Mean per person total and net costs, measured as the difference between patients and controls, were compared for each approach during a similar observation period. The SEER-Medicare approach was our reference, and we evaluated the impact of patient selection criteria with sensitivity analyses. Aggregate prevalence estimates were also compared. RESULTS: We found considerable variability across the different approaches to estimating prevalence costs of CRC. Mean net annual per person estimates in the SEER-Medicare reference were $5341 (95% CI: $5243, $5439), compared with $8736 (95% CI: $8203, $9269) for the Medicare claims only and $11,614 (95% CI: $7566, $15,663) for the MEPS. Aggregate national estimates of net prevalence costs of CRC in 2004 ranged from $4524 million, using the SEER-Medicare approach, to $9629 million, using the MEPS approach. Estimates varied by data source based on the payors included and identification of prevalent CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: CRC prevalence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the data sources. Our findings have implications for estimating prevalence costs for other cancers and other diseases without registry systems that can be used to identify newly diagnosed individuals as well as those diagnosed less recently.

Collaborating on Data, Science, and Infrastructure: The 20-Year Journey of the Cancer Research Network.

The Cancer Research Network (CRN) is a consortium of 12 research groups, each affiliated with a nonprofit integrated health care delivery system, that was first funded in 1998. The overall goal of the CRN is to support and facilitate collaborative cancer research within its component delivery systems. This paper describes the CRN's 20-year experience and evolution. The network combined its members' scientific capabilities and data resources to create an infrastructure that has ultimately supported over 275 projects. Insights about the strengths and limitations of electronic health data for research, approaches to optimizing multidisciplinary collaboration, and the role of a health services research infrastructure to complement traditional clinical trials and large observational datasets are described, along with recommendations for other research consortia.

Costs of cancer care in the USA: a descriptive review.

Although many studies assessing the cost of cancer care have been conducted in the US, to date, these studies and the underlying methods used to estimate costs have not been reviewed systematically. We conducted a descriptive review of the published literature on the cost of cancer care in the US, and identified 60 papers published between 1995 and 2006 pertinent to our study. We found heterogeneity across the studies in terms of the settings, populations studied, measurement of costs, and study methods. We also identified limitations in the generalizability of findings, the misclassification of patient groups and costs, and concerns with study methods. Among studies that reported costs of cancer care in multiple phases of care and for multiple tumor sites, costs were generally highest in the initial year following diagnosis and the last year of life, and lower in the continuing phase (i.e. the period between the initial and last year of life phases), following a 'u-shaped' curve. Within phase of care, costs for lung and colorectal cancer care were generally higher than those for breast and prostate cancer care, however, the long-term or lifetime costs for each type of cancer were more similar, reflecting the differences in survival and costs in each phase between the different disease types.

Trends in abnormal cancer screening results in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Although recent trends in the use of recommended breast and cervical cancer screening have been well documented in the USA, little is known about trends in the prevalence of abnormal screening results. METHODS: Trends in abnormal screening results for mammography and Papanicolaou (Pap) smear were assessed descriptively using data from the 1987 and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys. Estimates were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics of the populations who reported ever receiving screening. All comparisons were evaluated with two-sided tests of statistical significance. RESULTS: The age-standardized prevalence of abnormal Pap smears increased from 12.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1-13.8%) of women ever screened in 1987 to 20.3% (95% CI 19.5-21.0%) in 2000, and the age-standardized prevalence of abnormal mammogram results increased from 18.8% (95% CI 17.0-20.7%) to 21.6% (95% CI 20.5-22.7%) of women ever screened over the same period. Among women aged 40 years and older who reported ever receiving both a Pap smear and a mammogram, 29.6% (95% CI: 27.3-32.2%) in 1987 and 35% (95% CI: 33.8-36.2%) in 2000 reported either an abnormal Pap smear or an abnormal mammogram. In 2000, abnormal screening results were positively associated with reported frequency of recent screening (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial portion of women in the USA reporting cancer screening also report having had abnormal results, although the magnitude of trends between 1987 and 2000 vary by screening test. Additional research is needed to assess the relative contributions of changes in classification of test results, test characteristics and changes in underlying screening histories to increases in abnormal screening results.

Association of regional variation in primary care physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations with individual use of colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that the recommendations of a primary care physician for colorectal cancer screening may be one important influence on an individual's use of screening. However, another possible influence, the effect of regional differences in physicians' beliefs and recommendations on screening use, has not been assessed. METHODS: We linked data from the National Health Interview Survey on the use of colorectal cancer screening by respondents aged 50 years or older, by hospital-referral region, with data from the Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices on the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians, by region. Our principal independent variables were the proportion of physicians in a region who recommended screening at age 50 and continuing screening at the recommended frequency. RESULTS: On average, 53.3% of physicians in a region correctly recommended initiating colorectal cancer screening, and 64.8% advised screening at the recommended frequency. Of adults who lived in regions where less than 30% of physicians correctly recommended initiating screening, 47.3% had been screened, in contrast to 54.8% in areas where 70% or more of physicians made correct recommendations. Seventy-one percent of respondents living in regions where less than 30% of physicians advised screening at the recommended frequency were current on screening, in contrast to 79.9% of respondents living in regions where 70% or more of physicians made this recommendation. These differences were statistically significant after adjustment for individual characteristics. CONCLUSION: Strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians may improve the use of screening for millions of Americans.

Insurance status and the use of guideline therapy in the treatment of selected cancers.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the impact of type of insurance coverage on the receipt of guideline therapy in a population-based sample of cancer patients treated in the community. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 7,134) from the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care studies who were newly diagnosed with 11 different types of cancer were analyzed. The definition of guideline therapy was based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment recommendations. Insurance status was categorized as a mutually exclusive hierarchical variable (no insurance, any private insurance, any Medicaid, Medicare only, and all other). Multivariate analyses were used to examine the association between insurance and receipt of guideline therapy. RESULTS: Adjusting for clinical and nonclinical variables, insurance status was a modest, although statistically significant, determinant of receipt of guideline therapy, with 65% of the privately insured patients receiving recommended therapy compared with 60% of patients with Medicaid. Seventy percent of the uninsured patients received guideline therapy, which was nonsignificantly different compared with private insurance. When stratified by race, insurance was a statistically significant predictor of the receipt of guideline therapy only for non-Hispanic blacks. CONCLUSION: Overall, levels of guideline treatment were lower than expected and particularly low for patients with Medicaid or Medicare only. The use of guideline therapy for ovarian and cervical cancer patients and for patients with rectal cancers was unrelated to type of insurance. Of particular concern is the significantly lower use of guideline therapy for non-Hispanic black patients with Medicaid. After adjusting for other factors, only half of these patients received guideline therapy.

Racial and ethnic disparities in the receipt of cancer treatment.

A disproportionate number of cancer deaths occur among racial/ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, who have a 33% higher risk of dying of cancer than whites. Although differences in incidence and stage of disease at diagnosis may contribute to racial disparities in mortality, evidence of racial disparities in the receipt of treatment of other chronic diseases raises questions about the possible role of inequities in the receipt of cancer treatment. To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of cancer treatment, we examined the published literature that addressed access/use of specific cancer treatment procedures, trends in patterns of use, or survival studies. We found evidence of racial disparities in receipt of definitive primary therapy, conservative therapy, and adjuvant therapy. These treatment differences could not be completely explained by racial/ethnic variation in clinically relevant factors. In many studies, these treatment differences were associated with an adverse impact on the health outcomes of racial/ethnic minorities, including more frequent recurrence, shorter disease-free survival, and higher mortality. Reducing the influence of nonclinical factors on the receipt of cancer treatment may, therefore, provide an important means of reducing racial/ethnic disparities in health. New data resources and improved study methodology are needed to better identify and quantify the full spectrum of nonclinical factors that contribute to the higher cancer mortality among racial/ethnic minorities and to develop strategies to facilitate receipt of appropriate cancer care for all patients.

Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings.

PURPOSE: This study provides population-based estimates of the treatment costs for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer, with emphasis on costs of modified radical mastectomy (MRM) compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation therapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries were linked with their Medicare claims, 1990 through 1998. Each claim was assigned to an initial, continuing, or terminal care phase after a cancer diagnosis. Mean monthly phase-specific costs were determined for all health care and for treatment related only to cancer. Cumulative long-term costs of care that accrue during a women's remaining lifetime were calculated by treatment group. RESULTS: Initial care costs for the 6 months after diagnosis for women who underwent BCS with RT were approximately $450 per month higher than for women with MRM. During the continuing-care phase, costs for women undergoing BCS with RT were significantly less expensive than for MRM cases. The two groups had similar costs in the terminal-care phase. Assuming the same survival distributions, long-term costs for women undergoing BCS with RT were not statistically different than for women undergoing MRM. CONCLUSION: Although mastectomy was less costly in the initial phase, the lifetime costs of BCS with RT and mastectomy were equivalent. Thus, women's preferences, resources to cover out-of-pocket costs, and life situations should be the major factors addressed in shared decision making about treatment options.

Physician recommendations for follow-up of positive fecal occult blood tests.

Following a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), physician recommendation of complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE) is an important first step to ensure identification and treatment of preinvasive or invasive colorectal cancer. Physicians may not recommend CDE, however, potentially compromising the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs and the quality of care for individual patients. The authors used a theoretical model of health behavior and two national physician samples to explore factors associated with recommendations for CDE. Overall, 63 percent of the sample of physicians providing primary care and 76 percent of the gastroenterologist and general surgeon sample reported recommending CDE. Variables representing the theoretical model constructs of physician background, experience, and practice patterns; practice environment; physician psychosocial representations; and patient characteristics were significantly associated with recommendations of CDE. Development of interventions to improve recommendations of CDE is an important area for future research.

Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance of colorectal adenomas after polypectomy has given rise to concerns about the availability of endoscopic resources in the United States. Guidelines recommend surveillance after polypectomy at 3 to 5 years for a small adenoma, and follow-up is not advised for hyperplastic polyps. The intensity of physicians' surveillance is largely unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To survey practicing gastroenterologists and general surgeons about their perceived need for the frequency of surveillance after polypectomy, to compare survey responses to practice guidelines, and to identify factors influencing their recommendations for surveillance. DESIGN: Survey study conducted by the National Cancer Institute. SETTING: A nationally representative study of physicians in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 349 gastroenterologists and 316 general surgeons. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires mailed in 1999 and 2000 assessed physicians' recommendations for surveillance after polypectomy in asymptomatic, average-risk patients. RESULTS: Response rates were 83%. Among gastroenterologists (317 of 349) and surgeons (125 of 316) who perform screening colonoscopy, 24% (95% CI, 19.3% to 28.7%) of gastroenterologists and 54% (CI, 44.9% to 62.5%) of surgeons recommend surveillance for a hyperplastic polyp. For a small adenoma, most physicians recommended surveillance colonoscopy and more than 50% recommended examinations every 3 years or more often. Physicians indicated that published evidence was very influential in their practice (83% [CI, 78.8% to 87.2%] of gastroenterologists and 78% [CI, 72.5% to 86.8%] of surgeons). By contrast, only half of respondents reported that guidelines were very influential. LIMITATIONS: The study was based on physicians' self-reported practice patterns. Results may overestimate or underestimate the performance of surveillance colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Some surveillance colonoscopy seems to be inappropriately performed and in excess of guidelines, particularly for hyperplastic polyps and low-risk lesions such as a small adenoma. These results suggest unnecessary demand for endoscopic resources.

Current capacity for endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in the United States: data from the National Cancer Institute Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices.

PURPOSE: There is a national goal in the United States to increase the level of colorectal cancer screening, but there is currently little information on resources for the delivery of endoscopic screening and follow-up diagnostic and surveillance procedures. The purpose of this study was to provide nationally representative data on endoscopic resources at the provider level. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of primary care physicians, general surgeons, and gastroenterologists that was conducted during 1999 to 2000 provided data from survey responses by 1235 primary care physicians, 349 gastroenterologists, and 316 general surgeons. RESULTS: We estimated that 65% of all sigmoidoscopy procedures were performed by primary care physicians, 25% by gastroenterologists, and 10% by general surgeons. Only 30% of all primary care physicians performed any procedures, and average volume among those who did was relatively low (seven per month). Gastroenterologists performed two thirds of all colonoscopy procedures, with most of the remainder performed by general surgeons. CONCLUSION: There is potential to increase the capacity to perform screening sigmoidoscopy procedures through primary care delivery. However, without careful consideration of organizational factors, this could result in increased cost and quality control problems. Increasing the capacity for screening colonoscopy is feasible, but will require attention to other problems, such as avoiding overfrequent (e.g., annual or biennial) procedures in low-risk patients.