Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Knowledge and Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Colonoscopic Screening Among Individuals at Increased Risk for Lynch Syndrome and their Endoscopists from the Family Health Promotion Project.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals whose families meet the Amsterdam II clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are recommended to be referred for genetic counseling and to have colonoscopic screening every 1-2 years. To assess the uptake and knowledge of guideline-based genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening in unaffected members of families who meet Amsterdam II criteria and their treating endoscopists. METHODS: Participants in the Family Health Promotion Project who met the Amsterdam II criteria were surveyed regarding their knowledge of risk-appropriate guidelines for genetic counseling and colonoscopy screening. Endoscopy/pathology reports were obtained from patients screened during the study to determine the follow-up recommendations made by their endoscopists. Survey responses were compared using Fisher's Exact and the χ(2) test. Concordance in participant/provider-reported surveillance interval was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of the 165 participants, the majority (98%) agreed that genetics and family history are important predictors of CRC, and 63% had heard of genetic testing for CRC, although only 31% reported being advised to undergo genetic counseling by their doctor, and only 7% had undergone genetic testing. Only 26% of participants reported that they thought they should have colonoscopy every 1-2 years and 30% of endoscopists for these participants recommended 1-2-year follow-up colonoscopy. There was a 65% concordance (weighted kappa 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) between endoscopist recommendations and participant reports regarding screening intervals. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of individuals meeting Amsterdam II criteria in this series have had genetic testing and reported accurate knowledge of risk-appropriate screening, and only a small percentage of their endoscopists provided them with the appropriate screening recommendations. There was moderate concordance between endoscopist recommendations and participant knowledge suggesting that future educational interventions need to target both health-care providers and their patients.

Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk for the disease, yet screening rates still remain low. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, we examined the impact of a personalized, remote risk communication intervention on behavioral intention and colonoscopy uptake in relatives of CRC patients, assessing the original additive model and an alternative model in which each theoretical construct contributes uniquely. METHODS: We collected intention-to-screen and medical record-verified colonoscopy information on 218 individuals who received the personalized intervention. RESULTS: Structural equation modeling showed poor main model fit (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.109; standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.134; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.797; Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 11,601; Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 11,884). However, the alternative model (RMSEA = 0.070; SRMR = 0.105; CFI = 0.918; AIC = 11,186; BIC = 11,498) showed good fit. Cancer susceptibility (B = 0.319, p < 0.001) and colonoscopy self-efficacy (B = 0.364, p < 0.001) perceptions predicted intention to screen, which was significantly associated with colonoscopy uptake (B = 0.539, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide support of the utility of Extended Parallel Process Model for designing effective interventions to motivate CRC screening in persons at increased risk when individual elements of the model are considered. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Long-term risk of medical conditions associated with breast cancer treatment.

Early and late effects of cancer treatment are of increasing concern with growing survivor populations, but relevant data are sparse. We sought to determine the prevalence and hazard ratio of such effects in breast cancer cases. Women with invasive breast cancer and women with no cancer history recruited for a cancer research cohort completed a mailed questionnaire at a median of 10 years post-diagnosis or matched reference year (for the women without cancer). Reported medical conditions including lymphedema, osteopenia, osteoporosis, and heart disease (congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease) were assessed in relation to breast cancer therapy and time since diagnosis using Cox regression. The proportion of women currently receiving treatment for these conditions was calculated. Study participants included 2,535 women with breast cancer and 2,428 women without cancer (response rates 66.0 % and 50.4 %, respectively) Women with breast cancer had an increased risk of lymphedema (Hazard ratio (HR) 8.6; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 6.3-11.6), osteopenia (HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.8-2.4), and osteoporosis (HR 1.5; 95 % CI 1.2-1.9) but not heart disease, compared to women without cancer Hazard ratios varied by treatment and time since diagnosis. Overall, 49.3 % of breast cancer cases reported at least one medical condition, and at 10 or more years post-diagnosis, 37.7 % were currently receiving condition-related treatment. Responses from survivors a decade following cancer diagnosis demonstrate substantial treatment-related morbidity, and emphasize the need for continued medical surveillance and follow-up care into the second decade post-diagnosis.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank.

Purpose: Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return. Methods: We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank. Results: Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5). Conclusion: PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

COVID-19 Mortality in the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine Biobank.

Over 6.37 million people have died from COVID-19 worldwide, but factors influencing COVID-19-related mortality remain understudied. We aimed to describe and identify risk factors for COVID-19 mortality in the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM) Biobank using integrated data sources, including Electronic Health Records (EHRs). We calculated cause-specific mortality and case-fatality rates for COVID-19 and common pre-existing health conditions defined by diagnostic phecodes and encounters in EHRs. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses of the association between each pre-existing condition and COVID-19 mortality. Of the 155,859 Biobank participants enrolled as of July 2022, 20,797 had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Of 5334 Biobank participants who had died, 190 were attributed to COVID-19. The case-fatality rate was 0.91% and the COVID-19 mortality rate was 122 per 100,000 persons. The odds of dying from COVID-19 were significantly increased among older men, and those with 14 of the 61 pre-existing conditions tested, including hypertensive chronic kidney disease (OR: 10.14, 95% CI: 5.48, 19.16) and type 2 diabetes with renal manifestations (OR: 5.59, 95% CI: 3.42, 8.97). Male patients who are older and have pre-existing kidney diseases may be at higher risk for death from COVID-19 and may require special care.

COVID-19 Surveillance in the Biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Characterizing the experience and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among various populations remains challenging due to the limitations inherent in common data sources, such as electronic health records (EHRs) or cross-sectional surveys. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe testing behaviors, symptoms, impact, vaccination status, and case ascertainment during the COVID-19 pandemic using integrated data sources. METHODS: In summer 2020 and 2021, we surveyed participants enrolled in the Biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM; N=180,599) about their experience with COVID-19. The prevalence of testing, symptoms, and impacts of COVID-19 on employment, family life, and physical and mental health were calculated overall and by demographic categories. Survey respondents who reported receiving a positive COVID-19 test result were considered a "confirmed case" of COVID-19. Using EHRs, we compared COVID-19 case ascertainment and characteristics in EHRs versus the survey. Positive cases were identified in EHRs using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes, health care encounter types, and encounter primary diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 25,063 (13.9%) survey respondents, 10,661 (42.5%) had been tested for COVID-19, and of those, 1366 (12.8%) tested positive. Nearly half of those tested had symptoms or had been exposed to someone who was infected. Young adults (18-29 years) and Hispanics were more likely to have positive tests compared to older adults and persons of other racial/ethnic groups. Mental health (n=13,688, 54.6%) and family life (n=12,233, 48.8%) were most negatively affected by the pandemic and more so among younger groups and women; negative impacts on employment were more commonly reported among Black respondents. Of the 10,249 individuals who responded to vaccination questions from version 2 of the survey (summer 2021), 9770 (95.3%) had received the vaccine. After integration with EHR data up to the time of the survey completion, 1006 (4%) of the survey respondents had a discordant COVID-19 case status between EHRs and the survey. Using all longitudinal EHR and survey data, we identified 11,472 (6.4%) COVID-19-positive cases among Biobank participants. In comparison to COVID-19 cases identified through the survey, EHR-identified cases were younger and more likely to be Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching and varying effects among our Biobank participants. Integrated data assets, such as the Biobank at the CCPM, are key resources for population health monitoring in response to public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

The aim of this study was to compare tumor expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers overall, and according to age at diagnosis and familial risk. Tissue micro-arrays were constructed from 98 breast cancers (47 interval and 51 screen-detected) diagnosed in women in the Cancer Genetics Network. Arrays were immuno-stained to compare protein expression of six biomarkers including estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR), Her2/neu, EGFR, cytokeratin 5/6, and Ki67. Fisher's Exact test was used to compare expression between interval and screen-detected cancers. Interval cancers were larger (P = 0.04), higher stage (P < 0.001), and more likely to have lobular histology (P = 0.01) than screen-detected cancers. Overall, interval cancers more often overexpressed EGFR (P = 0.01) and were somewhat more likely to be ER- (55% vs. 43%, P = 0.3), and triple negative (ER-/PR-/Her2-) (21 vs. 12%, P = 0.26). A greater difference in the proportion of interval versus screen-detected tumors that were ER- (53 vs. 35%; P = 0.29), PR- (35 vs. 21%; P = 0.25) and EGFR+ (17 vs. 0%; P = 0.02) was evident among women over 50. There was a trend toward differential expression among women with familial risk for PR- (P = 0.005) and triple negative status (P = 0.02). This study provides new data indicating that EGFR may be important in the etiology of interval cancer and be a possible therapeutic target. Our data also suggest that biological differences between interval and screen-detected cancers are more defined in older women. Future studies to confirm this finding and to elucidate novel markers for characterizing interval cancers may be more beneficial to this subgroup.

Complementary approaches to assessing risk factors for interval breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine risk factors for interval breast cancer among women screened in a population-based mammography program. METHODS: Risk for interval cancer was assessed in terms of both the incidence per 10,000 negative screens and the proportion of all breast cancers diagnosed among screened women. Interval (N = 557) and screen-detected cancers (N = 1,545) were identified among 208,667 women receiving mammography in Colorado (1994-2001). Logistic regression was used to assess independent effects of multiple factors. RESULTS: Overall risk of interval cancer was 29.5/10,000 women screened. Incidence was higher in women >50 years (OR: 2.28, 1.86-2.80), with family history (OR: 2.23, 1.85-2.70), with dense breasts (OR: 3.84, 2.76-5.35), and using hormones (OR: 1.54, 1.20-1.97). Hispanics had lower incidence than Whites (OR: 0.52, 0.34-0.81). Interval cancers represented 26% of all cancers diagnosed. This proportion was higher in women <50 (OR: 1.41, 1.09-1.82) and in women with dense breasts (OR: 2.95, 1.94-4.48). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of interval cancer increases with age, breast density, hormone use, and family history. Attempts to reduce occurrence of these cancers through more sensitive and/or intensive screening should focus on these subgroups. The disproportionate number of interval cancers associated with young age and dense breasts suggests these cancers result from both rapid growth and difficulties in detection.

Awareness and preferences regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing among Latinas and non-Latina white women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

This study was an investigation of awareness, cognitions, and psychosocial and educational needs related to genetic counseling and testing among Latinas and non-Latina whites at increased risk for having a BRCA1/2 mutation. Sixty-three Latina and eighty-four non-Latina white women completed telephone surveys employing a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions assessing awareness, benefits, risks, barriers, and genetic counseling communication preferences regarding BRCA1/2 testing. Among participants who had not previously had genetic counseling/testing, 56.9% of Latinas (29/51) and 34.8% of non-Latina white participants (24/69) were unaware of the availability of BRCA1/2 testing. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, Latina ethnicity was the only statistically significant independent factor associated with lack of awareness (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.19-0.35). No appreciable differences were noted between ethnic groups regarding perceived benefits of BRCA1/2 testing or desired genetic counseling topics. These findings underscore the importance of increasing awareness of cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing among both Latina and non-Latina white populations.

Clinically relevant changes in family history of cancer over time.

CONTEXT: Knowledge of family cancer history is important for assessing cancer risk and guiding screening recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To quantify how often throughout adulthood clinically significant changes occur in cancer family history that would result in recommendations for earlier or intense screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study examining baseline and follow-up family history data from participants in the Cancer Genetics Network (CGN), a US national population-based cancer registry, between 1999 and 2009. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a personal history, family history, or both of cancer enrolled in the CGN through population-based cancer registries. Retrospective colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening-specific analyses included 9861, 2547, and 1817 participants, respectively; prospective analyses included 1533, 617, and 163 participants, respectively. Median follow-up was 8 years (range, 0-11 years). Screening-specific analyses excluded participants with the cancer of interest. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of individuals with clinically significant family histories and rate of change over 2 periods: (1) retrospectively, from birth until CGN enrollment and (2) prospectively, from enrollment to last follow-up. RESULTS: Retrospective analysis revealed that the percentages of participants who met criteria for high-risk screening based on family history at ages 30 and 50 years, respectively, were as follows: for colorectal cancer, 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-2.4%) and 7.1% (95% CI, 6.5%-7.6%); for breast cancer, 7.2% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.4%) and 11.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-12.8%); and for prostate cancer, 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%) and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.7%). In prospective analysis, the numbers of participants who newly met criteria for high-risk screening based on family history per 100 persons followed up for 20 years were 2 (95% CI, 0-7) for colorectal cancer, 6 (95% CI, 2-13) for breast cancer, and 8 (95% CI, 3-16) for prostate cancer. The rate of change in cancer family history was similar for colorectal and breast cancer between the 2 analyses. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant family history of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer that would result in recommendations for earlier or intense cancer screening increases between ages 30 and 50 years, although the absolute rate is low for prostate cancer.

A novel approach to increase awareness about hereditary colon cancer using a state cancer registry.

PURPOSE: The aim of this project was to conduct educational outreach about hereditary colon cancer to a targeted high risk population identified through a state cancer registry. METHODS: Individuals who met one of the first three Bethesda criteria guidelines were identified through the Colorado Central Cancer Registry. The physician of record received a brochure, survey and form to provide written consent to contact patient(s). Cases were mailed an educational brochure, initial and follow-up survey. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five cases and 412 physicians were identified; 81% provided consent. Ninety percent of physicians felt the registry should provide this information to at-risk patients. Twenty-three percent of the cases returned the survey. Cases were generally glad to get the information. Only four cases reported concern. The majority agreed the cancer registry should send the information, however most preferred their physicians be consented first. At follow-up, 20 cases reported having or intending to have a risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Response from physicians and cases was positive, suggesting that targeted outreach using cancer registries, in combination with physician notification, may be a viable approach to educational outreach about cancer genetics. A proportion of cases sought risk assessment, suggesting that mail-based outreach may be effective in increasing uptake of information and/or genetic services.

The Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) as an Environment for Dissemination and Implementation Research: A Case Study of Developing a Multi-Site Research Study in Precision Medicine.

CONTEXT: In existence for nearly 25 years, the Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) is an established and sustainable network of health care systems that serves as a "real world" laboratory to enable the integration of research findings into practice. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how the HCSRN serves as an ideal environment for studying dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices into health care systems through the example of developing a multi-site study on the implementation of evidence-based precision medicine practices. CASE DESCRIPTION: The "Implementing Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening (IMPULSS)" study (NIH R01CA211723) involves seven HCSRN health care systems and two external health care systems. The IMPULSS study will describe and explain organizational variability around Lynch syndrome (LS) screening to identify which factors in different organizational contexts are important for successful implementation of LS screening programs and will create a toolkit to facilitate organizational decision making around implementation and improvement of precision medicine programs in health care systems. MAJOR THEMES: The strengths of the HCSRN that facilitate D&I research include: 1) a culture of collaboration, 2) standardization of data and processes across systems, and 3) researchers embedded in diverse health care systems. We describe how these strengths contributed to developing the IMPULSS study. CONCLUSION: Given the importance of conducting research in real world settings to improve patient outcomes, the unique strengths of the HCSRN are of vital importance. The IMPULSS study is one case example of how the strengths of the HCSRN make it an excellent environment for research on implementing evidence-based precision medicine practices in health care systems.

The impact of direct-to-consumer marketing of cancer genetic testing on women according to their genetic risk.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of direct-to-consumer marketing for genetic testing among women of varying genetic risk for breast and ovarian cancer. METHODS: Telephone surveys were conducted with 315 women in Denver, Colorado, one target audience for the Myriad BRACAnalysis ad campaign. Genetic risk was determined from personal and family history and grouped by probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (low <5%, moderate 5-<10%, high > or =10%). RESULTS: High-risk women were more knowledgeable about BRACAnalysis and more likely to recall the media ads than were low-risk women (60 vs. 39%, P < 0.01). After seeing the ads, about 40% of women were more interested in testing and about 10% expressed increased worry about developing breast or ovarian cancer. Women across all risk groups overstated the benefits and appropriateness of testing. An equal percentage of high- and low-risk women (51 and 60%) felt that they would benefit from genetic testing. CONCLUSION: The campaign effectively reached a large audience. Concern about breast cancer was not appreciably increased. A large percentage of low-risk women (not candidates for testing) expressed interest in testing, suggesting the campaign was too broad. A campaign targeted at high-risk women, who may benefit from testing might be preferred.

Colon cancer screening for Colorado's underserved: a community clinic/academic partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable by finding and removing adenomas, but many people have not been screened, especially the uninsured with low income. PURPOSE: To establish a statewide infrastructure to ensure that low-income Coloradans receive colonoscopy for CRC screening and diagnostic evaluation. DESIGN: In 2006, a statewide program to provide free colonoscopy to uninsured Coloradans was developed as a partnership between the University of Colorado Cancer Center and Colorado safety-net clinics. Funded by excise tax revenues, the Colorado Colorectal Screening Program (CCSP) successfully embedded screening into primary care, providing patient navigation support and reimbursement that allowed primary care providers to refer patients for colonoscopy. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: More than 50 safety-net clinics joined the CCSP to provide colonoscopies to uninsured Coloradans with low income, aged ≥50 years or <50 years at elevated risk, lawfully present and needing CRC screening by American Cancer Society consensus guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process and clinical outcomes included people screened, show rates, patient satisfaction, and quality measures, such as adenoma detection rate, bowel cleansing quality, and timeliness of care. Program costs and benefits were estimated. The 2013 analysis was completed using 2006-2012 data on 13,252 of 13,774 people receiving colonoscopy. RESULTS: In 2006-2012, the CCSP screened 13,774 people, with 38% minorities and 39% men. Patient navigators ensured >90% of those referred attended their colonoscopy. Adenomas were removed from 27% of patients and 1% had cancers diagnosed. Total direct medical services cost was $998/person receiving colonoscopy. About 325 fewer future incident CRCs were predicted due to adenoma removal, projecting substantial future cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The CCSP, a successful community clinic/academic partnership provides cost-effective CRC screening and prevention services to low-income uninsured Coloradans and establishes the infrastructure to support screening low-income Coloradans as Affordable Care Act reforms provide payer coverage for them.

Efficacy of a Telehealth Intervention on Colonoscopy Uptake When Cost Is a Barrier: The Family CARE Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: We tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE) compared with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers. METHODS: Family members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N = 232) or an educational brochure (N = 249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained nonadherent. Rates of medically verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared on the basis of group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically verified colonoscopy [OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.85-7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.52). CONCLUSIONS: TeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers. IMPACT: Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent.

A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a strong family history of colorectal cancer have significant risk for colorectal cancer, although adherence to colonoscopy screening in these groups remains low. This study assessed whether a tailored telephone counseling intervention can increase adherence to colonoscopy in members of high-risk families in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible participants were recruited from two national cancer registries if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer under age 60 or multiple affected family members, which included families that met the Amsterdam criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), and if they were due for colonoscopy within 24 months. Participants were randomized to receive a tailored telephone intervention grounded in behavioral theory or a mailed packet with general information about screening. Colonoscopy status was assessed through follow-up surveys and endoscopy reports. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess intervention effect. RESULTS: Of the 632 participants (ages 25-80), 60% were female, the majority were White, non-Hispanic, educated, and had health insurance. Colonoscopy adherence increased 11 percentage points in the tailored telephone intervention group, compared with no significant change in the mailed group. The telephone intervention was associated with a 32% increase in screening adherence compared with the mailed intervention (HR, 1.32; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A tailored telephone intervention can effectively increase colonoscopy adherence in high-risk persons. This intervention has the potential for broad dissemination to healthcare organizations or other high-risk populations. IMPACT: Increasing adherence to colonoscopy among persons with increased colorectal cancer risk could effectively reduce incidence and mortality from this disease.

How do researchers manage genetic results in practice? The experience of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry.

There is consensus internationally that research participants should be offered the opportunity to receive clinically relevant genetic information identified through research, but there is little empirical peer-reviewed work documenting this process. We report the experience of conducting genetic research with nearly 35,000 participants in the Colon Cancer Family Registry, based in the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Investigators from six multinational sites provided information about disclosure protocols, implementation, and uptake of genetic results and made suggestions to inform practice. Across 5 of the 6 registry sites, 1,634 participants in families with mismatch repair or MutYH gene mutations have been offered results. Participant uptake ranged from 56 to 86 %. Researchers faced significant challenges in the effort to return results. We offer suggestions in five key areas: (1) planning for the disclosure process, (2) participant information, (3) autonomy of participants, (4) monitoring scientific progress, and (5) involvement of stakeholders. Despite increasing discussion of the importance of returning incidental findings from genetic research, this paper highlights the considerable diversity, challenges, and costs faced in practice when returning expected findings with established utility and validity. We argue that more work is needed to ensure that genetic results in research are optimally managed.

Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: the family CARE Randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC. METHODS: Eligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents. CONCLUSION: Remote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.

The Family Health Promotion Project (FHPP): design and baseline data from a randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in high risk families.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States, much of which could be prevented through adequate screening. Consensus guidelines recommend that high-risk groups initiate screening earlier with colonoscopy and more frequently than average risk persons. However, a large proportion of high risk individuals do not receive regular colonoscopic screening. The Family Health Promotion Project (FHPP) is a randomized-controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a telephone-based counseling intervention to increase adherence to risk-appropriate colonoscopy screening in high risk individuals. Unaffected members of CRC families from two national cancer family registries were enrolled (n=632) and randomized to receive either a single session telephone counseling intervention using Motivational Interviewing techniques or a minimal mail-out intervention. The primary endpoint, rate of colonoscopy screening, was assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months post-enrollment. In this paper, we describe the research design and telephone counseling intervention of the FHPP trial, and report baseline data obtained from the two high risk cohorts recruited into this trial. Results obtained at baseline confirm the need for interventions to promote colonoscopy screening among these high risk individuals, as well as highlighting several key opportunities for intervention, including increasing knowledge about risk-appropriate screening guidelines, and providing both tailored risk information and barriers counseling.