Modeling the longitudinal changes of ancestry diversity in the Million Veteran Program.

BACKGROUND: The Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants represent 100 years of US history, including significant social and demographic changes over time. Our study assessed two aspects of the MVP: (i) longitudinal changes in population diversity and (ii) how these changes can be accounted for in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). To investigate these aspects, we divided MVP participants into five birth cohorts (N-range = 123,888 [born from 1943 to 1947] to 136,699 [born from 1948 to 1953]). RESULTS: Ancestry groups were defined by (i) HARE (harmonized ancestry and race/ethnicity) and (ii) a random-forest clustering approach using the 1000 Genomes Project and the Human Genome Diversity Project (1kGP + HGDP) reference panels (77 world populations representing six continental groups). In these groups, we performed GWASs of height, a trait potentially affected by population stratification. Birth cohorts demonstrate important trends in ancestry diversity over time. More recent HARE-assigned Europeans, Africans, and Hispanics had lower European ancestry proportions than older birth cohorts (0.010 < Cohen's d < 0.259, p < 7.80 × 10-4). Conversely, HARE-assigned East Asians showed an increase in European ancestry proportion over time. In GWAS of height using HARE assignments, genomic inflation due to population stratification was prevalent across all birth cohorts (linkage disequilibrium score regression intercept = 1.08 ± 0.042). The 1kGP + HGDP-based ancestry assignment significantly reduced the population stratification (mean intercept reduction = 0.045 ± 0.007, p < 0.05) confounding in the GWAS statistics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a characterization of ancestry diversity of the MVP cohort over time and compares two strategies to infer genetically defined ancestry groups by assessing differences in controlling population stratification in genome-wide association studies.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Randomized Trial of Medical versus Surgical Treatment for Refractory Heartburn.

BACKGROUND: Heartburn that persists despite proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is a frequent clinical problem with multiple potential causes. Treatments for PPI-refractory heartburn are of unproven efficacy and focus on controlling gastroesophageal reflux with reflux-reducing medication (e.g., baclofen) or antireflux surgery or on dampening visceral hypersensitivity with neuromodulators (e.g., desipramine). METHODS: Patients who were referred to Veterans Affairs (VA) gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn received 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 2 weeks, and those with persistent heartburn underwent endoscopy, esophageal biopsy, esophageal manometry, and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. If patients were found to have reflux-related heartburn, we randomly assigned them to receive surgical treatment (laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication), active medical treatment (omeprazole plus baclofen, with desipramine added depending on symptoms), or control medical treatment (omeprazole plus placebo). The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as a decrease of 50% or more in the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)-Health Related Quality of Life score (range, 0 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (mean age, 48.5 years; 280 men) were enrolled. Prerandomization procedures excluded 288 patients: 42 had relief of their heartburn during the 2-week omeprazole trial, 70 did not complete trial procedures, 54 were excluded for other reasons, 23 had non-GERD esophageal disorders, and 99 had functional heartburn (not due to GERD or other histopathologic, motility, or structural abnormality). The remaining 78 patients underwent randomization. The incidence of treatment success with surgery (18 of 27 patients, 67%) was significantly superior to that with active medical treatment (7 of 25 patients, 28%; P = 0.007) or control medical treatment (3 of 26 patients, 12%; P<0.001). The difference in the incidence of treatment success between the active medical group and the control medical group was 16 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -5 to 38; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred to VA gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn, systematic workup revealed truly PPI-refractory and reflux-related heartburn in a minority of patients. For that highly selected subgroup, surgery was superior to medical treatment. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01265550.).

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk. METHODS: Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Ten or More Cumulative Lifetime Adenomas Are Associated with Increased Risk for Advanced Neoplasia and Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend frequent colonoscopies and consideration of genetic testing in individuals with ≥10 cumulative adenomas. However, it is unclear how these guidelines apply to routine practice. AIMS: We estimated the proportion of participants found to have ≥10 cumulative adenomas in a screening population and described their outcomes of advanced neoplasia (AN), CRC, and extra-colonic malignancy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of VA CSP#380, which includes 3121 veterans aged 50-75 who were followed up to 10 years after screening colonoscopy. We calculated the cumulative risk of ≥10 cumulative adenomas by Kaplan-Meier method. We compared baseline risk factors in those with and without ≥10 cumulative adenomas as well as the risk for AN (adenoma ≥1 cm, villous adenoma or high-grade dysplasia, or CRC) and extra-colonic malignancy by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The cumulative risk of ≥10 cumulative adenomas over 10.5 years was 6.51% (95% CI 4.38%-9.62%). Age 60-69 or 70-75 at baseline colonoscopy was the only factors associated with the finding of ≥10 cumulative adenomas. Compared to those with 0-9 cumulative adenomas, participants with ≥10 cumulative adenomas were more likely to have had AN (OR 17.03; 95% CI 9.41-30.84), including CRC (OR 7.00; 95% CI 2.84-17.28), but not extra-colonic malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 6.5% of participants in this screening population were found to have ≥10 cumulative adenomas over 10.5 years, which was uncommon before age 60. These participants were found to have AN and CRC significantly more often compared to those with lower cumulative adenomas.

Risk Factors for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are increasing among persons younger than 50 years old in the United States, but risk factors associated with early-onset CRC (EOCRC) have not been widely studied. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of US veterans 18 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy examinations from 1999 through 2014. EOCRC cases were identified from a national cancer registry; veterans who were free of CRC at their baseline colonoscopy through 3 years of follow-up were identified as controls. We collected data on age, sex, race/ethnicity, body weight, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, smoking status, and aspirin use. Multivariate-adjusted EOCRC odds were estimated for each factor, with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) values. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 651 EOCRC cases and 67,416 controls. Median age was 45.3 years, and 82.3% were male. Higher proportions of cases were older, male, current smokers, nonaspirin users, and had lower BMIs, compared with controls (P < .05). In adjusted analyses, increasing age and male sex were significantly associated with increased risk of EOCRC, whereas aspirin use and being overweight or obese (relative to normal BMI) were significantly associated with decreased odds of EOCRC. In post hoc analyses, weight loss of 5 kg or more within the 5-year period preceding colonoscopy was associated with higher odds of EOCRC (odds ratio 2.23; 95% CI 1.76-2.83). CONCLUSIONS: In a case-control study of veterans, we found increasing age and male sex to be significantly associated with increased risk of EOCRC, and aspirin use to be significantly associated with decreased risk; these factors also affect risk for CRC onset after age 50. Weight loss may be an early clinical sign of EOCRC. More intense efforts are required to identify the factors that cause EOCRC and signs that can be used to identify individuals at highest risk.

Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening population. We aimed to determine the 10-year risk for advanced neoplasia (defined as adenomas ≥10mm, adenomas with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outcomes. METHODS: We collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study on 3121 asymptomatic veterans (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers and were then followed for 10 years or until death. We included 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia by Kaplan-Meier curves. We then fit a longitudinal joint model to estimate risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals. RESULTS: Through 10 years of follow-up, there were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident advanced neoplasia. The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was highest among those with baseline CRC (43.7%; 95% CI 13.0%-74.4%), followed by those with baseline advanced adenoma (AA) (21.9%; 95% CI 15.7-28.1). The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1%-8.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7%-5.4%) for baseline 1 to 2 small adenomas (<1cm, and without villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) and no neoplasia, respectively (log-rank P = .10). After adjusting for prior surveillance, the risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination was not significantly increased in veterans with 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline (odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.67-1.41) compared with veterans with no baseline neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia within 10 years. Individuals with only 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline have a low risk of advanced neoplasia over 10 years. Alternative surveillance strategies, could be considered for these individuals.

Transportation as a barrier to colorectal cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Transportation barriers limit access to cancer care services and contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Our objectives were to describe the frequency of Veterans reporting and the factors associated with transportation barriers to or from colorectal cancer (CRC) care visits. METHODS: Between November 2015 and September 2016, Veterans with incident stage I, II, or III CRC completed a mailed survey to assess perceived barriers to recommended care. Participants who reported difficulty with transportation to or from CRC care appointments were categorized as experiencing transportation barriers. We assessed pairwise correlations between transportation barriers, transportation-related factors (e.g., mode of travel), and chaotic lifestyle (e.g., predictability of schedules), and used logistic regression to examine the association between the reporting of transportation difficulties, distance traveled to the nearest Veterans Affairs (VA) facility, and life chaos. RESULTS: Of the 115 Veterans included in this analysis, 18% reported experiencing transportation barriers. Distance to the VA was not strongly correlated with the reporting of transportation barriers (Spearman's ρ = 0.12, p = 0.19), but chaotic lifestyle was both positively and significantly correlated with experiencing transportation barriers (Spearman's ρ = 0.22, p = 0.02). Results from the logistic regression model modestly supported the findings from the pairwise correlations, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Transportation is an important barrier to or from CRC care visits, especially among Veterans who experience greater life chaos. Identifying Veterans who experience chaotic lifestyles would allow for timely engagement in behavioral interventions (e.g., organizational skills training) and with support services (e.g., patient navigation).

High-Risk Adenomas at Screening Colonoscopy Remain Predictive of Future High-Risk Adenomas Despite an Intervening Negative Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data inform the current postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines, which suggest a shortened interval to third colonoscopy after a negative second examination if high-risk adenomas (HRA) were present on the initial screening colonoscopy. Therefore, we examined the risk of HRA at third colonoscopy stratified by findings on 2 previous examinations in a prospective screening colonoscopy cohort of US veterans. METHODS: We identified participants who had 3 or more colonoscopies from CSP#380. We examined the risk of HRA on the third examination based on findings from the previous 2 examinations. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for multiple covariates. RESULTS: HRA were found at the third examination in 114 (12.8%) of 891 participants. Those with HRA on both previous examinations had the greatest incidence of HRA at third examination (14/56, 25.0%). Compared with those with no adenomas on both previous examinations, participants with HRA on the first examination remained at significantly increased risk for HRA at the third examination at 3 years after a negative second examination (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-9.08), 5 years (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.49-6.61), and 7 years (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.08-7.74). DISCUSSION: In a screening population, HRA on the first examination identified individuals who remained at increased risk for HRA at the third examination, even after a negative second examination. This finding supports current colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines, which suggest a shortened, 5-year time interval to third colonoscopy after a negative second examination if high-risk findings were present on the baseline examination.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 2.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities as well as recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing sporadic CRC. They are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making regarding CRC screening for patients without defined genetic syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on select recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including a section on primary and secondary CRC prevention, and provide context for the panel's recommendations regarding the age to initiate screening in average risk individuals and follow-up for low-risk adenomas.

Barriers to Follow-up Colonoscopies for Patients With Positive Results From Fecal Immunochemical Tests During Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer is common yet largely preventable. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a highly recommended screening method, but patients with positive results must receive a follow-up colonoscopy to determine if they have precancerous or cancerous lesions. We characterized colonoscopic follow-up evaluations and reasons for lack of follow-up in a Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients 50 to 75 years old with a positive FIT result from January 1, 2014, through May 31, 2016, in a network of 12 VAs sites in southern California. We determined the proportion of patients who received a follow-up colonoscopy, median time to colonoscopy, and colonoscopy findings. For patients who did not undergo colonoscopy, we determined the documented reason for lack of colonoscopy and factors associated with declining the colonoscopy examination. RESULTS: Of the 10,635 FITs performed, 916 (8.6%) produced positive results; 569 of these (62.1%) were followed by colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy after a positive FIT result was 83 days (interquartile range, 54-145 d), which did not vary between veterans who received a colonoscopy at a VA facility (81 d; interquartile range, 52-143 d) vs a non-VA site (87 d; interquartile range, 60-154 d) (P = .2). For the 347 veterans (37.9%) who did not undergo follow-up colonoscopy, the reasons were patient-related (49.3%), provider-related (16.4%), system-related (12.1%), or multifactorial (22.2%). Overall, patient decline of colonoscopy (35.2%) was the most common reason. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of veterans with positive results from FITs during CRC screening, reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy varied and included patient, provider, and system factors. These findings can be used to reduce barriers to follow-up colonoscopy and to address system-level challenges in scheduling and attrition for colonoscopy.

Clinical and Molecular Features of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) may arise from missed lesions or due to molecular features of tumors that allow them to grow rapidly. We aimed to compare clinical, pathology, and molecular features of PCCRCs (those detected within 6-60 months of colonoscopy) and detected CRCs (those detected within 6 months of a colonoscopy). METHODS: Within a population-based cross-sectional study of incident CRC cases in Utah (from 1995 through 2009), we identified PCCRCs (those cancers that developed within 5 years of a colonoscopy) and matched the patients by age, sex, and hospital site to patients with detected CRC. Archived specimens were retrieved and tested for microsatellite instability (MSI), CpG island methylation, and mutations in KRAS and BRAF. There were 2659 cases of CRC diagnosed within the study window; 6% of these (n = 159) were defined as PCCRCs; 84 of these cases had tissue available and were matched to 84 subjects with detected CRC. RESULTS: Higher proportions of PCCRCs than detected CRCs formed in the proximal colon (64% vs 44%; P = .016) and were of an early stage (86% vs 69%; P = .040). MSI was observed in 32% of PCCRCs compared with 13% of detected CRCs (P = .005). The other molecular features were found in similar proportions of PCCRCs and detected CRCs. In a multivariable logistic regression, MSI (odds ratio, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.58-11.14) was associated with PCCRC. There was no difference in 5-year survival between patients with PCCRCs vs detected CRCs. CONCLUSION: In this population-based cross-sectional study of incident CRC cases in Utah, we found PCCRCs to be more likely to arise in the proximal colon and demonstrate MSI, so PCCRCs and detected CRC appear to have different features or processes of tumorigenesis. Additional studies are needed to determine if post-colonoscopy cancers arise through a specific genetic pathway.

A logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by stakeholder views and implementation science.

PURPOSE: Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits. METHODS: We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context. RESULTS: The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers. CONCLUSION: We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.

PURPOSE: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds. RESULTS: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Race, Poverty, and Mental Health Drive Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common but largely preventable malignancy. Screening is recommended for all adults aged 50-75 years; however, screening rates are low nationally and vary by patient factors and across health care systems. It is currently unknown whether there are inequities in CRC screening rates by patient sociodemographic and/or clinical factors in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) where the majority of patients are CRC screening-eligible age and CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using VA national clinical performance and quality data to determine the overall CRC screening rate, rates by patient sociodemographic and clinical factors, and predictors of screening adjusting for patient and system factors. We also determined whether disparities in screening exist in VA. RESULTS: The overall CRC screening rate in VA was 81.5%. Screening rates were lowest among American Indians/Alaska Natives [75.3%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.65-0.90], those with serious mental illness (75.8%; aOR=0.65, 95% CI=0.61-0.69), those with substance abuse (76.9%; aOR=0.76, 95% CI=0.72-0.80), and those in the lowest socioeconomic status quintile (79.5%; aOR=1.10-1.31 for quintiles 2-5 vs. lowest quintile 1). Increasing age, Hispanic ethnicity, black race, Asian race, and high comorbidity were significant predictors of screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Many racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening documented in non-VA settings do not exist in VA. Nonetheless, overall high VA CRC screening rates have not reached American Indians/Alaska Natives, low socioeconomic status groups, and those with mental illness and substance abuse. These groups might benefit from additional targeted efforts to increase screening uptake.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years. CONCLUSION: The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 2.2019.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for improved cancer surveillance, risk reduction, and optimized management. Establishing criteria for assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on criteria for the evaluation of Lynch syndrome and considerations for use of multigene testing in the assessment of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes.

The Gulf War Era Cohort and Biorepository: A Longitudinal Research Resource of Veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War Era.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Gulf War Era Cohort and Biorepository (GWECB) is a nationally representative longitudinal cohort of US veterans who served during the 1990-1991 Gulf War era. The GWECB combines survey data, such as demographic, health behavior, and environmental exposure data; medical records; and a linked biorepository of blood specimens that can support a broad range of future research regarding health concerns unique to veterans of this era. To build this resource, the VA Cooperative Studies Program initiated a pilot study (2014-2016) to establish the GWECB and evaluate the processes required to build and maintain the resource. Participants (n = 1,275) consented to future sharing of their data and biospecimens for research purposes. Here we describe the pilot study, including recruitment and enrollment procedures, data collection and management, quality control, and challenges experienced. The GWECB data available to investigators under approved sharing mechanisms and the procedures for accessing them are extensively detailed. The study's consenting documents and a website link for the research survey are provided. Our hope is that new research drawing on the GWECB data and biospecimens will result in effective treatments and improved approaches to address the health concerns of Gulf War-era veterans.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 1.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening outline various screening modalities as well as recommended screening strategies for individuals at average or increased-risk of developing sporadic CRC. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize 2018 updates to the NCCN Guidelines, with a primary focus on modalities used to screen individuals at average-risk for CRC.

Correction to: Identifying Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Advanced Fibrosis in the Veterans Health Administration.

The original version of the article unfortunately contained errors in Table 3, Risk Factor column headings "Age > 50 (n = 115)," "Age > 50-64 (n = 154)," and "Age > 65 + (n = 60)."