Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics.

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Vital Signs: Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Use - United States, 2018.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States of cancers that affect both men and women. Despite strong evidence that screening for CRC reduces incidence and mortality, CRC screening prevalence is below the national target. This report describes current CRC screening prevalence by age, various demographic factors, and state. METHODS: Data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed to estimate the percentages of adults aged 50-75 years who reported CRC screening consistent with the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. RESULTS: In 2018, 68.8% of adults were up to date with CRC screening. The percentage up to date was 79.2% among respondents aged 65-75 years and 63.3% among those aged 50-64 years. CRC screening prevalence was lowest among persons aged 50-54 years (50.0%) and increased with age. Among respondents aged 50-64 years, CRC screening prevalence was lowest among persons without health insurance (32.6%) and highest among those with reported annual household income of ≥$75,000 (70.8%). Among respondents aged 65-75 years, CRC screening prevalence was lowest among those without a regular health care provider (45.6%), and highest among those with reported annual household income ≥$75,000 (87.1%). Among states, CRC screening prevalence was highest in Massachusetts (76.5%) and lowest in Wyoming (57.8%). DISCUSSION: CRC screening prevalence is lower among adults aged 50-64 years, although most reported having a health care provider and health insurance. Concerted efforts are needed to inform persons aged <50 years about the benefit of screening so that screening can start at age 50 years.

Strategies for expanding colorectal cancer screening at community health centers.

Community health centers are uniquely positioned to address disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as they have addressed other disparities. In 2012, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is the funding agency for the health center program, added a requirement that health centers report CRC screening rates as a standard performance measure. These annually reported, publically available data are a major strategic opportunity to improve screening rates for CRC. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted provisions to expand the capacity of the federal health center program. The recent report of the Institute of Medicine on integrating public health and primary care included an entire section devoted to CRC screening as a target for joint work. These developments make this the ideal time to integrate lifesaving CRC screening into the preventive care already offered by health centers. This article offers 5 strategies that address the challenges health centers face in increasing CRC screening rates. The first 2 strategies focus on improving the processes of primary care. The third emphasizes working productively with other medical providers and institutions. The fourth strategy is about aligning leadership. The final strategy is focused on using tools that have been derived from models that work.

Strategies for expanding colorectal cancer screening at community health centers.

Community health centers are uniquely positioned to address disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as they have addressed other disparities. In 2012, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is the funding agency for the health center program, added a requirement that health centers report CRC screening rates as a standard performance measure. These annually reported, publically available data are a major strategic opportunity to improve screening rates for CRC. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted provisions to expand the capacity of the federal health center program. The recent report of the Institute of Medicine on integrating public health and primary care included an entire section devoted to CRC screening as a target for joint work. These developments make this the ideal time to integrate lifesaving CRC screening into the preventive care already offered by health centers. This article offers 5 strategies that address the challenges health centers face in increasing CRC screening rates. The first 2 strategies focus on improving the processes of primary care. The third emphasizes working productively with other medical providers and institutions. The fourth strategy is about aligning leadership. The final strategy is focused on using tools that have been derived from models that work. CA Cancer J Clin 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society, Inc.

Preventing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Deaths: Assessing the Impact of Increased Screening.

INTRODUCTION: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends select preventive clinical services, including cancer screening. However, screening for cancers remains underutilized in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leads initiatives to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We assessed the number of avoidable deaths from increased screening, according to USPSTF recommendations, for CRC and female breast and cervical cancers. METHODS: We used model-based estimates of avoidable deaths for the lifetime of single-year age cohorts under the current and increased use of screening scenarios (data year 2016; analysis, 2018). We calculated prevented cancer deaths for each 1% increase in screening uptake and extrapolated to current level of screening (2016), current level plus 10 percentage points, and increasing screening to 90% and 100% of the eligible population. RESULTS: Increased use of screening from current levels to 100% would prevent an additional 2,821 deaths from breast cancer, 6,834 deaths from cervical cancer, and 35,530 deaths from CRC over a lifetime of the respective single-year cohort. Increasing use of CRC screening would prevent approximately 8.5 times as many deaths as the equivalent increase in use of breast cancer screening (women only), although twice as many people (men and women) would have to be screened for CRC. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of deaths could be avoided by increasing breast, cervical, and CRC screening. Public health programs incorporating strategies shown to be effective can help increase screening rates.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago.

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.

INTRODUCTION: Screening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015. METHODS: We collected data from the program's 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists' recommendations for the next test. RESULTS: Overall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%-97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%-99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%-84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%-56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%-47.2%) in less than 3 years. CONCLUSION: Although overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: This report details the cost effectiveness of a non-nurse patient navigation (PN) program that was implemented at the University of Chicago Medical Center to increase colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: The authors investigated the impact of the PN intervention by collecting process measures. Individuals who received navigation were compared with a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. In addition, a previously validated data-collection instrument was tailored and used to collect all costs related to developing, implementing, and administering the program; and the incremental cost per patient successfully navigated (the cost of the intervention divided by the change in the number who complete screening) was calculated. RESULTS: The screening colonoscopy completion rate was 85.1% among those who were selected to receive PN compared with 74.3% when no navigation was implemented. With navigation, the proportion of no-shows was 8.2% compared with 15.4% of a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. Because the perceived risk of noncompletion was greater among those who received PN (previous no-show or cancellation, poor bowel preparation) than that in the historic cohort, a scenario analysis was performed. Assuming no-show rates between 0% and 50% and using a navigated rate of 85%, the total incremental program cost per patient successfully navigated ranged from $148 to $359, whereas the incremental intervention-only implementation cost ranged from $88 to $215. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings indicate that non-nurse PN can increase colonoscopy completion, and this can be achieved at a minimal incremental cost for an insured population at an urban academic medical center.

Rectal cancer survival in the United States by race and stage, 2001 to 2009: Findings from the CONCORD-2 study.

BACKGROUND: In the first CONCORD study, 5-year survival for patients with diagnosed with rectal cancer between 1990 and 1994 was <60%, with large racial disparities noted in the majority of participating states. We have updated these findings to 2009 by examining population-based survival by stage of disease at the time of diagnosis, race, and calendar period. METHODS: Data from the CONCORD-2 study were used to compare survival among individuals aged 15 to 99 years who were diagnosed in 37 states encompassing up to 80% of the US population. We estimated net survival up to 5 years after diagnosis correcting for background mortality with state-specific and race-specific life table. Survival estimates were age-standardized with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. We present survival estimates by race (all, black, and white) for 2001 through 2003 and 2004 through 2009 to account for changes in collecting the data for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Summary Stage 2000. RESULTS: There was a small increase in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year net survival between 2001-2003 (84.6%, 70.7%, and 63.2%, respectively), and 2004-2009 (85.1%, 71.5%, and 64.1%, respectively). Black individuals were found to have lower 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival than white individuals in both periods; the absolute difference in survival between black and white individuals declined only for 5-year survival. Black patients had lower 5-year survival than whites at each stage at the time of diagnosis in both time periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was little improvement noted in net survival for patients with rectal cancer, with persistent disparities noted between black and white individuals. Additional investigation is needed to identify and implement effective interventions to ensure the consistent and equitable use of high-quality screening, diagnosis, and treatment to improve survival for patients with rectal cancer. Cancer 2017;123:5037-58. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Colon cancer survival in the United States by race and stage (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study.

BACKGROUND: In the first CONCORD study (2008), 5-year survival for patients diagnosed with colon cancer between 1990 and 1994 in the United States was among the highest in the world (60%), but there were large racial disparities in most participating states. The CONCORD-2 study (2015) enabled the examination of survival trends between 1995 and 2009 for US states by race and stage. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 37 state population-based cancer registries, covering approximately 80% of the US population, for patients who were diagnosed with colon cancer between 2001 and 2009 and were followed through 2009. Survival up to 5 years was corrected for background mortality (net survival) using state-specific and race-specific life tables and age-standardized using the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. Survival is presented by race (all, black, white), stage, state, and calendar period (2001-2003 and 2004-2009) to account for changes in methods used to collect stage. RESULTS: Five-year net survival increased by 0.9%, from 63.7% between 2001 and 2003 to 64.6% between 2004 and 2009. More black than white patients were diagnosed with distant-stage disease between 2001 and 2003 (21.5% vs 17.2%) and between 2004 and 2009 (23.3% vs 18.8%). Survival improved for both blacks and whites, but 5-year net survival was 9-10% lower for blacks than for whites both between 2001 and 2003 (54.7% vs 64.5%) and between 2004 and 2009 (56.6% vs 65.4%). The absolute difference between blacks and whites decreased by only 1% during the decade. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year net survival from colon cancer increased slightly over time. Survival among blacks diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 had still not reached the level of that among whites diagnosed between 1990 and 1994, some 15 to 20 years earlier. These findings suggest a need for more targeted efforts to improve screening and to ensure timely, appropriate treatment, especially for blacks, to reduce this large and persistent disparity in survival. Cancer 2017;123:5014-36. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVES: Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.

Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need. METHODS: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed. RESULTS: If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in the era of health reform: a vision forward.

For the last 22 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) has provided high quality breast and cervical cancer screening to women who do not have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance. As the health care landscape changes, it is time for CDC to address new identified needs and opportunities to increase cancer screening and to further explore new or expanded roles for the program looking to the future. The NBCCEDP is well positioned to build upon its experience, established clinical and community partnerships, and success in serving disadvantaged and diverse populations to address important barriers to cancer screening that will persist as health reform is implemented. Additionally, the program can adapt its extensive experience with establishing and managing an organized system of delivering cancer screening and apply it to promote a more organized approach to screening through health care systems on a population level. Emphasis is placed on the implementation of evidenced-based interventions proven effective in increasing cancer screening rates, promising practices and other organizational policy and health systems interventions.