Association between racial residential segregation and screening uptake for colorectal and cervical cancer among Black and White patients in five US health care systems.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased recognition that structural racism contributes to poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, there are knowledge gaps about how current patterns of racial residential segregation are associated with cancer screening uptake. The authors examined associations between Black residential segregation and screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of CRC and cervical cancer screening-eligible adults from five health care systems within the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) Consortium (cohort entry, 2010-2012). Residential segregation was measured using site-specific quartiles of the Black local isolation score (LIS). The outcome was receipt of CRC or cervical cancer screening within 3 years of cohort entry (2010-2015). Logistic regression was used to calculate associations between the LIS and screening completion, adjusting for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: Among CRC (n = 642,661) and cervical cancer (n = 163,340) screening-eligible patients, 456,526 (71.0%) and 106,124 (65.0%), respectively, received screening. Across PROSPR sites, living in neighborhoods with higher LIS tended to be associated with lower odds of CRC screening (Kaiser Permanente Northern California: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] LIS trend in Black patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.98 [p < .001]; Kaiser Permanente Southern California: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 0.98 [p = .026]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.01 [p = .023]; Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.97 [p = .002]. However, for cervical cancer screening, associations with the LIS varied by site and race (Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; Mass General Brigham: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 1.12 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.03 [p < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Across five diverse health care systems, the direction of the association between Black residential segregation and screening varied by PROSPR site, race, and screening type. Additional research, including studies that examine multiple dimensions of segregation and structural racism using intersectional approaches, are needed to further disentangle these relationships.

Randomized Trial of Patient Outreach Approaches to De-implement Outdated Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines now recommend patients with low-risk adenomas receive colonoscopy surveillance in 7-10 years and those with the previously recommended 5-year interval be re-evaluated. We tested 3 outreach approaches for transitioning patients to the 10-year interval recommendation. METHODS: This was a 3-arm pragmatic randomized trial comparing telephone, secure messaging, and mailed letter outreach. The setting was Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated healthcare system. Participants were patients 54-70 years of age with 1-2 small (<10 mm) tubular adenomas at baseline colonoscopy, due for 5-year surveillance in 2022, without high-risk conditions, and with access to all 3 outreach modalities. Patients were randomly assigned to the outreach arm (telephone [n = 200], secure message [n = 203], and mailed letter [n = 201]) stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Outreach in each arm was performed by trained medical assistants (unblinded) communicating in English with 1 reminder attempt at 2-4 weeks. Participants could change their assigned interval to 10 years or continue their planned 5-year interval. RESULTS: Sixty-day response rates were higher for telephone (64.5%) and secure messaging outreach (51.7%) vs mailed letter (31.3%). Also, more patients adopted the 10-year surveillance interval in the telephone (37.0%) and secure messaging arms (32.0%) compared with mailed letter (18.9%) and rate differences were significant for telephone (18.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 8.3%-27.9%) and secure message outreach (13.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 3.5%-22.7%) vs mailed letter outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and secure messaging were more effective than mailed letter outreach for de-implementing outdated colonoscopy surveillance recommendations among individuals with a history of low-risk adenomas in an integrated healthcare setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT05389397).

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Population-Level Identification of Patients With Lynch Syndrome for Clinical Care, Quality Improvement, and Research.

PURPOSE: Identification of those at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes using electronic health record (EHR) data sources is important for clinical care, quality improvement, and research. We describe diagnostic processes, previously seldom reported, for a common hereditary cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome (LS), using EHR data within a community-based, multicenter, demographically diverse health system. METHODS: Within a retrospective cohort enrolled between 2015 and 2020 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we assessed electronic diagnostic domains for LS including (1) family history of LS-associated cancer; (2) personal history of LS-associated cancer; (3) LS screening via mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) testing of newly diagnosed malignancy; (4) germline genetic test results; and (5) clinician-entered diagnostic codes for LS. We calculated proportions and overlap for each diagnostic domain descriptively. RESULTS: Among 5.8 million individuals, (1) 28,492 (0.49%) had a family history of LS-associated cancer of whom 3,635 (13%) underwent genetic testing; (2) 100,046 (1.7%) had a personal history of a LS-associated cancer; and (3) 8,711 (0.1%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer of whom 7,533 (86%) underwent MMRD screening and of the positive screens (486), 130 (27%) underwent germline testing. One thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven (0.03%) were diagnosed with endometrial cancer of whom 1,613 (92%) underwent MMRD screening and of the 195 who screened positive, 55 (28%) underwent genetic testing. (4) 30,790 (0.05%) had LS germline genetic testing with 707 (0.01%) testing positive; and (5) 1,273 (0.02%) had a clinician-entered diagnosis of LS. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to electronically characterize the diagnostic processes of LS. No single data source comprehensively identifies all LS carriers. There is underutilization of LS genetic testing for those eligible and underdiagnosis of LS. Our work informs similar efforts in other settings for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Colorectal Cancer Screening After Sequential Outreach Components in a Demographically Diverse Cohort.

Importance: Organized screening outreach can reduce differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between demographic subgroups. Outcomes associated with additional outreach, beyond universal outreach, are not well known. Objective: To compare CRC screening completion by race and ethnicity, age, and sex after universal automated outreach and additional personalized outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included screening-eligible individuals aged 50 to 75 years assessed during 2019 in a community-based organized CRC screening program within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) integrated health care delivery setting. For KPNC members who are not up to date with screening by colonoscopy, each year the program first uses automated outreach (mailed prescreening notification postcards and fecal immunochemical test [FIT] kits, automated telephone calls, and postcard reminders), followed by personalized components for nonresponders (telephone calls, electronic messaging, and screening offers during office visits). Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and February 2023 and completed on February 5, 2023. Exposures: Completed CRC screening via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FIT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants completing an FIT or colonoscopy after each component of the screening process. Differences across subgroups were assessed using the χ2 test. Results: This study included 1 046 745 KPNC members. Their mean (SD) age was 61.1 (6.9) years, and more than half (53.2%) were women. A total of 0.4% of members were American Indian or Alaska Native, 18.5% were Asian, 7.2% were Black, 16.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 56.5% were White. Automated outreach significantly increased screening participation by 31.1%, 38.1%, 29.5%, 31.9%, 31.8%, and 34.5% among these groups, respectively; follow-up personalized outreach further significantly increased participation by absolute additional increases of 12.5%, 12.4%, 13.3%, 14.4%, 14.7%, and 11.2%, respectively (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Overall screening coverage at the end of the yearly program differed significantly among members who were American Indian or Alaska Native (74.1%), Asian (83.5%), Black (77.7%), Hispanic (76.4%), or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (74.4%) compared with White members (82.2%) (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Screening completion was similar by sex; older members were substantially more likely to be up to date with CRC screening both before and at the end of the screening process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a CRC screening program, sequential automated and personalized strategies each contributed to substantial increases in screening completion in all demographic groups. These findings suggest that such programs may potentially reduce differences in CRC screening completion across demographic groups.

Population-level impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation for colorectal cancer screening: a microsimulation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, a BMJ Rapid Recommendation advised against colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults with a predicted 15-year CRC risk below 3%. Using Switzerland as a case study, we estimated the population-level impact of this recommendation. DESIGN: We predicted the CRC risk of all respondents to the population-based Swiss Health Survey. We derived the distribution of risk-based screening start age, assuming predicted risk was calculated every 5 years between ages 25 and 70 and screening started when this risk exceeded 3%. Next, the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model evaluated biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening with this risk-based start age. As a comparison, we simulated screening initiation based on age and sex. RESULTS: Starting screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3% meant 82% of women and 90% of men would not start screening before age 65 and 60, respectively. This would require 43%-57% fewer tests, result in 8%-16% fewer CRC deaths prevented and yield 19%-33% fewer lifeyears gained compared with screening from age 50. Screening women from age 65 and men from age 60 had a similar impact as screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3%. CONCLUSION: With the recommended risk prediction tool, the population impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation would be similar to screening initiation based on age and sex only. It would delay screening initiation by 10-15 years. Although halving the screening burdens, screening benefits would be reduced substantially compared with screening initiation at age 50. This suggests that the 3% risk threshold to start CRC screening might be too high.

Development and External Validation of a Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer Among Patients Awaiting Surveillance Colonoscopy Following Polypectomy.

Background and Aims: Demand for surveillance colonoscopy can sometimes exceed capacity, such as during and following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, yet no tools exist to prioritize the patients most likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) among those awaiting surveillance colonoscopy. We developed a multivariable prediction model for CRC at surveillance comparing performance to a model that assigned patients as low or high risk based solely on polyp characteristics (guideline-based model). Methods: Logistic regression was used for model development among patients receiving surveillance colonoscopy in 2014-2019. Candidate predictors included index colonoscopy indication, findings, and endoscopist adenoma detection rate, and patient and clinical characteristics at surveillance. Patients were randomly divided into model development (n = 36,994) and internal validation cohorts (n = 15,854). External validation was performed on 30,015 patients receiving surveillance colonoscopy in 2020-2022, and the multivariable model was then updated and retested. Results: One hundred fourteen, 43, and 71 CRCs were detected at surveillance in the 3 cohorts, respectively. Polyp size ≥10 mm, adenoma detection rate <32.5% or missing, patient age, and ever smoked tobacco were significant CRC predictors; this multivariable model outperformed the guideline-based model (internal validation cohort area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.81 vs 0.52, 95% CI: 0.45-0.60). Performance declined at external validation but recovered with model updating (operating characteristic curve: 0.72 95% CI: 0.66-0.77). Conclusion: When surveillance colonoscopy demand exceeds capacity, a prediction model featuring common clinical predictors may help prioritize patients at highest risk for CRC among those awaiting surveillance. Also, regular model updates can address model performance drift.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.

Importance: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. Objective: To evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case's diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017. Exposures: Completing 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity. Results: From a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

Relative contribution of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection to population-level seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies in a large integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the relative contributions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced and vaccine-induced seroprevalence is key to measuring overall population-level seroprevalence and help guide policy decisions. METHODS: Using a series of six population-based cross-sectional surveys conducted among persons aged ≥7 years in a large health system with over 4.5 million members between May 2021 and April 2022, we combined data from the electronic health record (EHR), an electronic survey and SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding assay, to assess the relative contributions of infection and vaccination to population-level SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. EHR and survey data were incorporated to determine spike antibody positivity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We used sampling and non-response weighting to create population-level estimates. RESULTS: We enrolled 4,319 persons over six recruitment waves. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody seroprevalence increased from 83.3% (CI 77.0-88.9) in May 2021 to 93.5% (CI 89.5-97.5) in April 2022. By April 2022, 68.5% (CI 61.9-74.3) of the population was seropositive from COVID-19 vaccination only, 13.9% (10.7-17.9) from COVID-19 vaccination and prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 8.2% (CI 4.5-14.5) from prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only and 2.9% (CI 1.1-7.6) from prior undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only. We found high agreement (≥97%) between EHR and survey data for ascertaining COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. CONCLUSIONS: By April 2022, 93.5% of persons had detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody, predominantly from COVID-19 vaccination. In this highly vaccinated population and over 18 months into the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection without COVID-19 vaccination was a small contributor to overall population-level seroprevalence.

Relative contribution of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection to population-level seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies in a large integrated health system.

Background: Understanding the relative contributions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced and vaccine- induced seroprevalence is key to measuring overall population-level seroprevalence and help guide policy decisions. Methods: Using a series of six population-based cross-sectional surveys conducted among persons aged ≥7 years in a large health system with over 4.5 million members between May 2021 and April 2022, we combined data from the electronic health record (EHR), an electronic survey and SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding assay, to assess the relative contributions of infection and vaccination to population- level SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. EHR and survey data were incorporated to determine spike antibody positivity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We used sampling and non-response weighting to create population-level estimates. Results: We enrolled 4,319 persons over six recruitment waves. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody seroprevalence increased from 83.3% (CI 77.0-88.9) in May 2021 to 93.5% (CI 89.5-97.5) in April 2022. By April 2022, 68.5% (CI 61.9-74.3) of the population was seropositive from COVID-19 vaccination only, 13.9% (10.7-17.9) from COVID-19 vaccination and prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 8.2% (CI 4.5- 14.5) from prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only and 2.9% (CI 1.1-7.6) from prior undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only. We found high agreement (≥97%) between EHR and survey data for ascertaining COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Conclusions: By April 2022, 93.5% of persons had detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody, predominantly from COVID-19 vaccination. In this highly vaccinated population and over 18 months into the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection without COVID-19 vaccination was a small contributor to overall population-level seroprevalence. Article summary: By April 2022, >93% of people had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19 vaccination as the main driver of overall population-level seroprevalence in our healthcare system. SARS-CoV-2 infection without vaccination made a small contribution to population-level seroprevalence in our healthcare system.

Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings in Older Adults With a History of Colorectal Adenomas.

Importance: Postpolypectomy surveillance is a common colonoscopy indication in older adults; however, guidelines provide little direction on when to stop surveillance in this population. Objective: To estimate surveillance colonoscopy yields in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study included individuals 70 to 85 years of age who received surveillance colonoscopy at a large, community-based US health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019; had an adenoma detected 12 or more months previously; and had at least 1 year of health plan enrollment before surveillance. Individuals were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer (CRC), hereditary CRC syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or prior colectomy or if the surveillance colonoscopy had an inadequate bowel preparation or was incomplete. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to February 22, 2024. Exposures: Age (70-74, 75-79, or 80-85 years) at surveillance colonoscopy and prior adenoma finding (ie, advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yields of CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia overall (all ages) by age group and by both age group and prior adenoma finding. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with advanced neoplasia detection at surveillance. Results: Of 9740 surveillance colonoscopies among 9601 patients, 5895 (60.5%) were in men, and 5738 (58.9%), 3225 (33.1%), and 777 (8.0%) were performed in those aged 70-74, 75-79, and 80-85 years, respectively. Overall, CRC yields were found in 28 procedures (0.3%), advanced adenoma in 1141 (11.7%), and advanced neoplasia in 1169 (12.0%); yields did not differ significantly across age groups. Overall, CRC yields were higher for colonoscopies among patients with a prior advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma (12 of 2305 [0.5%] vs 16 of 7435 [0.2%]; P = .02), and the same was observed for advanced neoplasia (380 of 2305 [16.5%] vs 789 of 7435 [10.6%]; P < .001). Factors associated with advanced neoplasia at surveillance were prior advanced adenoma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88), body mass index of 30 or greater vs less than 25 (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44), and having ever smoked tobacco (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Asian or Pacific Islander race was inversely associated with advanced neoplasia (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of surveillance colonoscopy yield in older adults, CRC detection was rare regardless of prior adenoma finding, whereas the advanced neoplasia yield was 12.0% overall. Yields were higher among those with a prior advanced adenoma than among those with prior nonadvanced adenoma and did not increase significantly with age. These findings can help inform whether to continue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults.