RESUMEN
Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/organización & administración , Sangre Oculta , Servicios Postales , Causas de Muerte , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Neoplasias Colorrectales/mortalidad , Congresos como Asunto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Implementación de Plan de Salud/organización & administración , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/estadística & datos numéricos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Sistemas Recordatorios , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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).
Asunto(s)
Colonoscopía , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adenoma/diagnóstico , California , Colonoscopía/métodos , Colonoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , TeléfonoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma , Pólipos del Colon , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Masculino , Femenino , Colonoscopía/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adenoma/cirugía , Adenoma/patología , Adenoma/diagnóstico , Medición de Riesgo , Anciano , Pólipos del Colon/cirugía , Pólipos del Colon/patología , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico , Factores de Riesgo , Curva ROC , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Tamizaje Masivo , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Colonoscopía , Sangre Oculta , HecesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical services globally, including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic testing. We investigated the pandemic's impact on fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening, colonoscopy utilization, and colorectal neoplasia detection across 21 medical centers in a large integrated health care organization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients ages 18 to 89 years in 2019 and 2020 and measured changes in the numbers of mailed, completed, and positive FITs; colonoscopies; and cases of colorectal neoplasia detected by colonoscopy in 2020 vs 2019. RESULTS: FIT kit mailings ceased in mid-March through April 2020 but then rebounded and there was an 8.7% increase in kits mailed compared with 2019. With the later mailing of FIT kits, there were 9.0% fewer FITs completed and 10.1% fewer positive tests in 2020 vs 2019. Colonoscopy volumes declined 79.4% in April 2020 compared with April 2019 but recovered to near pre-pandemic volumes in September through December, resulting in a 26.9% decline in total colonoscopies performed in 2020. The number of patients diagnosed by colonoscopy with CRC and advanced adenoma declined by 8.7% and 26.9%, respectively, in 2020 vs 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to fewer FIT screenings and colonoscopies in 2020 vs 2019; however, after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, FIT screenings exceeded, and colonoscopy volumes nearly reached numbers from those same months in 2019. Overall, there was an 8.7% reduction in CRC cases diagnosed by colonoscopy in 2020. These data may help inform the development of strategies for CRC screening and diagnostic testing during future national emergencies.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Colonoscopía/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Heces , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sangre Oculta , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Médicos , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica , Humanos , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy. METHODS: Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system. RESULTS: Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Sangre Oculta , Adulto , Anciano , Colonoscopía/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The longitudinal risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) associated with subtypes of serrated polyps (SPs) remains incompletely understood. DESIGN: This community-based, case-control study included 317 178 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who underwent their first colonoscopy during 2006-2016. Nested within this population, we identified 695 cases of CRC and 3475 CRC-free controls (matched 5:1 to cases for age, sex and year of colonoscopy). Two expert pathologists reviewed the tissue slides of all SPs identified on the first colonoscopy and reclassified them to sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), hyperplastic polyps (HPs) and traditional serrated adenomas. SPs with borderline characteristics of SSLs but insufficient to make a definitive diagnosis were categorised as unspecified SPs. The association with development of CRC was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared with individuals with no polyp, the adjusted ORs (aORs) for SSL alone or with synchronous adenoma were 2.9 (95% CI: 1.8 to 4.8) and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.7 to 7.2), respectively. The aORs for SSL with dysplasia, large proximal SSL,and small proximal SSL were 10.3 (95% CI: 2.1 to 50.3), 12.8 (95% CI: 3.5 to 46.9) and 1.9 (95% CI: 0.8 to 4.7), respectively. Proximal unspecified SP also conferred an increased risk (aOR: 5.8, 95% CI: 2.2 to 15.2). Women with SSL were associated with higher risk (aOR: 4.4; 95% CI: 2.3 to 8.2) than men (aOR: 1.7; 95% CI: 0.8 to 3.8). CONCLUSION: Increased risk of CRC was observed in individuals with SSLs, particularly large proximal ones or with dysplasia, supporting close endoscopic surveillance. Proximal unspecified SPs were also associated with increased risk of CRC and should be managed as SSLs.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyp (SPs) are precursors to 20% to 30% of cases of colorectal tumors, but patients' long-term risk after removal of SPs is poorly understood. We investigated the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in individuals with a history of SPs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who underwent colonoscopy from 2006 through 2016. Study participants were categorized based on the size and location of SPs. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association of CRC diagnosed more than 1 year after colonoscopy, with polyp type vs no polyp after adjustment for year of colonoscopy, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and smoking history. RESULTS: The study included 233,393 individuals, of whom 445 developed incident CRC. At 10 years, the cumulative incidence rates of CRC for individuals with no polyp, proximal small SPs, proximal large SPs, and distal SPs were 4.7 (95% CI, 4.0-5.6), 14.8 (95% CI, 9.0-24.3), 30.2 (95% CI, 13.2-68.4), and 5.9 (95% CI, 3.6-9.5) per 1000 persons, respectively. In patients with SPs, risk of CRC was not increased until 3 years or more after the first colonoscopy (HR for small proximal SPs 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-3.9 and HR for large proximal SPs 8.0; 95% CI, 3.6-16.1). The presence of synchronous adenomas increased the risk for CRC (HR for proximal SPs with synchronous adenomas 4.0; 95% CI, 3.0-5.5 and HR for distal SPs with synchronous adenomas 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of individuals examined by colonoscopy, we found that risk of incident CRC increased in individuals with proximal SPs (large SPs in particular) 3 years or more after the colonoscopy. These findings support guidelines that recommend surveillance colonoscopy for individuals with SPs.
Asunto(s)
Pólipos del Colon/epidemiología , Colonoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Lesiones Precancerosas/epidemiología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Colon/patología , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico , Pólipos del Colon/patología , Colonoscopía/normas , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/normas , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Incidencia , Mucosa Intestinal/diagnóstico por imagen , Mucosa Intestinal/patología , Masculino , Anamnesis/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Lesiones Precancerosas/diagnóstico , Lesiones Precancerosas/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some guidelines recommend starting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before age 50 years for African Americans, but there are few data on screening uptake and yield in this population. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening among African American members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan. We compared data from African American members screened when they were 45-50 years old (early screening group) in 2018 with data from previously unscreened African American, white, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander health plan members who were 51-56 years old. Screening outreach was performed with mailed FIT kits. Logistic regression models, adjusted for sex, were used to evaluate differences among groups in screening uptake, colonoscopy follow-up of abnormal test results, and test yield. RESULTS: Among 10,232 African Americans in the early screening group who were mailed a FIT, screening was completed by 33.1%. Among the 4% with positive test results, 85.3% completed a follow-up colonoscopy: 57.8% had any adenoma, 33.6% had an advanced adenoma (adenoma with advanced histology or polyp ≥10 mm), and 2.6% were diagnosed with CRC. African Americans in the early screening group were modestly more likely to have completed screening than previously unscreened African Americans, whites, and Hispanics 51-56 years old. The groups did not differ significantly in positive results from the FIT (range, 3.8%-4.6%) and more than 74% received a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive test result. The test yields for any adenoma (range, 56.7%-70.7%), advanced adenoma (range, 20.0%-33.6%), and CRC (range, 0%-7.1%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Proportions of African Americans who participated in early (aged 45-50 years) FIT screening and test yield were comparable to those of previously unscreened African Americans, whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders who were 51-56 years old.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor/análisis , Negro o Afroamericano , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Heces/química , Pruebas Inmunológicas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas c-kit/análisis , Factores de Edad , California/epidemiología , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/química , Neoplasias Colorrectales/etnología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos Piloto , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores Raciales , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings. METHODS: Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/cirugía , Colonoscopía/normas , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/normas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Adenoma/patología , Anciano , California/epidemiología , Colonoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Anamnesis , Persona de Mediana Edad , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50â-â74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher-risk participants had incomplete colonoscopies, poor bowel preparation, adenomas ≥â20âmm or with high-grade dysplasia, or proximal polyps. We compared CRC incidence in these subgroups and in the presence vs. absence of surveillance using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 2291 intermediate-risk participants, 45â% were classified as higher risk. Median follow-up was 11.8 years. CRC incidence was higher in the higher-risk than lower-risk subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95â% confidence interval [CI] 1.07â-â4.06). Surveillance reduced CRC incidence in higher-risk participants (HR 0.35, 95â%CI 0.14â-â0.86) but not statistically significantly so in lower-risk participants (HR 0.41, 95â%CI 0.12â-â1.38). CONCLUSION: As previously demonstrated for hospital patients, screening participants classified as intermediate risk comprised two risk subgroups. Surveillance clearly benefited the higher-risk subgroup.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Humanos , Incidencia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de RiesgoAsunto(s)
Negro o Afroamericano/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/etnología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Población Blanca/estadística & datos numéricos , California/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/mortalidad , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Humanos , IncidenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Approximately 30%-40% of screening-eligible adults in the United States are not up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to validate a predictive score, generated by a machine learning algorithm with common laboratory test data, to identify patients at high risk for CRC in a large, community-based, ethnically diverse cohort. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study using data from members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (1996-2015). Cases were cohort members who received a complete blood cell count at ages 50-75 y, did not have a prior or current diagnosis of CRC diagnosis at the time of the blood cell count, and were subsequently diagnosed with CRC. We used data from the cohort to validate the ability of an algorithm that uses laboratory and demographic information to identify patients at increased risk for CRC. Test performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI values to compare high (defined as 97% specificity or more) vs low scores. RESULTS: A high score from the algorithm identified patients with a CRC diagnosis within the next 6 months with 35.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 33.8-36.7) and an AUROC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78). Patients with a high score had an increased risk of diagnosis with early-stage CRC (OR, 13.1; 95% CI, 11.8-14.3) and advanced stage CRC (OR, 24.8; 95% CI, 22.4-27.3) within the next 6 months. In patients with high scores, the ORs for proximal and distal cancers were 34.7 (95% CI, 31.5-37.7) and 12.1 (95% CI, 10.1-13.9), respectively. The algorithm's accuracy decreased with the time interval between blood test result and CRC diagnosis; performance did not differ by sex or race. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a predictive model that uses complete blood cell count and demographic data to identify patients at high risk of CRC. The algorithm identified 3% of the population who require an investigation and identified 35% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRC within the next 6 months.
Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Anciano , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Demografía , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Humanos , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths occur when patients do not receive screening or have inadequate follow-up of abnormal results or when the screening test fails. We have few data on the contribution of each to CRC-associated deaths or factors associated with these events. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California systems (55-90 years old) who died of CRC from 2006 through 2012 and had ≥5 years of enrollment before diagnosis. We compared data from patients with those from a matched cohort of cancer-free patients in the same system. Receipt, results, indications, and follow-up of CRC tests in the 10-year period before diagnosis were obtained from electronic databases and chart audits. RESULTS: Of 1750 CRC deaths, 75.9% (n = 1328) occurred in patients who were not up to date in screening and 24.1% (n = 422) occurred in patients who were up to date. Failure to screen was associated with fewer visits to primary care physicians. Of 3486 cancer-free patients, 44.6% were up to date in their screening. Patients who were up to date in their screening had a lower risk of CRC death (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.44). Failure to screen, or failure to screen at appropriate intervals, occurred in a 67.8% of patients who died of CRC vs 53.2% of cancer-free patients; failure to follow-up on abnormal results occurred in 8.1% of patients who died of CRC vs 2.2% of cancer-free patients. CRC death was associated with higher odds of failure to screen or failure to screen at appropriate intervals (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-2.77) and failure to follow-up on abnormal results (odds ratio, 7.26; 95% confidence interval, 5.26-10.03). CONCLUSIONS: Being up to date on screening substantially decreases the risk of CRC death. In 2 health care systems with high rates of screening, most people who died of CRC had failures in the screening process that could be rectified, such as failure to follow-up on abnormal findings; these significantly increased the risk for CRC death.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidad , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/mortalidad , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/mortalidad , Adenocarcinoma/prevención & control , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , California/epidemiología , Causas de Muerte , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Factores Protectores , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
Background: Guidelines recommend screening all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) for Lynch syndrome (LS). However, the efficiency of universal LS screening in elderly populations has not been well studied. Objective: To compare the performance of age-restricted and universal LS screening using reflex mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) of CRC tumors. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A large, diverse, community-based health care system. Participants: 3891 persons with newly diagnosed CRC who had LS screening between 2011 and 2016. Measurements: Diagnostic yield of different LS screening strategies. Results: Sixty-three LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) were identified by universal screening, with only 5 (7.9%) detected after age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) detected after age 80 years. When all patients with CRC who had universal screening were used as the denominator, 58 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49% [95% CI, 1.13% to 1.92%]) were identified in patients with CRC diagnosed at or before age 70 years, 60 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.54% [CI, 1.18% to 1.98%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 75 years, and 62 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.59% [CI, 1.22% to 2.04%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 80 years. Using 75 years as the upper age limit for screening missed 3 of 63 (4.8%) LS cases but resulted in 1053 (27.1%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC. Using 80 years as the upper age limit missed 1 of 63 (1.6%) LS cases and resulted in 668 (17.2%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC. Limitation: Persons who were eligible for but did not complete germline analysis were excluded from calculations of performance characteristics. Conclusion: The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years. Stopping reflex CRC screening for LS after age 80 years may be reasonable because of very low efficiency, particularly in resource-limited settings, but this merits further investigation. Studies evaluating the effect of diagnosing LS in elderly persons on their family members are needed. Primary Funding Source: Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales Hereditarias sin Poliposis/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales Hereditarias sin Poliposis/genética , Reparación de la Incompatibilidad de ADN , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Inmunohistoquímica/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little information is available on the effectiveness of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on screening uptake, incidence, and mortality in community-based populations. METHODS: We contrasted screening rates, age-adjusted annual CRC incidence, and incidence-based mortality rates before (baseline year 2000) and after (through 2015) implementation of organized screening outreach, from 2007 through 2008 (primarily annual fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy), in a large community-based population. Among screening-eligible individuals 51-75 years old, we calculated annual up-to-date status for cancer screening (by fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy), CRC incidence, cancer stage distributions, and incidence-based mortality. RESULTS: Initiation of organized CRC screening significantly increased the up-to-date status of screening, from 38.9% in 2000 to 82.7% in 2015 (P < .01). Higher rates of screening were associated with a 25.5% reduction in annual CRC incidence between 2000 and 2015, from 95.8 to 71.4 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and a 52.4% reduction in cancer mortality, from 30.9 to 14.7 deaths/100,000 (P < .01). Increased screening was initially associated with increased CRC incidence, due largely to greater detection of early-stage cancers, followed by decreases in cancer incidence. Advanced-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 36.2%, from 45.9 to 29.3 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and early-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 14.5%, from 48.2 to 41.2 cases/100,000 (P < .04). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an organized CRC screening program in a large community-based population rapidly increased screening participation to the ≥80% target set by national organizations. Screening rates were sustainable and associated with substantial decreases in CRC incidence and mortality within short time intervals, consistent with early detection and cancer prevention.