A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in adults in the United States. Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. METHODS: We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions. RESULTS: The clinical validation cohort included 10,258 persons, 7861 of whom met eligibility criteria and were evaluable. A total of 83.1% of the participants with colorectal cancer detected by colonoscopy had a positive cfDNA test and 16.9% had a negative test, which indicates a sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detection of colorectal cancer of 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2 to 90.3). Sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer was 87.5% (95% CI, 75.3 to 94.1), and sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.3). A total of 89.6% of the participants without any advanced colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) identified on colonoscopy had a negative cfDNA blood-based test, whereas 10.4% had a positive cfDNA blood-based test, which indicates a specificity for any advanced neoplasia of 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8 to 90.3). Specificity for negative colonoscopy (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0 to 90.7). CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, this cfDNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for colorectal cancer, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. (Funded by Guardant Health; ECLIPSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04136002.).

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.

Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.

Introduction: The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice. Methods: Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence. Results: The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy. Conclusions: Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Performance of OC-Auto Micro 80 Fecal Immunochemical Test in an Integrated Academic-Community Health System.

GOALS: We aimed to determine the performance of the OC-Auto Micro 80 fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in an average-risk population receiving care in an integrated, academic-community health system. BACKGROUND: The FIT is the most used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test worldwide. However, many Food and Drug Administration-cleared FIT products have not been evaluated in clinical settings. STUDY: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (50 to 75 y old) in the University of Washington Medicine health care system who were screened for CRC by OC-Auto Micro 80 FIT between March 2016 and September 2021. We used electronic health records to extract patient-level and clinic-level factors, FIT use, colonoscopy, and pathology findings. The primary outcomes were the FIT positivity rate and neoplasms detected at colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were FIT positivity by sex and safety-net versus non-safety-net clinical settings. RESULTS: We identified 39,984 FITs completed by 26,384 patients; 2411 (6.0%) had a positive FIT result (>100 ng/mL of hemoglobin in buffer), and 1246 (51.7%) completed a follow-up colonoscopy. The FIT positive rate was 7.0% in men and 5.2% in women (P <0.01). Among those who completed a colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result, the positive predictive value for CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia was 3.0%, 20.9%, and 23.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of a large heterogeneous population, the OC-Auto Micro 80 FIT for CRC screening demonstrated a positivity rate of 6.0% and a positive predictive value for CRC of 3.0%.

Health System-Provided Rideshare Is Safe and Addresses Barriers to Colonoscopy Completion.

In 2019, nearly 14 million colonoscopies were performed in the United States.1 In these settings, the accepted practice is that a responsible person drives and chaperones patients home after receiving procedural sedation, including colonoscopy.2 Lack of access to transportation and/or a chaperone is a persistent barrier to care in safety-net health systems and federally qualified health centers as a result of lower incomes, underinsurance, and higher social needs.3 Given racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in many digestive diseases that require colonoscopy for diagnosis and management, innovative solutions are needed to overcome logistical barriers to colonoscopy completion, especially in these settings.

Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.

Colon cancer is a common and preventable cancer in the USA and testing for colon cancer can be done at home with a simple test. Yet, many people remain unscreened. This is particularly true for people who may not have ready access to health care, such as those who have limited incomes or resources or who live in rural areas. Most people live close to a pharmacy and visit a pharmacy more frequently than a primary care office. Pharmacies commonly offer services beyond medication dispensing (e.g. flu shot, diabetes management), making them a potential avenue for increasing colon cancer screening. This study aimed to learn what patients think about receiving colon cancer screening through pharmacies. We interviewed 32 people who fit the age-range recommended for colon cancer screening. They were open to, even embracing of, getting screened for colon cancer through a pharmacy, primarily because of its convenience, accessibility, and because it would not require a co-pay. At the same time, they emphasized the need for privacy and coordination with their primary care provider. We concluded that colon cancer screening in pharmacies is potentially a good option for people, provided they have privacy and that their primary care providers are informed.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature. METHODS: This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. CONCLUSION: If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in US liver cancer care.

HCC, the most common form of primary liver cancer, is the fastest rising cause of cancer-related death in the United States. HCC disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. A practical framework is needed to organize the complex patient, provider, health system, and societal factors that drive these racial and ethnic disparities. In this narrative review, we adapted and applied the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to the HCC care continuum, as a step toward better understanding and addressing existing HCC-related disparities. We first summarize the literature on HCC-related disparities by race and ethnicity organized by the framework's 5 domains (biological, behavioral, physical/built environment, sociocultural environment, and health care system) and 4 levels (individual, interpersonal, community, and societal) of influence. We then offer strategies to guide future research initiatives toward promotion of health equity in HCC care. Clinicians and researchers may help mitigate further inequities and better address racial and ethnic disparities in HCC care by prioritizing the following in HCC research: (1) increasing racial and ethnic minority representation, (2) collecting and reporting HCC-related data by racial and ethnic subgroups, (3) assessing the patient experience of HCC care by race and ethnicity, and (4) evaluating HCC-specific social determinants of health by race and ethnicity. These 4 priorities will help inform the development of future programs and interventions that are tailored to the unique experiences of each racial and ethnic group.

Association Between Patient-Level, Clinic-Level, and Geographical-Level Factors and 1-Year Surveillance Colonoscopy Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection for patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, and data on factors associated with lack of adherence are limited. Using surveillance colonoscopy data from Washington state, we aimed to determine the patient, clinic, and geographical factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Using administrative insurance claims linked to Washington cancer registry data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with stage I-III CRC between 2011 and 2018 with continuous insurance for at least 18 months after diagnosis. We determined the adherence rate to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with completion. RESULTS: Of 4,481 patients with stage I-III CRC identified, 55.8% completed a 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy completion was 370 days. On multivariate analysis, older age, higher-stage CRC, Medicare insurance or multiple insurance carriers, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and living without a partner were significantly associated with decreased adherence to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Among 29 eligible clinics, 51% (n = 15) reported lower-than-expected surveillance colonoscopy rates based on patient mix. DISCUSSION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection is suboptimal in Washington state. Patient and clinic factors, but not geographic factors (Area Deprivation Index), were significantly associated with surveillance colonoscopy completion. These data will inform the development of patient-level and clinic-level interventions to address an important quality-of-care issue across Washington.

Tools to Measure the Impact of Structural Racism and Discrimination on Gastrointestinal and Hepatology Disease Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Structural racism and discrimination (SRD) are important upstream determinants of health perpetuated by discriminatory laws and policies. Therefore, measuring SRD and its impact on health is critical to developing interventions that address resultant health disparities. We aimed to identify gastrointestinal (GI) or liver studies that report measures of SRD or interventions to achieve health equity in these domains by addressing upstream determinants of health. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping reviews guidelines. Studies that used an SRD measure or examined an upstream intervention in GI or liver disease were included. Studies that described health disparities in GI or liver conditions without mentioning SRD were excluded. Study characteristics, findings, and limitations were extracted. RESULTS: Forty-six articles (19 studies using SRD measures and 27 studies of upstream interventions) were identified. Measures of residential racial segregation were reported most frequently. SRD was associated with poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority populations. Although upstream intervention studies focused primarily on policies related to colon cancer screening and organ graft allocation, racial and ethnic disparities often persisted post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve health equity in GI and liver conditions, there is an urgent need for research that goes beyond describing health disparities to incorporating measures of SRD and implementing interventions that address this understudied determinant of health.

Barriers associated with inadequate follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net system: A mixed-methods analysis.

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50-75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.

Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting. METHODS: We used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards - a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system. RESULTS: Barriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform. DISCUSSION: Rideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.

Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Colonoscopy Completion After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety Net System.

Importance: The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), relies on colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal results, but in safety net systems and federally qualified health centers, in which FIT is frequently used, colonoscopy completion within 1 year of an abnormal result rarely exceeds 50%. Clinician-identified factors in follow-up of abnormal FIT results are understudied and could lead to more effective interventions to address this issue. Objective: To describe clinician-identified barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal FIT results in a safety net health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted using semistructured key informant interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) and staff members in a large safety net health care system in Washington state. Eligible clinicians were recruited through all-staff meetings and clinic medical directors. Interviews were conducted from February to December 2020 through face-to-face interactions or digital meeting platforms. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively using a content analysis approach. Data were analyzed from September through December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result were identified by PCPs and staff members. Results: Among 21 participants, there were 10 PCPs and 11 staff members; 20 participants provided demographic information. The median (interquartile range) age was 38.5 (33.0-51.5) years, 17 (85.0%) were women, and 9 participants (45.0%) spent more than 75% of their working time engaging in patient care. All participants identified social determinants of health, organizational factors, and patient cognitive factors as barriers to colonoscopy completion. Participants suggested that existing resources that addressed these factors facilitated colonoscopy completion but were insufficient to meet national follow-up colonoscopy goals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, responses of interviewed PCPs and staff members suggested that the barriers to colonoscopy completion in a safety net health system may be modifiable. These findings suggest that interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal FIT results should be informed by clinician-identified factors to address multilevel challenges to colonoscopy completion.

Real-World Data on the Impact of COVID-19 on Endoscopic Procedural Delays.

INTRODUCTION: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted national recommendations to delay nonurgent endoscopic procedures. The objective of this study was to provide real-world data on the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopic procedures in a safety-net healthcare system and cancer center affiliated with a tertiary academic center. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a combination of electronic health record data and a prospective data tool created to track endoscopy procedures throughout COVID-19 to describe patient and procedural characteristics of endoscopic procedures delayed during the initial COVID-19 surge. RESULTS: Of the 480 patients identified, the median age was 57 years (interquartile range 46-66), 55% (n = 262) were male, and 59% self-identified as white. Colonoscopy was the most common type of delayed procedure (49%), followed by combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (22%), and EGD alone (20%). Colorectal cancer screening was the most common indication for delayed colonoscopy (35%), and evaluation of suspected bleeding (30%) was the most common indication for delayed combined EGD and colonoscopy. To date, 46% (223/480) of delayed cases have been completed with 12 colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers diagnosed. Sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and sedation type were not significantly associated with endoscopy completion. The median time to endoscopy after delayed procedure was 88 days (interquartile range 63-119) with no differences by procedure type. DISCUSSION: To minimize potential losses to follow-up, delayed, or missed diagnoses and to reduce progression of gastrointestinal diseases, all efforts should be used to ensure follow-up in those whose endoscopic procedures were delayed because of COVID-19.

Model-Based Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: COVID-19 has decreased colorectal cancer screenings. Objective: To estimate the degree to which expanding fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A previously developed simulation model was adopted to estimate how much COVID-19 may have contributed to colorectal cancer outcomes. The model included the US population estimated to have completed colorectal cancer screening pre-COVID-19 according the American Cancer Society. The model was designed to estimate colorectal cancer outcomes between 2020 and 2023. This analysis was completed between July and December 2020. Exposures: Adults screened for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer cases detected by stage. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates of colorectal cancer outcomes across 4 scenarios: (1) 9 months of 50% colorectal cancer screenings followed by 21 months of 75% colorectal cancer screenings; (2) 18 months of 50% screening followed by 12 months of 75% screening; (3) scenario 1 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests; and (4) scenario 2 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests. Results: In our simulation model, COVID-19-related reductions in care utilization resulted in an estimated 1 176 942 to 2 014 164 fewer colorectal cancer screenings, 8346 to 12 894 fewer colorectal cancer diagnoses, and 6113 to 9301 fewer early-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses between 2020 and 2023. With an abbreviated period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 588 844 colorectal cancer screenings and 2836 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1953 (68.9%) were early stage. In the event of a prolonged period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 655 825 colorectal cancer screenings and 2715 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1944 (71.6%) were early stage. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that the increased use of fecal immunochemical tests during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening participation and more colorectal cancer diagnoses at earlier stages. If our estimates are borne out in real-world clinical practice, increasing fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic could mitigate the consequences of reduced screening rates during the pandemic for colorectal cancer outcomes.

Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Digital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied. RESULTS: Common criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?

Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, this remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and adherence to colorectal cancer screening falls far short of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80%. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Outreach is the active dissemination of screening outside of the primary care setting, such as mailing fecal blood tests to individuals' homes. Navigation uses trained personnel to assist individuals through the screening process. Patient education may take the form of brochures, videos, or websites. Provider education can include feedback about screening rates of patient panels. Reminders to healthcare providers can be provided by dashboards of patients due for screening. Financial incentives provide monetary compensation to individuals when they complete screening tests, either as fixed payments or via a lottery. Individual preference for specific screening strategies has also been examined in several trials, with a choice of screening strategies yielding higher adherence than recommendation of a single strategy.

Standardized Workflows Improve Colonoscopy Follow-Up After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Tests in a Safety-Net System.

BACKGROUND: How clinical teams function varies across sites and may affect follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. AIMS: This study aimed to identify the characteristics of clinical practices associated with higher diagnostic colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result in a multi-site integrated safety-net system. METHODS: We distributed survey questionnaires about tracking and follow-up of abnormal FIT results to primary care team members across 11 safety-net clinics from January 2017 to April 2017. Surveys were distributed at all-staff clinic meetings and electronic surveys sent to those not in attendance. Participants received up to three reminders to complete the survey. RESULTS: Of the 501 primary care team members identified, 343 (68.5%) completed the survey. In the four highest-performing clinics, nurse managers identified at least two team members who were responsible for communicating abnormal FIT results to patients. Additionally, team members used a clinic-based registry to track patients with abnormal FIT results until colonoscopy completion. Compared to higher-performing clinics, lower-performing clinics more frequently cited competing health issues (56% vs. 40%, p = 0.03) and lack of patient priority (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.01) as barriers and were also more likely to discuss abnormal results at a clinic visit (83% vs. 61%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest organized and dedicated efforts to communicate abnormal FIT results and track patients until colonoscopy completion through registries is associated with improved follow-up. Increased utilization of electronic health record platforms to coordinate communication and navigation may improve diagnostic colonoscopy rates in patients with abnormal FIT results.