Racial Disparity in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treatment and Survival in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has a higher incidence and prevalence than esophageal adenocarcinoma among Black individuals in the United States. Black individuals have lower ESCC survival. These racial disparities have not been thoroughly investigated. We examined the disparity in treatment and survival stratified by ESCC stage at diagnosis. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried to identify patients with ESCC between 2000 and 2019. The identified cohort was divided into subgroups by race. Patient and cancer characteristics, treatment received, and survival rates were compared across the racial subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 23,768 patients with ESCC were identified. Compared with White individuals, Black individuals were younger and had more distant disease during diagnosis (distant disease: 26.7% vs 23.8%, P < 0.001). Black individuals had lower age-standardized 5-year survival for localized (survival % [95% confidence interval]: 19.3% [16-22.8] vs 27.6% [25.1-30.2]), regional (14.3% [12-16.7] vs 21.1% [19.6-22.7]), and distant (2.9% [1.9-4.1] vs 6.5% [5.5-7.5]) disease. Black individuals were less likely to receive chemotherapy (54.7% vs 57.5%, P = 0.001), radiation (58.5% vs 60.4%, P = 0.03), and surgery (11.4% vs 16.3%, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Black individuals with ESCC have a lower survival rate than White individuals. This could be related to presenting at a later stage but also disparities in which treatments they receive even among individuals with the same stage of disease. To what extent these disparities in receipt of treatment is due to structural racism, social determinants of health, implicit bias, or patient preferences deserves further study.

Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023. Intervention: The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months. Results: A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tools that can automatically predict incident esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using electronic health records to guide screening decisions are needed. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse was accessed to identify Veterans with 1 or more encounters between 2005 and 2018. Patients diagnosed with EAC (n = 8430) or GCA (n = 2965) were identified in the VHA Central Cancer Registry and compared with 10,256,887 controls. Predictors included demographic characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory results, and diagnoses between 1 and 5 years before the index date. The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma predictioN (K-ECAN) tool was developed and internally validated using simple random sampling imputation and extreme gradient boosting, a machine learning method. Training was performed in 50% of the data, preliminary validation in 25% of the data, and final testing in 25% of the data. RESULTS: K-ECAN was well-calibrated and had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.77) than previously validated models, such as the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (AuROC, 0.68) and Kunzmann model (AuROC, 0.64), or published guidelines. Using only data from between 3 and 5 years before index diminished its accuracy slightly (AuROC, 0.75). Undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population, AUCs of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and Kunzmann model improved, but K-ECAN was still the most accurate (AuROC, 0.85). Although gastroesophageal reflux disease was strongly associated with EAC, it contributed only a small proportion of gain in information for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: K-ECAN is a novel, internally validated tool predicting incident EAC and GCA using electronic health records data. Further work is needed to validate K-ECAN outside VHA and to assess how best to implement it within electronic health records.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Decreasing low-value colonoscopy is critical to optimizing access for high-need patients, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that rates of screening colonoscopy overuse would decline during COVID compared to pre-COVID due to enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of constrained access. OBJECTIVE: To characterize impacts of COVID-19 on screening colonoscopy overuse DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data PARTICIPANTS: Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy in Q4 2019 (pre-COVID) and Q4 2020 (COVID) at 109 endoscopy facilities MAIN MEASURES: Rates of screening colonoscopy overuse KEY RESULTS: 18,376 screening colonoscopies were performed pre-COVID, 19% (3,641) of which met overuse criteria. While only 9,360 screening colonoscopies were performed in Q4 2020, 25% met overuse criteria. Overall change in median facility-level overuse during COVID compared to pre-COVID was 6% (95%CI 5%-7%), with significant variability across facilities (IQR: 2%-11%). Of colonoscopies meeting overuse criteria, the top reason for overuse in both periods was screening colonoscopy performed <9 years after previous screening procedure (55% pre-COVID, 49% during COVID). The largest shifts in overuse category were in screening procedures performed <9 years after prior screening colonoscopy (-6% decline COVID vs. pre-COVID) and screening procedures performed in patients below average-risk screening age (i.e., age <40 (5% increase COVID compared to pre-COVID), age 40-44 (4% increase COVID vs. pre-COVID)). Within facility performance was stable over time; 83/109 facilities changed their performance by <=1 quartile during COVID compared to pre-COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pandemic-related resource constraints and enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of COVID-related backlogs, screening colonoscopy overuse rates remained roughly stable during COVID compared to pre-COVID, with continued variability across facilities. These data highlight the need for systematic and concerted efforts to address overuse, even in the face of strong external motivating factors.

Prediction of Gastrointestinal Tract Cancers Using Longitudinal Electronic Health Record Data.

BACKGROUND: Luminal gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers, including esophageal, gastric, small bowel, colorectal, and anal cancers, are often diagnosed at late stages. These tumors can cause gradual GI bleeding, which may be unrecognized but detectable by subtle laboratory changes. Our aim was to develop models to predict luminal GI tract cancers using laboratory studies and patient characteristics using logistic regression and random forest machine learning methods. METHODS: The study was a single-center, retrospective cohort at an academic medical center, with enrollment between 2004-2013 and with follow-up until 2018, who had at least two complete blood counts (CBCs). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of GI tract cancer. Prediction models were developed using multivariable single timepoint logistic regression, longitudinal logistic regression, and random forest machine learning. RESULTS: The cohort included 148,158 individuals, with 1025 GI tract cancers. For 3-year prediction of GI tract cancers, the longitudinal random forest model performed the best, with an area under the receiver operator curve (AuROC) of 0.750 (95% CI 0.729-0.771) and Brier score of 0.116, compared to the longitudinal logistic regression model, with an AuROC of 0.735 (95% CI 0.713-0.757) and Brier score of 0.205. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models incorporating longitudinal features of the CBC outperformed the single timepoint logistic regression models at 3-years, with a trend toward improved accuracy of prediction using a random forest machine learning model compared to a longitudinal logistic regression model.

Yield of Repeat Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus After Normal Index Endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines suggest 1-time screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) in individuals at an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the yield of repeat EGD performed at prolonged intervals after a normal index EGD. METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective analysis within the U S Veterans Health Administration, identifying patients with a normal index EGD between 2003 and 2009 who subsequently had a repeat EGD. We tabulated the proportion with a new diagnosis of BE, EAC, or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC) and conducted manual chart review of a sample. We fitted logistic regression models for the odds of a new diagnosis of BE/EAC/EGJAC. RESULTS: We identified 71,216 individuals who had a repeat EGD between 1 and 16 years after an index EGD without billing or cancer registry codes for BE/EAC/EGJAC. Of them, 4,088 had a new billing or cancer registry code for BE/EAC/EGJAC after the repeat EGD. On manual review of a stratified sample, most did not truly have new BE/EAC/EGJAC. A longer duration between EGD was associated with greater odds of a new diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each 5 years 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.44), particularly among those who were younger during the index EGD (ages 19-29 years: aOR 3.92; 95% CI 1.24-12.4; ages 60-69 years: aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.01-1.40). DISCUSSION: The yield of repeat EGD for BE/EAC/EGJAC seems to increase with time after a normal index EGD, particularly for younger individuals. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Development and validation of a new ICD-10-based screening colonoscopy overuse measure in a large integrated healthcare system: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value use of screening colonoscopy is wasteful and potentially harmful to patients. Decreasing low-value colonoscopy prevents procedural complications, saves patient time and reduces patient discomfort, and can improve access by reducing procedural demand. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition codes and then apply this measure to estimate facility-level overuse to target quality improvement initiatives to reduce overuse in a large integrated healthcare system. METHODS: Retrospective national observational study of US Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy at 119 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) endoscopy facilities in 2017. A measure of screening colonoscopy overuse was specified by an expert workgroup, and electronic approximation of the measure numerator and denominator was performed ('electronic measure'). The electronic measure was then validated via manual record review (n=511). Reliability statistics (n=100) were calculated along with diagnostic test characteristics of the electronic measure. The measure was then applied to estimate overall rates of overuse and facility-level variation in overuse among all eligible patients. RESULTS: The electronic measure had high specificity (99%) and moderate sensitivity (46%). Adjusted positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 33% and 95%, respectively. Inter-rater reliability testing revealed near perfect agreement between raters (k=0.81). 269 572 colonoscopies were performed in VHA in 2017 (88 143 classified as screening procedures). Applying the measure to these 88 143 screening colonoscopies, 24.5% were identified as potential overuse. Median facility-level overuse was 22.5%, with substantial variability across facilities (IQR 19.1%-27.0%). CONCLUSIONS: An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition based electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse has high specificity and improved sensitivity compared with a previous International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition based measure. Despite increased focus on reducing low-value care and improving access, a quarter of VHA screening colonoscopies in 2017 were identified as potential low-value procedures, with substantial facility-level variability.

Rising use of surveillance colonoscopy and potential impacts.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify temporal changes in colonoscopy indication and assess appropriateness of surveillance use in older adults. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data of all patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy in 2005-2014. METHODS: After validating an electronic algorithm for classifying colonoscopy indication in VHA, we examined trends in colonoscopy indication over time and across patient characteristics. RESULTS: The proportion of colonoscopies performed for postpolypectomy surveillance increased significantly during the study period, particularly among older patients with limited life expectancy, raising concern for possible overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should make clear recommendations about when and how to discontinue postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy. Doing so would potentially reduce harms due to complications from low-value procedures and in turn moderate demand and thereby enhance overall procedural access for patients more likely to benefit.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world. Developed for the treatment and prevention of acid-mediated upper gastrointestinal conditions, these agents are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain. PPI overprescription imposes an economic cost and contributes to polypharmacy. In addition, PPI use has been increasingly linked to a number of adverse events (PPI-associated adverse events [PAAEs]). Therefore, de-prescribing of PPIs is an important strategy to lower pill burden while reducing real costs and theoretical risks. The purpose of this clinical update was to provide Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements about how to approach PPI de-prescribing in ambulatory patients. METHODS: Our guiding principle was that, although PPIs are generally safe, patients should not use any medication when there is not a reasonable expectation of benefit based on scientific evidence or prior treatment response. Prescribers are responsible for determining whether PPI use is absolutely or conditionally indicated and, when uncertainty exists, to incorporate patient perspectives into PPI decision making. We collaboratively outlined a high-level "process map" of the conceptual approach to de-prescribing PPIs in a clinical setting. We identified the following 3 key domains that required BPA guidance: documentation of PPI indication; identifying suitable candidates for consideration of de-prescribing; and optimizing successful de-prescribing. Co-authors drafted 1 or more potential BPAs, supported by literature review, for each domain. All co-authors reviewed, edited, and selected or rejected draft BPAs for inclusion in the final list submitted to the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board. Because this was not a systematic review, we did not carry out a formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All patients taking a PPI should have a regular review of the ongoing indications for use and documentation of that indication. This review should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care provider. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All patients without a definitive indication for chronic PPI should be considered for trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Most patients with an indication for chronic PPI use who take twice-daily dosing should be considered for step down to once-daily PPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Patients with complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease, such as those with a history of severe erosive esophagitis, esophageal ulcer, or peptic stricture, should generally not be considered for PPI discontinuation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Patients with known Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should generally not be considered for a trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: PPI users should be assessed for upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk using an evidence-based strategy before de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding should not be considered for PPI de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients who discontinue long-term PPI therapy should be advised that they may develop transient upper gastrointestinal symptoms due to rebound acid hypersecretion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When de-prescribing PPIs, either dose tapering or abrupt discontinuation can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PAAEs. The presence of a PAAE or a history of a PAAE in a current PPI user is not an independent indication for PPI withdrawal. Similarly, the presence of underlying risk factors for the development of an adverse event associated with PPI use should also not be an independent indication for PPI withdrawal.

Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand. AIMS: This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML). METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sedation and to identify patients at elevated risk of failing standard sedation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy in 2009-2013. METHODS: Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to identify patient and procedural risk factors for failed sedation. Failed sedation cases were identified electronically and validated by chart review. RESULTS: Of 302,247 standard sedation procedures performed at VA facilities offering AA sedation, we identified 313 cases of failed sedation (prevalence, 0.10%). None of the factors found to be associated with increased risk of failed sedation (eg, high-dose opioid use, younger age) had an odds ratio greater than 3. Even among the highest-risk patients (top decile), the prevalence of failed sedation was only 0.29%. CONCLUSIONS: Failed sedation among patients undergoing routine outpatient GI endoscopy with standard sedation is very rare, even among patients at highest risk. This suggests that concerns regarding failed sedation due to commonly cited factors such as chronic opioid use and obesity do not justify forgoing standard sedation in favor of AA sedation in most patients. It also suggests that use of AA sedation is generally unnecessary. Reinstatement of endoscopist-directed sedation, rather than AA sedation, as the default sedation standard is warranted to reduce low-value care and prevent undue financial burdens on patients.

Patients' Willingness to Share Limited Endoscopic Resources: A Brief Report on the Results of a Large Regional Survey.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being "not at all likely" to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Testing Practices, Interpretation, and Diagnostic Evaluation of Iron Deficiency Anemia by US Primary Care Physicians.

Importance: Recognition of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is important to initiate timely evaluation for gastrointestinal tract cancer. Retrospective studies have reported delays in diagnostic evaluation of IDA as a common factor associated with delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Objective: To assess how US primary care physicians (PCPs) approach testing for anemia, interpret iron laboratory studies, and refer patients with IDA for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study, conducted in August 2019, included members of the American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Insiders Panel, a nationally representative group of American College of Physicians membership, who self-identified as PCPs. Participants completed a vignette-based survey to assess practices related to screening for anemia, interpretation of laboratory-based iron studies, and appropriate diagnostic evaluation of IDA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics based on survey responses were evaluated for frequency of anemia screening, correct interpretation of iron laboratory studies, and proportion of patients with new-onset IDA referred for gastrointestinal tract evaluation. Results: Of 631 PCPs who received an invitation to participate in the survey, 356 (56.4%) responded and 31 (4.9%) were excluded, for an adjusted eligible sample size of 600, yielding 325 completed surveys (response rate, 54.2%). Of the 325 participants who completed surveys, 180 (55.4%) were men; age of participants was not assessed. The mean (SD) duration of clinical experience was 19.8 (11.2) years (range, 1.0-45.0 years). A total of 250 participants (76.9%) screened at least some patients for anemia. Interpretation of iron studies was least accurate in a scenario of a borderline low ferritin level (40 ng/mL) with low transferrin saturation (2%); 86 participants (26.5%) incorrectly responded that this scenario did not indicate IDA, and 239 (73.5%) correctly identified this scenario as IDA. Of 312 participants, 170 (54.5%) recommended bidirectional endoscopy (upper endoscopy and colonoscopy) for new IDA for women aged 65 years; of 305 respondents, 168 (55.1%) recommended bidirectional endoscopy for men aged 65 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, US PCPs' self-reported testing practices for anemia suggest overuse of screening laboratory tests, misinterpretation of iron studies, and underuse of bidirectional endoscopy for evaluation of new-onset IDA. Both misinterpretation of iron studies and underuse of bidirectional endoscopy can lead to delayed diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract cancers and warrant additional interventions.

Surveillance Cessation for Barrett's Esophagus: A Survey of Gastroenterologists.

INTRODUCTION: Regular endoscopic surveillance is the gold standard Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance, yet harms of surveillance for some patients may outweigh the benefits. We sought to characterize physicians' BE surveillance cessation recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed gastroenterologists about their BE surveillance recommendations varying patient age, comorbidity, and BE length. RESULTS: Clinicians varied in recommendations for repeat surveillance. Patient age showed the largest variation among decisions, whereas BE length varied the least. DISCUSSION: Age and comorbidities seem to influence BE surveillance cessation decisions, but with variation. Clear cessation guidelines balancing the risks and benefits for BE surveillance are warranted.

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: To prepare for colonoscopy, patients must consume a bowel purgative and travel from their home to the site of their procedure. The timing of bowel purgative ingestion predicts bowel preparation quality. Currently, it is not known if driving distance impacts bowel preparation quality or adenoma detection. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effect of driving distance on bowel preparation and adenoma detection. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures that were completed at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5089 patients who completed screening colonoscopy across 3 procedure units were analyzed. MAIN MEASURES: Description of bowel preparation was dichotomized to either adequate or inadequate. Patient residential addresses were converted into geographic coordinates for geospatial analysis of driving distance to their colonoscopy site. KEY RESULTS: Median driving distance was 13.1 miles. Eighty-nine percent of patients had an adequate bowel preparation. The rate of adenoma detection was 37%. On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance, endoscopist, and site, increasing driving distance (10-mile increments) was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), while adenoma detection was positively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.88) but not with driving distance (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06). Driving distances of 30 miles or less were associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing driving distance to screening colonoscopy was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation but not adenoma detection. Among an academic medical center population, the likelihood of adequate bowel preparation was highest in patients traveling 30 miles or less to their screening colonoscopy. Patient driving distance to colonoscopy is an important consideration in optimizing screening colonoscopy quality.

A National Survey of Adoption of the 2018 American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Screening Guideline in Primary Care.

Recent data have shown increasing incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among those younger than 50 years of age.1,2 In response, the American Cancer Society (ACS) introduced new guidelines in May 2018 that recommend initiation of CRC screening in average-risk adults at age 45, which is 5 years earlier than existing recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.3-5 Most screening colonoscopies are ordered directly by primary care providers (PCPs) via "direct" or "open.

Trends in Wait Time for Outpatient Colonoscopy in the Veterans Health Administration, 2008-2015.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) recently has been scrutinized for prolonged wait times for routine medical care, including elective outpatient procedures such as colonoscopy. Wait times for colonoscopy following positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are associated with worse clinical outcomes only if greater than 6 months. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate time trends in wait time for outpatient colonoscopy in VA and factors influencing wait time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using mixed-effects regression of VA administrative data from the Corporate Data Warehouse. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans who underwent outpatient colonoscopy for positive FOBT in 2008-2015 at 124 VA endoscopy facilities. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome measure was wait time (in days) between positive FOBT and colonoscopy completion, stratified by year and adjusted for sedation type, year, and potentially influential patient- and facility-level factors. KEY RESULTS: In total, 125,866 outpatient colonoscopy encounters for positive FOBT occurred during the study period. The number of colonoscopies for this indication declined slightly over time (17,586 in 2008 vs. 13,245 in 2015; range 13,425-19,814). In 2008, median wait time across sites was 50 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 33, 75). There was no secular trend in wait times (2015 median = 52 days, IQR = 34, 77). Examining the adjusted effect of patient- and facility-level factors on wait time, no clinically meaningful difference was found. CONCLUSIONS: Wait times for colonoscopy for positive FOBT have been stable over time. Despite the perception of prolonged VA wait times, wait times for outpatient colonoscopy for positive FOBT are well below the threshold at which clinically meaningful differences in patient outcomes have been observed.