Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation. METHODS: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation. CONCLUSIONS: CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test may increase screening participation. However, blood tests may be less effective than current guideline-endorsed options. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers blood tests with sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%. In this study, we investigate whether a blood test that meets these criteria is cost-effective. METHODS: Three microsimulation models for CRC (MISCAN-Colon, CRC-SPIN, and SimCRC) were used to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening (from ages 45 to 75 years) compared to no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with an FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The CMS coverage criteria were used as performance characteristics of the hypothetical blood test. We varied screening ages, test performance characteristics, and screening uptake in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Without screening, the models predicted 77-88 CRC cases and 32-36 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals, costing $5.3-$5.8 million. Compared to no screening, blood-based screening was cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600-$43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). However, compared to FIT, triennial stool DNA testing combined with FIT, and colonoscopy, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT remained more effective (+5-24 QALYG) and less costly (-$3.2 to -$3.5 million) than blood-based screening even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT. CONCLUSION: Even with higher screening uptake, triennial blood-based screening, with the CMS-specified minimum performance sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 90%, was not projected to be cost-effective compared with established strategies for colorectal cancer screening.

Impact of Eliminating Cost-Sharing by Medicare Beneficiaries for Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Medicare coverage of a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal cancer screening test with no patient cost-sharing started January 2, 2023, which may favorably affect screening behavior. This analysis estimated the clinical and economic effects of increased colorectal cancer screening participation potentially resulting from this policy change in Medicare beneficiaries. The validated Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence & Mortality (CRC-AIM) model simulated three guideline-endorsed colorectal cancer screening strategies for average-risk individuals (colonoscopy every 10 years, annual fecal immunochemical test, triennial multitarget stool DNA) from ages 65-75 years. The base-case scenario assumed 0% coinsurance for initial screening and follow-up colonoscopy, real-world screening test use (colonoscopy = 45.3%, stool-based test = 24.4%, unscreened = 30.3%), and real-world follow-up colonoscopy rates. Comparative scenarios assumed an increase in the overall screening rate from 0% to 15% (5% increments) and an increase in the follow-up colonoscopy rate from 0% to 15% (5% increments). The base-case scenario resulted in 128 life-years gained (LYG)/1,000 individuals versus no screening and total screening and treatment costs of $7,938/person. The changes resulted in an increase of up to 26 LYG/1,000 individuals and a decrease in total screening and treatment costs by as much as $128/person. Follow-up colonoscopy at $0 coinsurance became cost-saving with any increase in either overall screening or follow-up colonoscopy. Policies that remove cost barriers to completing colorectal cancer screening may increase rates of screening participation, potentially improving economic and clinical outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: A follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal cancer screening test is necessary to complete the full screening process. Policies that remove cost barriers to completing colorectal cancer screening may lead to increases in overall participation rates and use of follow-up colonoscopy, improving clinical and economic outcomes.

Comparison of Simulated Outcomes Between Stool- and Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend covering blood-based tests meeting proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Outcomes were compared between currently available stool-based screening tests and a hypothetical blood-based test meeting CMS minimum thresholds. Using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM), outcomes were simulated for average-risk individuals screened between ages 45 and 75 years with triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Per CMS guidance, blood-based CRC screening was modeled triennially, with 74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity. Although not specified by CMS, adenoma sensitivity was set between 10% and 20%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for stool-based tests. Adherence was set at (1) 100%, (2) 30%-70%, in 10% increments, and (3) real-world rates for stool-based tests (mt-sDNA = 65.6%; FIT = 42.6%; FOBT = 34.4%). Assuming perfect adherence, a blood-based test produced ≥19 lower life-years gained (LYG) than stool-based strategies. At the best-case scenario for blood-based tests (100% adherence and 20% adenoma sensitivity), mt-sDNA at real-world adherence achieved more LYG (287.2 vs. 297.1, respectively) with 14% fewer colonoscopies. At 100% blood-based test adherence and real-world mt-sDNA and FIT adherence, the blood-based test would require advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to reach the LYG of mt-sDNA (297.1) and ∼15% sensitivity to reach the LYG of FIT (258.9). This model suggests that blood-based tests with CMS minimally acceptable CRC sensitivity and low advanced adenoma sensitivity will frequently yield inferior outcomes to stool-based testing across a wide range of adherence assumptions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population.

Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer-screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer-related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3-7 (S3-S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%-4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3-S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641.

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk. METHODS: Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population.

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50-64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population.

AIM: Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.

Phenotypic features in MECP2 duplication syndrome: Effects of age.

BACKGROUND: MECP2 Duplication syndrome (MDS) is a rare X-linked genomic disorder that is caused by interstitial chromosomal duplications at Xq28 encompassing the MECP2 gene. Although phenotypic features in MDS have been described, there is a limited understanding of the range of severity of these features, and how they evolve with age. METHODS: The cross-sectional results of N = 69 participants (ages 6 months-33 years) enrolled in a natural history study of MDS are presented. Clinical severity was assessed using a clinician-report measure as well as a parent-report measure. Data was also gathered related to the top 3 concerns of parents as selected from the most salient symptoms related to MDS. The Child Health Questionnaire was also utilized to obtain parental reports of each child's quality of life to establish disease burden. RESULTS: The results of linear regression from the clinician-reported measure show that overall clinical severity scores, motor dysfunction, and functional skills are significantly worse with increasing age. Top concerns rated by parents included lack of effective communication, abnormal walking/balance issues, constipation, and seizures. Higher levels of clinical severity were also related to lower physical health quality of life scores as reported by parents. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that increasing levels of clinical severity are noted with older age, and this is primarily attributable to motor dysfunction, and functional skills. The results provide an important foundation for creating an MDS-specific severity scale highlighting the most important domains to target for treatment trials and will help clinicians and researchers define clinically meaningful changes.

A Psychometric Evaluation of the Motor-Behavioral Assessment Scale for Use as an Outcome Measure in Rett Syndrome Clinical Trials.

Rett syndrome (RTT) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that primarily affects females. Recent work indicates the potential for disease modifying therapies. However, there remains a need to develop outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Using data from a natural history study (n = 1,075), we examined the factor structure, internal consistency, and validity of the clinician-reported Motor Behavior Assessment scale (MBA). The analysis resulted in a five-factor model: (1) motor dysfunction, (2) functional skills, (3) social skills, (4) aberrant behavior, and (5) respiratory behaviors. Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses demonstrated that all items had acceptable discrimination. The revised MBA subscales showed a positive relationship with parent reported items, age, and a commonly used measure of clinical severity in RTT, and mutation type. Further work is needed to evaluate this measure longitudinally and to add items related to the RTT phenotype.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years. CONCLUSION: The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.

The Race-Specific Incidence of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Individuals With Exposure to Tobacco and Alcohol.

OBJECTIVES: The relative impact of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in minority populations is incompletely understood. We aimed to estimate the race-specific incidences of ESCC and place these in the context of the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in white men with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: The race- and sex-specific exposures to tobacco and alcohol in the United States were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey. The standardized incidence ratios of exposure to tobacco smoke and/or alcohol for ESCC were estimated from meta-analyses. Existing incidences of ESCC in the United States were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. We then used this data to inform a Markov computer model estimating the incidence of ESCC. RESULTS: The incidence of ESCC reported in SEER was the greatest among African-Americans compared with white non-Hispanics, Hispanics, or Asians. In our model, the estimated incidence of ESCC in African-American men exposed to tobacco and alcohol approached the risk of EAC in white non-Hispanic men with weekly GERD. For instance, at age 60 years, the incidence of ESCC in African-American men who have used both tobacco and alcohol was 30/100,000 compared with an incidence of EAC in white men with GERD of 40/100,000. In comparison, the risk of EAC in white non-Hispanic women with weekly GERD at this age was 6.2/100,000. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ESCC in African-American men who use alcohol and tobacco is the highest and comparable to other screened diseases. Development of screening and prevention programs for ESCC in high-risk populations should be considered.

Patient Electronic Health Records as a Means to Approach Genetic Research in Gastroenterology.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are being increasingly utilized and form a unique source of extensive data gathered during routine clinical care. Through use of codified and free text concepts identified using clinical informatics tools, disease labels can be assigned with a high degree of accuracy. Analysis linking such EHR-assigned disease labels to a biospecimen repository has demonstrated that genetic associations identified in prospective cohorts can be replicated with adequate statistical power and novel phenotypic associations identified. In addition, genetic discovery research can be performed utilizing clinical, laboratory, and procedure data obtained during care. Challenges with such research include the need to tackle variability in quality and quantity of EHR data and importance of maintaining patient privacy and data security. With appropriate safeguards, this novel and emerging field of research offers considerable promise and potential to further scientific research in gastroenterology efficiently, cost-effectively, and with engagement of patients and communities.

Is the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification useful in risk stratification for endoscopic procedures?

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification is a measurement of comorbidity and a predictor of perioperative morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive ability of the ASA class for periendoscopic adverse events. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: A total of 74 sites in the United States comprising academic, community/health maintenance organization, and Veterans Affairs/military practices affiliated with the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) database. PATIENTS: Patients who were 18 years or older who underwent an endoscopic procedure between 2000 and 2008. INTERVENTIONS: EGD, colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and ERCP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Immediate adverse event requiring an unplanned intervention. RESULTS: A total of 1,590,648 endoscopic procedures were performed on 1,318,495 individual patients. The majority of patients were designated as ASA class I or II (I: 27%, II: 63%). An immediate adverse event occurred in 0.35% of all endoscopic procedures (n = 5596) and was proportionally highest for ERCPs (1.84%). Increasing ASA class was associated with higher prevalence and a stepwise increase in the odds ratio of serious adverse events for EGD (II: 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31-1.82]; III: 3.90 [95% CI, 3.27-4.64]; IV/V: 12.02 [95% CI, 9.62-15.01]); and colonoscopy (II: 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-1.01]; III: 1.66 [95% CI, 1.46-1.87]; IV/V: 4.93 [95% CI, 3.66-66.3]). This trend was not significant for flexible sigmoidoscopy and ERCP. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective; endpoint was a surrogate for periprocedure morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: ASA class is associated with increased risk of adverse events at endoscopy, particularly for EGD and colonoscopy. It is useful in endoscopic risk stratification and an important quality indicator for endoscopy.

Influence of health insurance coverage on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to determine, in rural settings, the relation between the type and status of insurance coverage and being up-to-date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Four primary care practices in 2 rural Oregon communities participated. Medical chart reviews that were conducted between October 2008 and August 2009 assessed insurance coverage and up-to-date status for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Inclusion criteria involved having at least 1 health care visit within the past 5 years and being aged ≥ 55 years. RESULTS: The majority of patients were women aged 55 years to 70 years, employed or retired, and who had private health insurance and an average of 2.5 comorbid conditions. The overall percentage of eligible women who were up-to-date for cervical cancer screening was 30%; approximately 27% of women were up-to-date for clinical breast examination, 37% were up-to-date for mammography, and 19% were up-to-date for both mammography and clinical breast examination. Approximately 38% of men and 35% of women were up-to-date for colorectal cancer screening using any test at appropriate screening intervals. In general, having any insurance versus being uninsured was associated with undergoing cancer screening. For each type of screening, patients who had at least 1 health maintenance visit were significantly more likely to be up-to-date compared with those with no health maintenance visits. A significant interaction was found between having health maintenance visits, having any health insurance, and being up-to-date for cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the percentage of patients who were up-to-date for any cancer screening, especially cervical cancer screening, was found to be very low in rural Oregon. Patients with some form of health insurance were more likely to have had a health maintenance visit within the previous 2 years and to be up-to-date for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening.