Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. METHODS: We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. CONCLUSIONS: Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Effect of Chronic Comorbidities on Follow-up Colonoscopy After Positive Colorectal Cancer Screening Results: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are colorectal cancer screening tests used to identify individuals requiring further investigation with colonoscopy. Delayed colonoscopy after positive FOBT (FOBT+) is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. We assessed the effect of comorbidity on colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+. METHODS: Population-based healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble a cohort of 50-74-year-old individuals with FOBT+ results between 2008 and 2017. The associations between comorbidities and colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+ were examined using multivariable cause-specific hazard regression models. RESULTS: Of 168,701 individuals with FOBT+, 80.5% received colonoscopy within 12 months. In multivariable models, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.82), heart failure (HR 0.77, CI 0.75-0.80), and serious mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.85-0.92) were associated with the lowest colonoscopy rates, compared with not having each condition. The number of medical conditions was inversely associated with colonoscopy uptake (≥4 vs 0: HR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.69; 3 vs 0: HR 0.75, CI 0.72-0.78; and 2 vs 0: HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.89). Having both medical and mental health conditions was associated with a lower colonoscopy uptake relative to no comorbidity (HR 0.88, CI 0.87-0.90). DISCUSSION: Persons with medical and mental health conditions had lower colonoscopy rates after FOBT+ than those without these conditions. Better strategies are needed to optimize colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in individuals with comorbidities.

Two randomized controlled trials for colorectal cancer screening invitations developed using a behavioral science approach.

The effectiveness of behaviorally informed, targeted invitations to standard invitations and to no invitation (control arm, primary analysis) were compared in the context of an organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Two multi-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in men (arms: male-specific, unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation) and in women (arms: unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation), were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Eligible persons aged 50-74, due for CRC screening, were randomized. Primary and secondary outcomes were completion of the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and uptake of any colorectal test, respectively, within 5 months of mailing. Impact of invitation type was assessed using logistic regression. Letters were mailed to 75,810 men and women; 38,673 males and 34,453 females were included in the analyses. Men who received the male-specific letter were most likely to screen with gFOBT compared to controls (odds ratio (OR) 7·24, 95% CI: 5·77, 9·09), followed by those receiving the unisex letter (OR 6·75, 95% CI: 5·37, 8·47) and the standard letter (OR 5·99, 95% CI: 4·76, 7·53). Women who received the unisex letter were most likely to be screened with gFOBT compared to controls (OR 7·07, 95% CI: 5·83, 8·59), followed by those receiving the standard letter (OR 6·76, 95% CI: 5·56, 8·21). In both trials, the findings were similar for the secondary outcome. Mailed invitations were effective for both men and women. With greater targeting using the behaviorally informed invitations, the magnitude of benefit relative to no invitation appeared to increase. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364895).

Guidance for setting international standards on reporting longitudinal adherence to stool-based colorectal cancer screening.

Longitudinal adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is reported using different summarizing measures, which hampers international comparison. We provide evidence to guide recommendations on which longitudinal adherence measure to report. Using adherence data over four stool-based CRC screening rounds in three countries, we calculated six summarizing adherence measures; adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, rescreening, full programme adherence (yes/no), regularity (never/inconsistent/consistent screenees) and number of times participated. For each measure, we calculated the accuracy in capturing the observed adherence patterns. Using the ASCCA model, we predicted screening effectiveness when using summarizing measures as model input versus the observed adherence patterns. Adherence over all rounds in the Italian, Spanish and Dutch cohorts was 64.9%, 42.8% and 61.5%, respectively, and the proportion of consistent screenees was 50.9%, 26.3% and 45.7%. Number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as simulating the observed adherence patterns of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands (mortality reductions: 24.4%, 16.9% and 23.5%). Adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were least accurate. Screening effectiveness was overestimated when using adherence over all rounds (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.4% and 25.7%) and adherence per round (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.5% and 25.9%). To conclude, number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as using the observed adherence patterns. However they require longitudinal data. To facilitate international comparison of CRC screening programme performance, consensus on an accurate adherence measure to report should be reached.

The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

PURPOSE: Although some studies have shown increasing radiologists' mammography volumes improves performance, there is a lack of evidence specific to digital mammography and breast screening program performance targets. This study evaluates the relationship between digital screening volume and meeting performance targets. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 493 radiologists in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who interpreted 1,762,173 screening mammograms in participants ages 50-90 between 2014 and 2016. Associations between annual screening volume and meeting performance targets for abnormal call rate, positive predictive value (PPV), invasive cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, and specificity were modeled using mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most radiologists read 500-999 (36.7%) or 1,000-1,999 (31.0%) screens annually, and 18.5% read ≥2,000. Radiologists who read ≥2,000 annually were more likely to meet abnormal call rate (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.17-12.61), PPV (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.53-11.34), invasive CDR (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.50-11.46), and specificity (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.89-8.79) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. Radiologists reading 1,000-1,999 screens annually were more likely to meet PPV (OR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.22-4.40), invasive CDR (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.49-7.59) and specificity (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.04-3.84) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. No significant differences were observed for sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Annual reading volume requirements of 1,000 in Canada are supported as screening volume above 1,000 was strongly associated with achieving performance targets for nearly all measures. Increasing the minimum volume to 2,000 may further reduce the potential limitations of screening due to false positives, leading to improvements in overall breast screening program quality.

Annual Mammographic Screening Reduces the Risk of Interval or Higher Stage Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Purpose: In the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) annual screening improved breast cancer detection for women 50-74 years with a family/personal history compared to biennial, while detection was equivalent for women screened annually for mammographic density ≥75%. This study compares the risk of interval or higher stage invasive cancers among postmenopausal women screened annually vs biennially by age and estrogen use. Methods: A retrospective design identified 4247 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women 50-74 screened in the OBSP with digital mammography between 2011 and 2014, followed until 2016. Polytomous logistic regression estimated the risk of interval or higher stage breast cancers by age and estrogen use between women screened annually because of first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer, or mammographic density ≥75%, and those screened biennially. Results: The risk of interval vs screen-detected cancers was significantly reduced in women screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.64; 95%CI:0.51-.80), particularly those 60-74 years (OR=.59; 95%CI:0.45-.77) or not currently using estrogen (OR=.66; 95%CI:0.52-.83) compared to those screened biennially. The risk of stage II-IV vs stage I tumors was also lower in women 60-74 years screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.79; 95%CI:0.64-.97) and in those screened annually for mammographic density ≥75% currently using estrogen (OR=.51; 95%CI:0.26-1.01) compared to women screened biennially. Conclusion: Postmenopausal women at increased risk screened annually had equivalent or reduced risks of interval or higher stage invasive breast cancers than those screened biennially, further supporting risk-based screening in this population.

Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Routine screening for colorectal cancer typically is recommended until age 74 years. Although it has been proposed that a screening stop age could be determined based on sex and comorbidity, less is known about the impact of screening history. We investigated the effects of screening history on the selection of an optimal age to stop screening. METHODS: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to estimate the harms and benefits of screening with biennial fecal immunochemical tests by sex, comorbidity status, and screening history. The optimal screening stop age was determined based on the incremental number needed for 1 additional life-year per 1000 screened individuals compared with the threshold provided by stopping screening at 76 years in the average-health population with a perfect screening history (attended all required screening, diagnostic, and follow-up tests) to biennial fecal immunochemical testing from age 50 years. RESULTS: For persons age 76 years, 157 women and 108 men with a perfect screening history would need to be screened to gain 1 life-year per 1000 screened individuals. Previously unscreened women with no comorbid conditions and no history of screening could undergo an initial screening through 90 years, whereas unscreened men could undergo initial screening through 88 years, before this balance is reached. As screening adherence improved or as comorbidities increased, the optimal age to stop screening decreased to a point that, regardless of sex, individuals with severe comorbidities and a perfect screening history should stop screening at age 66 years or younger. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the harm-benefit balance, the optimal stop age for colorectal cancer screening ranges from 66 years for unhealthy individuals with a perfect screening history to 90 years for healthy individuals without prior screening. These findings can be used to assist patients and clinicians in making decisions about screening participation.

Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Physicians Is Associated With Greater Uptake by Their Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Physicians' own screening practices might affect screening in their patients. We conducted a population-based study to evaluate whether family physicians who underwent colorectal cancer testing were more likely to have patients who underwent colorectal cancer testing. METHODS: We collected demographic and health care information on residents of Ontario, Canada from administrative databases; the sample was restricted to individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer who were 52-74 years old as of April 21, 2016. We obtained a list of all registered physicians in the province; physicians (n = 11,434) were matched with nonphysicians (n = 45,736) on age, sex, and residential location. Uptake of colorectal tests was defined by a record of a fecal occult blood test in the past 2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, or colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Patients were assigned to family physicians based on billing claim frequency, and then the association between colorectal testing in family physicians and their patients was examined using a modified Poisson regression model. RESULTS: Uptake of colorectal tests by physicians and nonphysicians (median age 60 years; 71% men) was 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.0%-68.7%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 66.2%-67.1%), respectively. Physicians were less likely than nonphysicians to undergo fecal occult blood testing and were more likely to undergo colonoscopy; prevalence ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.42-0.47) and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.22-1.26), respectively. Uptake of colorectal tests by family physicians was associated with greater uptake by their patients (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of physicians and nonphysicians are overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients are more likely to be tested if their family physician has been tested. There is an opportunity for physicians to increase their participation in colorectal cancer screening, which could, in turn, motivate their patients to undergo screening.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of an Endoscopist Audit and Feedback Report for Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in endoscopist performance contributes to poor-quality colonoscopy. Audit and feedback (A/F) can be used to improve physician performance, particularly among lower performing physicians. In this large pragmatic randomized controlled trial, we compared A/F to improve endoscopists' colonoscopy performance to usual practice. METHODS: Endoscopists practicing in Ontario, Canada, in 2014 were randomly assigned in October 2015 (index date) to receive (intervention group, n = 417) or not receive (control group, n = 416) an A/F report generated centrally using health administrative data. Colonoscopy performance was measured in both groups over two 12-month periods: prereport and postreport (relative to the index date). The primary outcome was polypectomy rate (PR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation, and premature repeat after normal colonoscopy. A post hoc analysis used adenoma detection rate as the outcome. Outcomes were compared between groups for all endoscopists and for lower performing endoscopists using Poisson regression analyses under a difference-in-difference framework. RESULTS: Among all endoscopists, PR did not significantly improve from prereport to postreport periods for those receiving the intervention (relative rate [RR], intervention vs control: 1.07 vs 1.05, P = 0.09). Among lower performing endoscopists, PR improved significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.34 vs 1.11, P = 0.02) in the intervention group compared with controls. In this subgroup, adenoma detection rate also improved but not significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.12 vs 1.04, P = 0.12). There was no significant improvement in secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups. DISCUSSION: A/F reports for colonoscopy improve performance in lower performing endoscopists (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02595775).

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for high-risk adenomas at the time of first screening colonoscopy among screening aged Canadians.

The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for high risk adenomas (HRAs) detected at screening colonoscopy based on readily available participant information. The cohort consisted of 3035 participants aged 50 to 74 years with no history of cancer who underwent a primary screening colonoscopy at a centralized colon cancer screening centre between 2008 and 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model was created using CRC risk factors identified from prior research. Model covariates were collected from a baseline questionnaire and included participant demographics (age and sex), lifestyle parameters (body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and vitamin D supplement use) and medical history (family history of CRC and diabetes). Mean participant age was 58.8 years, and 54.7% were male. 249 participants with HRAs were identified (8.2%). An adjusted c-statistic of 0.67 was calculated, and a specificity and negative predictive value of 97.2% (95% CI: 96.5-97.8) and 92.5% (95% CI: 92.2-92.8) for the detection of HRAs, respectively, were achieved using 20% predicted probability as a high-risk threshold. However, only a sensitivity of 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-16.8) was achieved. Our model has moderate predictive ability, with strengths in being able to rule out those with an absence of HRAs on screening colonoscopy. Maximizing screening efficiency through improved risk prediction can enhance resource allocation. Ultimately, this model has the potential to improve patient care by reducing unnecessary colonoscopies, limiting this invasive procedure to those most likely to have significant findings.

Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up care in Ontario, Canada: A provincial, population-based study.

It is essential to quantify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening, including for vulnerable sub-populations, to inform the development of evidence-based, targeted pandemic recovery strategies. We undertook a population-based retrospective observational study in Ontario, Canada to assess the impact of the pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic services, and assess whether patterns of cancer screening service use and diagnostic delay differ across population sub-groups during the pandemic. Provincial health databases were used to identify age-eligible individuals who participated in one or more of Ontario's breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening programs from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. Ontario's screening programs delivered 951,000 (-41%) fewer screening tests in 2020 than in 2019 and volumes for most programs remained more than 20% below historical levels by the end of 2020. A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were older (50-59 and 60-69 years) during the pandemic when compared with 2019. Individuals in the oldest age groups and in lower-income neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening test during the pandemic, and individuals with a high probability of living on a First Nation reserve were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal fecal test. Ongoing monitoring and management of backlogs must continue. Further evaluation is required to identify populations for whom access to cancer screening and diagnostic care has been disproportionately impacted and quantify impacts of these service disruptions on cancer incidence, stage, and mortality. This information is critical to pandemic recovery efforts that are aimed at achieving equitable and timely access to cancer screening-related care.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey.

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample.

AIM: Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC. METHODS: Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32). CONCLUSION: Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

Cost-effectiveness of Active Identification and Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance of Lynch Syndrome Cases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.

AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms.