Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result, no advanced neoplasia (AN) is detected at colonoscopy. The positive FIT result could also be generated by cancers located proximal to the colon: upper gastrointestinal, oral cavity, nose, and throat cancers. We evaluated screenees' risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within the 3 years and compared risks between those with a positive vs those with a negative FIT. METHODS: Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent biennial FIT-based screening 2014-2018 were collected from the national screening database and linked to the National Cancer Registry. Screenees were classified into 3 groups: FIT-positives with AN (FIT+/AN+), FIT-positives without AN (FIT+/AN-), and FIT-negatives (FIT-). We compared the cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in each group 3 years after FIT. A Cox regression analysis with left truncation and right censoring, using FIT positivity as time-dependent variable and stratified for sex, was performed to compare the hazard of cancers proximal to the colon in participants who were FIT-positive vs FIT-negative. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in FIT+/AN+ (n = 65,767), FIT+/AN- (n = 50,661), and FIT- (n = 1,831,647) screenees was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (P < .001). FIT-positives were older and more frequently male than FIT-negatives (P < .001). Significantly more cancers proximal to the colon were detected among FIT-positives (P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44-1.67). CONCLUSION: FIT-positive screenees were at significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within 3 years after FIT, although the 3-year cumulative incidence was still less than 1%.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative. DESIGN: Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups. RESULTS: We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05987709.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Long-term benefits and harms of early colorectal cancer screening in German individuals with familial cancer risk.

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit from early screening with colonoscopy or immunologic fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT). We systematically evaluated the benefit-harm trade-offs of various screening strategies differing by screening test (colonoscopy or iFOBT), interval (iFOBT: annual/biennial; colonoscopy: 10-yearly) and age at start (30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 years) and end of screening (65, 70 and 75 years) offered to individuals identified with familial CRC risk in Germany. A Markov-state-transition model was developed and used to estimate health benefits (CRC-related deaths avoided, life-years gained [LYG]), potential harms (eg, associated with additional colonoscopies) and incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR) for each strategy. Both benefits and harms increased with earlier start and shorter intervals of screening. When screening started before age 50, 32-36 CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons were avoided with colonoscopy and 29-34 with iFOBT screening, compared to 29-31 (colonoscopy) and 28-30 (iFOBT) CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons when starting age 50 or older, respectively. For iFOBT screening, the IHBRs expressed as additional colonoscopies per LYG were one (biennial, age 45-65 vs no screening), four (biennial, age 35-65), six (biennial, age 30-70) and 34 (annual, age 30-54; biennial, age 55-75). Corresponding IHBRs for 10-yearly colonoscopy were four (age 55-65), 10 (age 45-65), 15 (age 35-65) and 29 (age 30-70). Offering screening with colonoscopy or iFOBT to individuals with familial CRC risk before age 50 is expected to be beneficial. Depending on the accepted IHBR threshold, 10-yearly colonoscopy or alternatively biennial iFOBT from age 30 to 70 should be recommended for this target group.

A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Longitudinal adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening among Black persons living in the United States enrolled in a community-based randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This study examined repeat colorectal cancer screening rates at 12 and 24 months as part of a randomized intervention trial among Black persons living in the United States and factors associated with screening adherence. METHODS: Participants completed a survey assessing demographics and Preventive Health Model (PHM) factors (e.g., self efficacy, susceptibility) and received either a culturally targeted photonovella plus free fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits (intervention group) or a standard educational brochure plus free FIT kits (comparison group). FIT return was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns of repeat screening. Logistic regression models assessed FIT uptake overtime, and demographic and PHM factors associated with screening adherence. RESULTS: Participants (N = 330) were U.S.-born (93%), non-Hispanic (97%), and male (52%). Initial FIT uptake within 6 months of enrollment was 86.6%, and subsequently dropped to 54.5% at 12 months and 36.6% at 24 months. Higher FIT return rates were observed for the brochure group at 24 months (51.5% vs 33.3% photonovella, p = .023). Multiple patterns of FIT kit return were observed: 37% completed FIT at all three time points (full adherence), 22% completed two of three (partial adherence), 29% completed one of three (partial adherence), and 12% did not return any FIT kits (complete nonadherence). Predictors of full adherence were higher levels of education and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Full adherence to repeat screening was suboptimal. Most participants had partial adherence (one or two of three) to annual FIT screening. Future studies should focus on strategies to support repeat FIT screening.

Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs. METHODS: Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured. RESULTS: There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT00102011.

A Randomized Trial of Choice Architecture and Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in a Community Health Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake but it is unclear how to offer the choice of testing. We evaluated if the active choice between colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or FIT alone, increased response compared with colonoscopy alone. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial at a community health center included patients between ages 50 and 74 who were not up to date with CRC screening. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to the following: (1) colonoscopy only, (2) active choice of colonoscopy or FIT, or (3) FIT only. Patients received an outreach letter with instructions for testing (colonoscopy referral and/or an enclosed FIT kit), a reminder letter at 2 months, and another reminder at 3 to 5 months via text message or automated voice recording. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months. RESULTS: Among 738 patients in the final analysis, the mean age was 58.7 years (SD, 6.2 y); 48.6% were insured by Medicaid and 24.3% were insured by Medicare; and 71.7% were White, 16.9% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic/Latino. At 6 months, 5.6% (95% CI, 2.8-8.5) completed screening in the colonoscopy-only arm, 12.8% (95% CI, 8.6-17.0) in the active-choice arm, and 11.3% (95% CI, 7.4-15.3) in the FIT-only arm. Compared with colonoscopy only, there was a significant increase in screening in active choice (absolute difference, 7.1%; 95% CI, 2.0-12.2; P = .006) and FIT only (absolute difference, 5.7%; 95% CI, 0.8-10.6; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Both choice of testing and FIT alone increased response and may align with patient preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04711473.

Impact of time period and birth cohort on the trend of advanced neoplasm prevalence in the 40-49 average-risk screening population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing globally. While the United States have lowered the age of initiation of screening to 45, other countries still start screening at age 50. In Taiwan, the incidence of CRC has declined in 55-74 year-olds after the initiation of screening, but still increased in those 50-54, potentially due to rising precancerous lesion incidence in 40-49 year-olds. This study aimed to explore the chronological trend of the prevalence of colorectal advanced neoplasms (AN) in the screening population aged 40-54. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a screening colonoscopy cohort for prevalence of AN in average-risk subjects aged 40-54 from 2003 to 2019. Logistic regression was used to distinguish cohort effect from time-period effect on the prevalence of AN. RESULTS: In total, 27,805 subjects (52.1% male) men were enrolled. There were notable increases in prevalence of AN in all three age groups during the 17-year span, but these were more rapid in age 40-44 (0.99% to 3.22%) and 45-49 (2.50% to 4.19%). Age 50-54 had higher risk of AN [aOR=1.62(1.19-2.19)] in 2003-2008 but not in later periods [2009-2014: aOR=1.08(0.83-1.41)] and [2015-2019: aOR=0.76(0.56-1.03)] when compared with age 45-49. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of AN in age 40-54 increased in the Taiwanese population, with a later birth cohort having a higher prevalence of AN. However, the prevalence of AN in age 45-49 increased more remarkably and approximated that in age 50-54, which may justify earlier initiation of CRC screening at age 45.

Low Colorectal Cancer Risk After Resection of High-Risk Pedunculated Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Post-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) colonoscopy represents a setting with an enriched prevalence of advanced adenomas. Due to an expected higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), postpolypectomy surveillance is recommended, generating a substantially increased load on endoscopy services. The aim of our study was to investigate postpolypectomy CRC risk in a screening population of FIT+ subjects after resection of low-risk adenomas (LRAs) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs). METHODS: We retrieved data from a cohort of patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance within a FIT-based CRC screening program in Italy between 2002 and 2017 and followed-up to December 2021. Main outcomes were postpolypectomy CRC incidence and mortality risks according to type of adenoma (LRA/HRA) removed at colonoscopy as well as morphology, size, dysplasia, and location of the index lesion. We adopted as comparators FIT+/colonoscopy-negative and FIT- patients. The absolute risk was calculated as the number of incident CRCs per 100,000 person-years of follow-up. We used Cox multivariable regression models to identify associations between CRC risks and patient- and polyp-related variables. RESULTS: Overall, we included 87,248 post-FIT+ colonoscopies (133 endoscopists). Of these, 42,899 (49.2%) were negative, 21,650 (24.8%) had an LRA, and 22,709 (26.0%) an HRA. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, a total of 635 CRCs were observed. For patients with LRAs, CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.53) was not increased compared with the FIT+/colonoscopy-negative group, while for HRAs a significant increase in CRC incidence (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.04) was found. The presence of 1 or more risk factors among proximal location, nonpedunculated morphology, and high-grade dysplasia explained most of this excess CRC risk in the HRA group (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.36-2.52). Patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, representing 39.2% of HRA, did not have increased risk compared with the FIT- group (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: CRC incidence is significantly higher in patients with HRAs diagnosed at colonoscopy. However, such excess risk does not appear to apply to patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, an observation that could potentially reduce the burden of surveillance in FIT programs.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

The relationship of cancer history and chronic disease status to colorectal cancer screening: A cross-sectional analysis of 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

PURPOSE: We examined whether having a history of cancer and chronic diseases was associated with guideline-concordant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. METHODS: Self-reported data from the 2020 and 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in Oregon and West Virginia were used. Guideline-concordant CRC screening was the outcome of interest. The exposure was having a personal history of cancer, chronic diseases, or both. Multivariable logistic regressions were applied to assess the abovementioned association. RESULTS: Among 10,373 respondents aged 45-75 years, 75.5% of those with a history of cancer and chronic diseases had guideline-concordant CRC screening use versus 52.8% of those without any history (p-value < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, having a history of cancer (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.11-2.71), chronic diseases (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and both cancer and chronic diseases (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.62-2.82) were positively associated with screening uptake compared to respondents without any history. Regardless of disease history, older age was associated with greater CRC screening uptake (p-value < 0.05). Among respondents with chronic diseases only or without any condition, those with a health care provider had 1.7-fold and 2.7-fold increased odds of receiving CRC screening, respectively. However, current smokers were 28% and 34% less likely to be screened for CRC among those with chronic diseases only and without any conditions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Having a personal history of cancer and chronic diseases appears to be positively associated with guideline-concordant CRC screening use. Effective implementation of patient-centered communication through primary care initiatives may increase adherence to CRC screening recommendations.

Investigating the role of county-level colorectal cancer screening rates on stage at diagnosis of colorectal cancer in rural Georgia.

BACKGROUND: To examine the impact of county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates on stage at diagnosis of CRC and identify factors associated with stage at diagnosis across different levels of screening rates in rural Georgia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing data from 2004 to 2010 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. The 2013 United States Department of Agriculture rural-urban continuum codes were used to identify rural Georgia counties. The 2004-2010 National Cancer Institute small area estimates for screening behaviors were applied to link county-level CRC screening rates. Descriptive statistics and multinominal logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Among 4,839 CRC patients, most patients diagnosed with localized CRC lived in low screening areas; however, many diagnosed with regionalized and distant CRC lived in high screening areas (p-value = 0.009). In multivariable analysis, rural patients living in high screening areas were 1.2-fold more likely to be diagnosed at a regionalized and distant stage of CRC (both p-value < 0.05). When examining the factors associated with stage at presentation, Black patients who lived in low screening areas were 36% more likely to be diagnosed with distant diseases compared to White patients (95% CI, 1.08-1.71). Among those living in high screening areas, patients with right-sided CRC were 38% more likely to have regionalized disease (95% CI, 1.09-1.74). CONCLUSION: Patients living in high screening areas were more likely to have a later stage of CRC in rural Georgia. IMPACT: Allocating CRC screening/treatment resources and improving CRC risk awareness should be prioritized for rural patients in Georgia.

Patterns of Care Following a Positive Fecal Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate and tolerability of two ultra-low volume bowel preparations in screening: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when employing two distinct very low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in a fecal immunochemical occult blood testing (iFOBT) based organized screening program by utilizing 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus magnesium citrate plus picosulphate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial, the study targeted individuals from a population colorectal cancer screening program aged 50-69 with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a work-up colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. Main outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, individuals' safety, tolerability and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1,002 subjects were included, 501 in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [49.3-58.0]; RR 0.95 [0.85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared to 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit (LCL), -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs. 89.2%; p<0.001) whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as evidenced by fewer non-serious treatment-emergent adverse events CONCLUSIONS: SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared to 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (EudraCT: 2019-003186-18) on March 18, 2019.

Patient Navigation Plus Tailored Digital Video Disc Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Low-Income and Minority Patients Who Did Not Attend a Scheduled Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them. PURPOSE: Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care. METHODS: Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects. RESULTS: Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Up to half of people scheduled for a screening colonoscopy do not complete this test. There is a need for interventions to improve knowledge about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, enhance access to screening by offering alternative test options, foster skills for completing screening, and mitigate barriers. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening­a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based patient navigation (PN)­for patients who had not completed a scheduled screening colonoscopy. We enrolled 371 patients aged 45­75 years who had no CRC risk factors other than age, who were scheduled for a screening colonoscopy but did not attend their appointment. Participants were randomized to receive either: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. Those who received the tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening with stool test or colonoscopy compared to usual care. Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend a scheduled screening colonoscopy appointment.

A Novel Approach to Analyze Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and mortality remains a priority. Mitigation strategies to reduce these disparities have largely been unsuccessful. The primary aim is to determine variables in models of healthcare utilization and their association with CRC screening and mortality in North Carolina. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of publicly available data across North Carolina using variable reduction techniques with clustering to evaluate association of CRC screening rates and mortality was performed. RESULTS: Three million sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-seven residents (32.1%) were aged 50 y or more. More than two-thirds (68.8%) were White, while 20.5% were Black. Approximately 61% aged 50 y or more underwent CRC screening (range: 44.0%-80.5%) and had a CRC mortality of 44.8 per 100,000 (range 22.8 to 76.6 per 100,000). Cluster analysis identified two factors, designated social economic education index (factor 1) and rural provider index (factor 2) for inclusion in the multivariate analysis. CRC screening rates were associated with factor 1, consisting of socioeconomic and education variables, and factor 2, comprised of the number of providers per 10,000 individuals aged 50 y or more and rurality. An increase in both factors 1 and 2 by one point would result in an increase in CRC screening rated by 6.8%. CRC mortality was associated with factor 2. An increase in one point in factor 1 results in a decrease in mortality risk by 10.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In North Carolina, using variable reduction with clustering, CRC screening rates were associated with the inter-relationship of the number of providers and rurality, while CRC mortality was associated with the inter-relationship of social, economic, and education variables.

Predictors of stool deoxyribonucleic acid test use in the United States: Implications for outreach to under-resourced populations.

OBJECTIVE: Although colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is a public health priority, uptake is suboptimal in under-resourced groups. Noninvasive modalities, including stool deoxyribonucleic acid (sDNA) testing, may mitigate economic, geographic, cultural, or impairment-related barriers to CRCS. We assessed use of sDNA testing and other CRCS modalities in U.S. residents, comparing subgroups defined by several social determinants of health (SDOH). METHODS: A nationally representative sample of community-dwelling respondents aged 50-75 years self-reported use of CRCS modalities in the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Statistical analyses assessed up-to-date screening status and choice of modality in the recommended screening interval. RESULTS: Of 179,833 sampled respondents, 60.8% reported colonoscopy, 5.7% sDNA testing, 5.5% another modality. The rate of up-to-date screening was 72.0% overall and negatively associated with Hispanic ethnicity (63.6%), lower educational and annual income levels (e.g.,

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).