Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

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%.

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.

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.

CRC screening with sigmoidoscopy extends life by 110 d; other cancer screening tests do not extend life.

SOURCE CITATION: Bretthauer M, Wieszczy P, Løberg M, et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183:1196-1203. 37639247.

Comparative Performance of Common Fecal Immunochemical Tests : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, data to guide test selection are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance characteristics of 5 commonly used FITs, using colonoscopy as the reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03264898). SETTING: Three U.S. academic medical centers and affiliated endoscopy units. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 85 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Participants completed 5 different FITs before their colonoscopy, including 4 qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, QuickVue iFOB) and 1 quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT, which was run at the manufacturer's threshold for positivity of >100 ng/mL). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for each of the 5 FITs for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined as advanced polyps or CRC. Positivity rates, positive and negative predictive values, and rates of unevaluable tests were compared. Multivariable models were used to identify factors affecting sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 3761 participants were enrolled, with a mean age of 62.1 years (SD, 7.8); 63.2% of participants were female, 5.7% were Black, 86.4% were White, and 28.7% were Hispanic. There were 320 participants with ACN (8.5%), including 9 with CRC (0.2%). The test positivity rate varied 4-fold (3.9% to 16.4%) across FITs. Rates of unevaluable FITs ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%. The sensitivity for ACN varied from 10.1% to 36.7%, and specificity varied from 85.5% to 96.6%. Differences in sensitivity between FITs were all statistically significantly different except between Hemosure iFOB and QuickVue iFOB, and specificity differences were all statistically significantly different from one another. In addition to FIT brand, distal location of ACN was also associated with higher FIT sensitivity. LIMITATION: The study did not assess the programmatic sensitivity of annual FIT. CONCLUSION: Although considered a single class, FITs have varying test performance for detecting ACN and should not be considered interchangeable. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

In persons aged ≥45 y, the mt-sRNA test had 94% sensitivity for colorectal cancer and 46% for advanced adenomas.

SOURCE CITATION: Barnell EK, Wurtzler EM, La Rocca J, et al. Multitarget stool RNA test for colorectal cancer screening. JAMA. 2023;330:1760-1768. 37870871.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death. Screening has been proven to reduce both cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality. Various screening tests are available, each with their own advantages and disadvantages and varying levels of evidence to support their use. Clinicians should offer CRC screening to average-risk persons aged 50 to 75 years; starting screening at age 45 years remains controversial. Screening may be beneficial in select persons aged 76 to 85 years, based on their overall health and screening history. Offering a choice of screening tests or sequentially offering an alternate test for those who do not complete screening can significantly increase participation.

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.

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.

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.

Colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in Israel: Cost-effectiveness and global implications.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages <50 years is increasing worldwide. Screening initiation was lowered to 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of initiating CRC screening at 45 years in Israel was assessed with the aim of informing national policy and addressing internationally relevant questions. METHODS: A validated CRC screening model was calibrated to Israeli data and examined annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy every 10 years from 45 to 74 years (FIT45-74 or Colo45-74) versus from 50 to 74 years (FIT50-74 or Colo50-74). The addition of a fourth colonoscopy at 75 years was explored, subanalyses were performed by sex/ethnicity, and resource demands were estimated. RESULTS: FIT50-74 and Colo50-74 reduced CRC incidence by 57% and 70% and mortality by 70% and 77%, respectively, versus no screening, with greater absolute impact in Jews/Other versus Arabs but comparable relative impact. FIT45-74 further reduced CRC incidence and mortality by an absolute 3% and 2%, respectively. With Colo45-74 versus Colo50-74, CRC cases and deaths increased slightly as three colonoscopies per lifetime shifted to 5 years earlier but mean quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYGs) per person increased. FIT45-74 and Colo45-74 cost 23,800-53,900 new Israeli shekels (NIS)/QALYG and 110,600-162,700 NIS/QALYG, with the lowest and highest values among Jewish/Other men and Arab women, respectively. A fourth lifetime colonoscopy cost 48,700 NIS/QALYG. Lowering FIT initiation to 45 years with modest participation required 19,300 additional colonoscopies in the first 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Beginning CRC screening at 45 years in Israel is projected to yield modest clinical benefits at acceptable costs per QALYG. Despite different estimates by sex/ethnicity, a uniform national policy is favored. These findings can inform Israeli guidelines and serve as a case study internationally.

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.

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.

Multilevel Interventions to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Native American Community: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Native Americans have the highest burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) and the lowest rates of CRC screening across the United States.1 The disparities in CRC screening were made worse during the pandemic, creating an unmet need to implement evidence-based, multilevel interventions to improve CRC screening uptake. This can be achieved through an organized outreach program with identification of screen-eligible individuals using health records from the clinic; and a screening program with the following: (1) a mailed invitation, (2) a package of materials so patients can complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit from their homes, (3) reminder calls and a letter, and (4) navigation to a diagnostic colonoscopy.2-5 We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of a program of outreach vs usual care for completion of CRC screening at an urban clinic serving the Native American community. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR),6 we also conducted patient and provider interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to the organized program and CRC screening in general.

The Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Advanced Neoplasia at Surveillance Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: An increasing burden on health care resources has resulted in a backlog of individuals requiring colonoscopy, with delays in surveillance possibly detrimental for individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study investigated the use of a 2-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to establish those most likely to have advanced neoplasia (AN) and in need of prioritized surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted in the tertiary care setting. Participants completed a 2-sample FIT (OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) within 90 days of surveillance colonoscopy. The sensitivity of FIT for detection of AN (CRC or advanced adenoma) in moderate- and high-risk individuals was determined at fecal hemoglobin thresholds between 2 and 80 µg/g feces. RESULTS: A total of 766 patients were included (median age, 66.1 years [interquartile range, 58.1-72.9]; 49.9% male), with AN detected in 8.6% (66/766, including 5 CRC). For moderate-risk individuals (with prior history of adenoma or a significant family history of CRC), sensitivity of FIT for AN ranged from 73.5% at 2 µg/g feces, to 10.2% at 80 µg/g feces. For high-risk conditions (confirmed/suspected genetic syndromes or prior CRC), sensitivity of FIT was similar, ranging from 70.6% at the lowest positivity threshold of 2 µg/g feces, to 11.8% at 80 µg/g feces. Independent variables in the whole cohort for association with detection of AN at surveillance colonoscopy were age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.06) and FIT hemoglobin result ≥10 µg/g feces (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.16). CONCLUSIONS: The use of FIT before surveillance colonoscopy provides clinicians with insights into the risk of AN. This raises the possibility of a method to triage individuals, facilitating the more efficient management of endoscopic resources.

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.

Feasibility and Colonoscopy Yield Using the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Latin America Country.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is not widely practiced in Latin America and the results of regional studies may help overcome barriers for implementation of national screening programs. We aimed to describe the implementation and findings of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based program in Brazil. METHODS: In a prospective population-based study, asymptomatic individuals (50-75 years old) from Sao Paulo city were invited to undergo FIT for CRC screening. Participants with positive FIT (≥10 µg Hb/g feces) were referred for colonoscopy. Subjects were classified into groups according to the presence of CRC, precursor lesions, and other benign findings, possibly related to bleeding. RESULTS: Of a total of 9881 subjects, 7.8% had positive FIT and colonoscopy compliance was 68.9% (n = 535). Boston scale was considered adequate in 99% and cecal intubation rate was 99.4%. CRC was diagnosed in 5.9% of the cases, adenoma in 63.2%, advanced adenoma in 31.4%, and advanced neoplasia in 33.0%. Age was positively associated with CRC (P = .03). Higher FIT concentrations were associated with increased detection of CRC (P < .008), advanced adenoma (P < .001), and advanced neoplasia (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a FIT-based CRC screening program was feasible in a low-resource setting, and there was a high yield for neoplasia in individuals with a positive FIT. This approach could be used as a model to plan and disseminate organized CRC screening more broadly in Brazil and Latin America.

Electronic Coding for Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Is Associated With Increased Colonoscopy Completion.

INTRODUCTION: We examined the utility of the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code, R19.5, for a positive or abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and its association with colonoscopy completion. METHODS: We identified all patients in a safety-net health system who underwent FITs from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021, and extracted the FIT date, FIT result, and ICD-10 code (R19.5) and colonoscopy procedures for each patient. RESULTS: FIT-positive patients who had an R19.5 designation within 90 days (n = 383) were significantly more likely than all other FIT-positive patients (n = 273) to complete a colonoscopy within 6 months (40.9% vs 16.8%, P <0.001). DISCUSSION: We found that less than two-thirds of patients had an ICD-10 code designated in their chart within 30 days of an abnormal FIT. When coding occurred in a timely manner, patients were more likely to complete their colonoscopy within 6 months.