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

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

Lowering the colorectal cancer screening age improves predicted outcomes in a microsimulation model.

AIMS: While most guidelines still recommend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiation at age 50 years in average-risk individuals, guideline-creating bodies are starting to lower the recommended age of initiation to 45 years to mitigate the trend of increasing CRC rates in younger populations. Using CRC-AIM, we modeled the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age, incorporating theoretical and reported adherence rates, for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Screening strategies were simulated for individuals without CRC at age 40 and screened from ages 50 to 75 or 45 to 75 years. Outcomes included CRC incidence, CRC mortality, and life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals screened (compared with no screening). Models used theoretically perfect (100%) and previously reported (71% mt-sDNA; 43% FIT) adherence rates. RESULTS: With perfect adherence, mt-sDNA and FIT resulted in 22.2 and 23.4 more predicted LYG, respectively, with screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years; reported adherence resulted in 23.9 and 24.4 more LYG, respectively. With perfect adherence, screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years resulted in 26.1 and 28.6 CRC cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 22.8 and 25.5 cases with FIT; with reported real-world adherence there were 28.5 and 31.2 cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 37.1 and 40.2 cases with FIT. Similar patterns were observed for CRC deaths. With screening initiation at age 45 and reported adherence, mt-sDNA averted 8.6 more CRC cases and 3.3 more deaths per 1000 individuals than FIT. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated CRC screening outcomes improved by lowering the initiation age from 50 to 45 years. Incorporating reported adherence rates yields greater benefits from triennial mt-sDNA versus annual FIT screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable: Past Performance, Current and Future Goals.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) is an organization of organizations with staffing, funding and leadership provided by the American Cancer Society (ACS) and guidance and funding by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, ACS, CDC, and the NCCRT launched the 80% by 2018 campaign. This highly successful initiative activated hundreds of organizations to prioritize colorectal cancer screening, disseminated smart, evidence-based interventions, and ultimately led to 9.3 million more Americans being up to date with screening compared with the precampaign rate. It's new campaign, 80% in Every Community, is designed to address persistent screening disparities.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.

Colorectal cancer screening for average­risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model­recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high­sensitivity stool­based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average­risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high­sensitivity, guaiac­based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;000:000­000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults is recommended beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. This study was conducted to provide evidence for the effectiveness of an American Cancer Society grant program promoting colorectal cancer screening by implementing evidence-based interventions proven to increase screening rates. METHODS: Analysis compared colorectal cancer screening rates in 77 grant-funded federally qualified health centers between 2013 and 2015 to those of a sample of 77 nonfunded federally qualified health centers selected using a genetic matching technique. The Uniform Data System from 2013 to 2015 provided data used in the analysis performed in 2016. RESULTS: Funded grantees differed significantly from nongrantees on several indicators at baseline. Genetic matching resulted in good-quality matched samples. Both matched samples increased colorectal cancer screening rates over time. Grantees increased their colorectal cancer screening rates significantly more than nongrantees, especially between 2013 and 2014, where funded federally qualified health centers increased by 9% and nonfunded federally qualified health centers increased by 3%. Across the 3 years, increases were 12% and 9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest grant funding was effective in promoting improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates in funded federally qualified health centers, and these improvements exceed those of nonfunded federally qualified health centers. Funding that results in targeted, intensive efforts supported by technical assistance and accountability for data and reporting, can result in improved system policies and practices that, in turn, can increase screening rates among uninsured and underserved populations.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the authors summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines, describe an update of their guideline for using human papillomavirus vaccination for cancer prevention, describe updates in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening, discuss interim findings from the UK Collaborative Trial on Ovarian Cancer Screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:100-121. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: Initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends men have the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The ACS developed a unique decision aid (ACS-DA) for this purpose. However, to date, studies evaluating the efficacy of the ACS-DA are lacking. The authors evaluated the ACS-DA among a cohort of medically underserved men (MUM). METHODS: A multiethnic cohort of MUM (n = 285) was prospectively included between June 2010 and December 2014. The ACS-DA was presented in a group format. Levels of knowledge on PCa were evaluated before and after the presentation. Participants' decisional conflict and thoughts about the presentation also were evaluated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with having an adequate level of knowledge. RESULTS: Before receiving the ACS-DA, 33.1% of participants had adequate knowledge on PCa, and this increased to 77% after the DA (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, higher education level (odds ratio, 11.19; P = .001) and history of another cancer (odds ratio, 7.45; P = .03) were associated with having adequate knowledge after receiving the DA. Levels of decisional conflict were low and were correlated with levels of knowledge after receiving the DA. The majority of men also rated the presentation as favorable and would recommend the ACS-DA to others. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ACS-DA was feasible among MUM and led to increased PCa knowledge. This also correlated with low levels of decisional conflict. The ACS-DA presented to groups of men may serve as a feasible tool for informed decision making in a MUM population. Cancer 2017;123:583-591. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current ACS cancer screening guidelines, including the update of the breast cancer screening guideline, discuss quality issues in colorectal cancer screening and new developments in lung cancer screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey.

American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death in both men and women and second leading cause of cancer death when men and women are combined in the United States (US). Almost two-thirds of CRC survivors are living 5 years after diagnosis. Considering the recent decline in both incidence and mortality, the prevalence of CRC survivors is likely to increase dramatically over the coming decades with the increase in rates of CRC screening, further advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the US population. Survivors are at risk for a CRC recurrence, a new primary CRC, other cancers, as well as both short-term and long-term adverse effects of the CRC and the modalities used to treat it. CRC survivors may also have psychological, reproductive, genetic, social, and employment concerns after treatment. Communication and coordination of care between the treating oncologist and the primary care clinician is critical to effectively and efficiently manage the long-term care of CRC survivors. The guidelines in this article are intended to assist primary care clinicians in delivering risk-based health care for CRC survivors who have completed active therapy.

Population-based programs for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Screening to detect polyps or cancer at an early stage has been shown to produce better outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Programs with a population-based approach can reach a large majority of the eligible population and can offer cost-effective interventions with the potential benefit of maximizing early cancer detection and prevention using a complete follow-up plan. The purpose of this review was to summarize the key features of population-based programs to increase CRC screening in the United States. A search was conducted in the SCOPUS, OvidSP, and PubMed databases. The authors selected published reports of population-based programs that met at least 5 of the 6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for cancer prevention and were known to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Interventions at the level of individual practices were not included in this review. IARC cancer prevention criteria served as a framework to assess the effective processes and elements of a population-based program. Eight programs were included in this review. Half of the programs met all IARC criteria, and all programs led to improvements in screening rates. The rate of colonoscopy after a positive stool test was heterogeneous among programs. Different population-based strategies were used to promote these screening programs, including system-based, provider-based, patient-based, and media-based strategies. Treatment of identified cancer cases was not included explicitly in 4 programs but was offered through routine medical care. Evidence-based methods for promoting CRC screening at a population level can guide the development of future approaches in health care prevention. The key elements of a successful population-based approach include adherence to the 6 IARC criteria and 4 additional elements (an identified external funding source, a structured policy for positive fecal occult blood test results and confirmed cancer cases, outreach activities for recruitment and patient education, and an established rescreening process).

Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection along with a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current ACS cancer screening guidelines. The latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) also is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program.

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines. In addition, the latest data on the use of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program.

Strategies for expanding colorectal cancer screening at community health centers.

Community health centers are uniquely positioned to address disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as they have addressed other disparities. In 2012, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is the funding agency for the health center program, added a requirement that health centers report CRC screening rates as a standard performance measure. These annually reported, publically available data are a major strategic opportunity to improve screening rates for CRC. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted provisions to expand the capacity of the federal health center program. The recent report of the Institute of Medicine on integrating public health and primary care included an entire section devoted to CRC screening as a target for joint work. These developments make this the ideal time to integrate lifesaving CRC screening into the preventive care already offered by health centers. This article offers 5 strategies that address the challenges health centers face in increasing CRC screening rates. The first 2 strategies focus on improving the processes of primary care. The third emphasizes working productively with other medical providers and institutions. The fourth strategy is about aligning leadership. The final strategy is focused on using tools that have been derived from models that work.