Screening for social determinants of health among populations at risk for MASLD: a scoping review.

Background: Social determinants of health (SDoH) have been associated with disparate outcomes among those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its risk factors. To address SDoH among this population, real-time SDoH screening in clinical settings is required, yet optimal screening methods are unclear. We performed a scoping review to describe the current literature on SDoH screening conducted in the clinical setting among individuals with MASLD and MASLD risk factors. Methods: Through a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete databases through 7/2023, we identified studies with clinic-based SDoH screening among individuals with or at risk for MASLD that reported pertinent clinical outcomes including change in MASLD risk factors like diabetes and hypertension. Results: Ten studies (8 manuscripts, 2 abstracts) met inclusion criteria involving 148,151 patients: 89,408 with diabetes and 25,539 with hypertension. Screening was primarily completed in primary care clinics, and a variety of screening tools were used. The most commonly collected SDoH were financial stability, healthcare access, food insecurity and transportation. Associations between clinical outcomes and SDoH varied; overall, higher SDoH burden was associated with poorer outcomes including elevated blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c. Conclusion: Despite numerous epidemiologic studies showing associations between clinical outcomes and SDoH, and guidelines recommending SDoH screening, few studies describe in-clinic SDoH screening among individuals with MASLD risk factors and none among patients with MASLD. Future research should prioritize real-time, comprehensive assessments of SDoH, particularly among patients at risk for and with MASLD, to mitigate disease progression and reduce MASLD health disparities.

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.

Endoscopic Surveillance of Intestinal Metaplasia of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Decision Modeling Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC) has been rising. Intestinal metaplasia of the esophagogastric junction (EGJIM) is a common finding in gastroesophageal reflux (irregular Z-line) and may represent an early step in the development of EGJAC in the West. Worldwide, EGJIM may represent progression along the Correa cascade triggered by Helicobacter pylori . We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of EGJIM. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to compare endoscopic surveillance strategies for 50-year-old patients after diagnosis of non-dysplastic EGJIM: (i) no surveillance (standard of care), (ii) endoscopy every 3 years, (iii) endoscopy every 5 years, or (iv) 1-time endoscopy at 3 years. We modeled 4 progression scenarios to reflect uncertainty: A (0.01% annual cancer incidence), B (0.05%), C (0.12%), and D (0.22%). RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance depended on the progression rate of EGJIM to cancer. At the lowest progression rate (scenario A, 0.01%), no surveillance strategies were cost-effective. In moderate progression scenarios, 1-time surveillance at 3 years was cost-effective, at $30,989 and $16,526 per quality-adjusted life year for scenarios B (0.05%) and C (0.12%), respectively. For scenario D (0.22%), surveillance every 5 years was cost-effective at $77,695 per quality-adjusted life year. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic surveillance is costly and can cause harm; however, low-intensity longitudinal surveillance (every 5 years) is cost-effective in populations with higher EGJAC incidence. No surveillance or 1-time endoscopic surveillance of patients with EGJIM was cost-effective in low-incidence populations. Future studies to better understand the natural history of EGJIM, identify risk factors of progression, and inform appropriate surveillance strategies are required.

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.

Yield of Repeat Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus After Normal Index Endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines suggest 1-time screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) in individuals at an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the yield of repeat EGD performed at prolonged intervals after a normal index EGD. METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective analysis within the U S Veterans Health Administration, identifying patients with a normal index EGD between 2003 and 2009 who subsequently had a repeat EGD. We tabulated the proportion with a new diagnosis of BE, EAC, or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC) and conducted manual chart review of a sample. We fitted logistic regression models for the odds of a new diagnosis of BE/EAC/EGJAC. RESULTS: We identified 71,216 individuals who had a repeat EGD between 1 and 16 years after an index EGD without billing or cancer registry codes for BE/EAC/EGJAC. Of them, 4,088 had a new billing or cancer registry code for BE/EAC/EGJAC after the repeat EGD. On manual review of a stratified sample, most did not truly have new BE/EAC/EGJAC. A longer duration between EGD was associated with greater odds of a new diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each 5 years 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.44), particularly among those who were younger during the index EGD (ages 19-29 years: aOR 3.92; 95% CI 1.24-12.4; ages 60-69 years: aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.01-1.40). DISCUSSION: The yield of repeat EGD for BE/EAC/EGJAC seems to increase with time after a normal index EGD, particularly for younger individuals. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening improves survival. Since healthcare provider recommendation is a strong predictor of CRC screening completion, providers are encouraged to engage eligible patients in collaborative decision-making that attends to patients' values, needs, and preferences for guideline-concordant screening modalities. METHODS: This three-arm randomized controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based video intervention informing patients of screening choices delivered in a clinic prior to a healthcare appointment. We hypothesize that participants randomized to watch a basic video describing CRC and screening in addition to an informed choice video showing the advantages and disadvantages of fecal immunochemical test (FIT), stool DNA FIT (s-DNA FIT), and colonoscopy (Arm 3) will exhibit a greater proportion of time adherent to CRC screening guidelines after 1, 3 and 6 years than those who only watch the basic video (Arm 2) or no video at all (Arm 1). Primary care and Obstetrician/Gynecology clinics across the United States are recruiting 5280 patients, half who have never been screened and half who previously screened but are currently not guideline adherent. Participants complete surveys prior to and following an index appointment to self-report personal, cognitive, and environmental factors potentially associated with screening. Proportion of time adherent to screening guidelines will be assessed using medical record data and supplemented with annual surveys self-reporting screening. CONCLUSION: Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of informational and motivational videos to encourage CRC screening that can be easily integrated into clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALS: gov #NCT05246839.

Novel DNA Methylation Biomarker Panel for Detection of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and High-Grade Dysplasia.

PURPOSE: Current endoscopy-based screening and surveillance programs have not been proven effective at decreasing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) mortality, creating an unmet need for effective molecular tests for early detection of this highly lethal cancer. We conducted a genome-wide methylation screen to identify novel methylation markers that distinguish EAC and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from normal squamous epithelium (SQ) or nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA methylation profiling of samples from SQ, NDBE, HGD, and EAC was performed using HM450 methylation arrays (Illumina) and reduced-representation bisulfate sequencing. Ultrasensitive methylation-specific droplet digital PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based bisulfite-sequencing assays were developed to detect the methylation level of candidate CpGs in independent esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. RESULTS: Five candidate methylation markers were significantly hypermethylated in HGD/EAC samples compared with SQ or NDBE (P < 0.01) in both esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. In an independent set of brushing samples used to construct biomarker panels, a four-marker panel (model 1) demonstrated sensitivity of 85.0% and 90.8% for HGD and EACs respectively, with 84.2% and 97.9% specificity for NDBE and SQ respectively. In a validation set of brushing samples, the panel achieved sensitivity of 80% and 82.5% for HGD and EAC respectively, at specificity of 67.6% and 96.3% for NDBE and SQ samples. CONCLUSIONS: A novel DNA methylation marker panel differentiates HGD/EAC from SQ/NDBE. DNA-methylation-based molecular assays hold promise for the detection of HGD/EAC using esophageal brushing samples.

Barriers associated with inadequate follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net system: A mixed-methods analysis.

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50-75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.

Endoscopic Screening Program for Control of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Varied Populations: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest endoscopic screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among individuals with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional risk factors. We aimed to determine at what age to perform screening and whether sex and race should influence the decision. METHODS: We conducted comparative cost-effectiveness analyses using 3 independent simulation models. For each combination of sex and race (White/Black, 100,000 individuals each), we considered 41 screening strategies, including one-time or repeated screening. The optimal strategy was that with the highest effectiveness and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Among White men, 536 EAC deaths were projected without screening, and screening individuals with GERD twice at ages 45 and 60 years was optimal. Screening the entire White male population once at age 55 years was optimal in 26% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black men had fewer EAC deaths without screening (n = 84), and screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal. Although White women had slightly more EAC deaths (n = 103) than Black men, the optimal strategy was no screening, although screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal in 29% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black women had a very low burden of EAC deaths (n = 29), and no screening was optimal, as benefits were very small and some strategies caused net harm. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal strategy for screening differs by race and sex. White men with GERD symptoms can potentially be screened more intensely than is recommended currently. Screening women is not cost-effective and may cause net harm for Black women.

Masculinity Barriers to Ever Completing Colorectal Cancer Screening among American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and White Men (Ages 45-75).

Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality among White, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) men are attributable to differences in early detection screening. Determining how masculinity barriers influence CRC screening completion is critical for cancer prevention and control. To determine whether masculinity barriers to medical care are associated with lower rates of ever completing CRC screening, a survey-based study was employed from December 2020-January 2021 among 435 White, Black, and AIAN men (aged 45-75) who resided in the US. Logistic regression models were fit to four Masculinity Barriers to Medical Care subscales predicting ever completing CRC screening. For all men, being strong was associated with 54% decreased odds of CRC screening completion (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94); each unit increase in negative attitudes toward medical professionals and exams decreased the odds of ever completing CRC screening by 57% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.86). Black men who scored higher on negativity toward medical professionals and exams had decreased odds of ever screening. Consideration of masculinity in future population-based and intervention research is critical for increasing men's participation in CRC screening, with more salience for Black men.

Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting. METHODS: We used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards - a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system. RESULTS: Barriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform. DISCUSSION: Rideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.

An Approach to the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Gastric Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of mortality among certain racial, ethnic, and immigrant groups in the United States (US). The majority of GCs are diagnosed at advanced stages, and overall survival remains poor. There exist no structured national strategies for GC prevention in the US. METHODS: On March 5-6, 2020 a summit of researchers, policy makers, public funders, and advocacy leaders was convened at Stanford University to address this critical healthcare disparity. After this summit, a writing group was formed to critically evaluate the effectiveness, potential benefits, and potential harms of methods of primary and secondary prevention through structured literature review. This article represents a consensus statement prepared by the writing group. RESULTS: The burden of GC is highly inequitably distributed in the US and disproportionately falls on Asian, African American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native populations. In randomized controlled trials, strategies of Helicobacter pylori testing and treatment have been demonstrated to reduce GC-specific mortality. In well-conducted observational and ecologic studies, strategies of endoscopic screening have been associated with reduced GC-specific mortality. Notably however, all randomized controlled trial data (for primary prevention) and the majority of observational data (for secondary prevention) are derived from non-US sources. CONCLUSIONS: There exist substantial, high-quality data supporting GC prevention derived from international studies. There is an urgent need for cancer prevention trials focused on high-risk immigrant and minority populations in the US. The authors offer recommendations on how strategies of primary and secondary prevention can be applied to the heterogeneous US population.