Colorectal Cancer Screening After Sequential Outreach Components in a Demographically Diverse Cohort.

Importance: Organized screening outreach can reduce differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between demographic subgroups. Outcomes associated with additional outreach, beyond universal outreach, are not well known. Objective: To compare CRC screening completion by race and ethnicity, age, and sex after universal automated outreach and additional personalized outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included screening-eligible individuals aged 50 to 75 years assessed during 2019 in a community-based organized CRC screening program within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) integrated health care delivery setting. For KPNC members who are not up to date with screening by colonoscopy, each year the program first uses automated outreach (mailed prescreening notification postcards and fecal immunochemical test [FIT] kits, automated telephone calls, and postcard reminders), followed by personalized components for nonresponders (telephone calls, electronic messaging, and screening offers during office visits). Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and February 2023 and completed on February 5, 2023. Exposures: Completed CRC screening via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FIT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants completing an FIT or colonoscopy after each component of the screening process. Differences across subgroups were assessed using the χ2 test. Results: This study included 1 046 745 KPNC members. Their mean (SD) age was 61.1 (6.9) years, and more than half (53.2%) were women. A total of 0.4% of members were American Indian or Alaska Native, 18.5% were Asian, 7.2% were Black, 16.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 56.5% were White. Automated outreach significantly increased screening participation by 31.1%, 38.1%, 29.5%, 31.9%, 31.8%, and 34.5% among these groups, respectively; follow-up personalized outreach further significantly increased participation by absolute additional increases of 12.5%, 12.4%, 13.3%, 14.4%, 14.7%, and 11.2%, respectively (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Overall screening coverage at the end of the yearly program differed significantly among members who were American Indian or Alaska Native (74.1%), Asian (83.5%), Black (77.7%), Hispanic (76.4%), or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (74.4%) compared with White members (82.2%) (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Screening completion was similar by sex; older members were substantially more likely to be up to date with CRC screening both before and at the end of the screening process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a CRC screening program, sequential automated and personalized strategies each contributed to substantial increases in screening completion in all demographic groups. These findings suggest that such programs may potentially reduce differences in CRC screening completion across demographic groups.

Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings in Older Adults With a History of Colorectal Adenomas.

Importance: Postpolypectomy surveillance is a common colonoscopy indication in older adults; however, guidelines provide little direction on when to stop surveillance in this population. Objective: To estimate surveillance colonoscopy yields in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study included individuals 70 to 85 years of age who received surveillance colonoscopy at a large, community-based US health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019; had an adenoma detected 12 or more months previously; and had at least 1 year of health plan enrollment before surveillance. Individuals were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer (CRC), hereditary CRC syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or prior colectomy or if the surveillance colonoscopy had an inadequate bowel preparation or was incomplete. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to February 22, 2024. Exposures: Age (70-74, 75-79, or 80-85 years) at surveillance colonoscopy and prior adenoma finding (ie, advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yields of CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia overall (all ages) by age group and by both age group and prior adenoma finding. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with advanced neoplasia detection at surveillance. Results: Of 9740 surveillance colonoscopies among 9601 patients, 5895 (60.5%) were in men, and 5738 (58.9%), 3225 (33.1%), and 777 (8.0%) were performed in those aged 70-74, 75-79, and 80-85 years, respectively. Overall, CRC yields were found in 28 procedures (0.3%), advanced adenoma in 1141 (11.7%), and advanced neoplasia in 1169 (12.0%); yields did not differ significantly across age groups. Overall, CRC yields were higher for colonoscopies among patients with a prior advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma (12 of 2305 [0.5%] vs 16 of 7435 [0.2%]; P = .02), and the same was observed for advanced neoplasia (380 of 2305 [16.5%] vs 789 of 7435 [10.6%]; P < .001). Factors associated with advanced neoplasia at surveillance were prior advanced adenoma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88), body mass index of 30 or greater vs less than 25 (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44), and having ever smoked tobacco (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Asian or Pacific Islander race was inversely associated with advanced neoplasia (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of surveillance colonoscopy yield in older adults, CRC detection was rare regardless of prior adenoma finding, whereas the advanced neoplasia yield was 12.0% overall. Yields were higher among those with a prior advanced adenoma than among those with prior nonadvanced adenoma and did not increase significantly with age. These findings can help inform whether to continue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Relative contribution of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection to population-level seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies in a large integrated health system.

Background: Understanding the relative contributions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced and vaccine- induced seroprevalence is key to measuring overall population-level seroprevalence and help guide policy decisions. Methods: Using a series of six population-based cross-sectional surveys conducted among persons aged ≥7 years in a large health system with over 4.5 million members between May 2021 and April 2022, we combined data from the electronic health record (EHR), an electronic survey and SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding assay, to assess the relative contributions of infection and vaccination to population- level SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. EHR and survey data were incorporated to determine spike antibody positivity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We used sampling and non-response weighting to create population-level estimates. Results: We enrolled 4,319 persons over six recruitment waves. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody seroprevalence increased from 83.3% (CI 77.0-88.9) in May 2021 to 93.5% (CI 89.5-97.5) in April 2022. By April 2022, 68.5% (CI 61.9-74.3) of the population was seropositive from COVID-19 vaccination only, 13.9% (10.7-17.9) from COVID-19 vaccination and prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 8.2% (CI 4.5- 14.5) from prior diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only and 2.9% (CI 1.1-7.6) from prior undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection only. We found high agreement (≥97%) between EHR and survey data for ascertaining COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Conclusions: By April 2022, 93.5% of persons had detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody, predominantly from COVID-19 vaccination. In this highly vaccinated population and over 18 months into the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection without COVID-19 vaccination was a small contributor to overall population-level seroprevalence. Article summary: By April 2022, >93% of people had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19 vaccination as the main driver of overall population-level seroprevalence in our healthcare system. SARS-CoV-2 infection without vaccination made a small contribution to population-level seroprevalence in our healthcare system.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Randomized Trial of Patient Outreach Approaches to De-implement Outdated Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines now recommend patients with low-risk adenomas receive colonoscopy surveillance in 7-10 years and those with the previously recommended 5-year interval be re-evaluated. We tested 3 outreach approaches for transitioning patients to the 10-year interval recommendation. METHODS: This was a 3-arm pragmatic randomized trial comparing telephone, secure messaging, and mailed letter outreach. The setting was Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated healthcare system. Participants were patients 54-70 years of age with 1-2 small (<10 mm) tubular adenomas at baseline colonoscopy, due for 5-year surveillance in 2022, without high-risk conditions, and with access to all 3 outreach modalities. Patients were randomly assigned to the outreach arm (telephone [n = 200], secure message [n = 203], and mailed letter [n = 201]) stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Outreach in each arm was performed by trained medical assistants (unblinded) communicating in English with 1 reminder attempt at 2-4 weeks. Participants could change their assigned interval to 10 years or continue their planned 5-year interval. RESULTS: Sixty-day response rates were higher for telephone (64.5%) and secure messaging outreach (51.7%) vs mailed letter (31.3%). Also, more patients adopted the 10-year surveillance interval in the telephone (37.0%) and secure messaging arms (32.0%) compared with mailed letter (18.9%) and rate differences were significant for telephone (18.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 8.3%-27.9%) and secure message outreach (13.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 3.5%-22.7%) vs mailed letter outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and secure messaging were more effective than mailed letter outreach for de-implementing outdated colonoscopy surveillance recommendations among individuals with a history of low-risk adenomas in an integrated healthcare setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT05389397).

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

Population models of cancer reflect the overall US population by drawing on numerous existing data resources for parameter inputs and calibration targets. Models require data inputs that are appropriately representative, collected in a harmonized manner, have minimal missing or inaccurate values, and reflect adequate sample sizes. Data resource priorities for population modeling to support cancer health equity include increasing the availability of data that 1) arise from uninsured and underinsured individuals and those traditionally not included in health-care delivery studies, 2) reflect relevant exposures for groups historically and intentionally excluded across the full cancer control continuum, 3) disaggregate categories (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and their intersections that conceal important variation in health outcomes, 4) identify specific populations of interest in clinical databases whose health outcomes have been understudied, 5) enhance health records through expanded data elements and linkage with other data types (eg, patient surveys, provider and/or facility level information, neighborhood data), 6) decrease missing and misclassified data from historically underrecognized populations, and 7) capture potential measures or effects of systemic racism and corresponding intervenable targets for change.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening. OBJECTIVE: We aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants' choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups-low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk-according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: We expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected. CONCLUSIONS: We will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants' choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46865.

The implementation checklist: A pragmatic instrument for accelerating research-to-implementation cycles.

Introduction: Learning health systems require rapid-cycle research and nimble implementation processes to maximize innovation across disparate specialties and operations. Existing detailed research-to-implementation frameworks require extensive time commitments and can be overwhelming for physician-researchers with clinical and operational responsibilities, inhibiting their widespread adoption. The creation of a short, pragmatic checklist to inform implementation processes may substantially improve uptake and implementation efficiency across a variety of health systems. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of existing implementation frameworks to identify core concepts. Utilizing comprehensive stakeholder engagement with 25 operational leaders, embedded physician-researchers, and delivery scientists, concepts were iteratively integrated to create and implement a final concise instrument. Results: A systematic review identified 894 publications describing implementation frameworks, which included 15 systematic reviews. Among these, domains were extracted from three commonly utilized instruments: the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Iterative testing and stakeholder engagement revision of a four-page draft implementation document with five domains resulted in a concise, one-page implementation planning instrument to be used at project outset and periodically throughout project implementation planning. The instrument addresses end-user feasibility concerns while retaining the main goals of more complex tools. This instrument was then systematically integrated into projects within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Delivery Science and Applied Research program to address stakeholder engagement, efficiency, project planning, and operational implementation of study results. Conclusion: A streamlined one-page implementation planning instrument, incorporating core concepts of existing frameworks, provides a pragmatic, robust framework for evidence-based healthcare innovation cycles that is being broadly implemented within a learning health system. These streamlined processes could inform other settings needing a best practice rapid-cycle research-to-implementation tool for large numbers of diverse projects.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening. METHODS: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer. IMPACT: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Effect of Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy on the Incidence of Noncardia Gastric Adenocarcinoma in a Large Diverse Population in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: High-quality data regarding the effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on the risk of noncardia gastric adenocarcinoma (NCGA) remain limited in the United States. We investigated the incidence of NCGA after H pylori eradication therapy in a large, community-based US population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who underwent testing and/or treatment for H pylori between 1997 and 2015 and were followed through December 31, 2018. The risk of NCGA was evaluated using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model and standardized incidence ratios. RESULTS: Among 716,567 individuals with a history of H pylori testing and/or treatment, the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of NCGA for H pylori-positive/untreated and H pylori-positive/treated individuals were 6.07 (4.20-8.76) and 2.68 (1.86-3.86), respectively, compared with H pylori-negative individuals. When compared directly with H pylori-positive/untreated individuals, subdistribution hazard ratios for NCGA in H pylori-positive/treated were 0.95 (0.47-1.92) at <8 years and 0.37 (0.14-0.97) ≥8 years of follow-up. Compared with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California general population, standardized incidence ratios (95% confidence interval) of NCGA steadily decreased after H pylori treatment: 2.00 (1.79-2.24) ≥1 year, 1.01 (0.85-1.19) ≥4 years, 0.68 (0.54-0.85) ≥7 years, and 0.51 (0.38-0.68) ≥10 years. CONCLUSION: In a large, diverse, community-based population, H pylori eradication therapy was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of NCGA after 8 years compared with no treatment. The risk among treated individuals became lower than the general population after 7 to 10 years of follow-up. The findings support the potential for substantial gastric cancer prevention in the United States through H pylori eradication.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were based on hypothetical performance of CRC risk prediction and did not consider the association with competing causes of death. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening using real-world data for CRC risk and competing causes of death. METHODS: Risk predictions for CRC and competing causes of death from a large community-based cohort were used to stratify individuals into risk groups. A microsimulation model was used to optimize colonoscopy screening for each risk group by varying the start age (40-60 years), end age (70-85 years), and screening interval (5-15 years). The outcomes included personalized screening ages and intervals and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform colonoscopy screening (ages 45-75, every 10 years). Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Risk-stratified screening resulted in substantially different screening recommendations, ranging from a one-time colonoscopy at age 60 for low-risk individuals to a colonoscopy every 5 years from ages 40 to 85 for high-risk individuals. Nevertheless, on a population level, risk-stratified screening would increase net quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYG) by only 0.7% at equal costs to uniform screening or reduce average costs by 1.2% for equal QALYG. The benefit of risk-stratified screening improved when it was assumed to increase participation or costs less per genetic test. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized screening for CRC, accounting for competing causes of death risk, could result in highly tailored individual screening programs. However, average improvements across the population in QALYG and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform screening are small.

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.

Provider- and Facility-Level Variation in Precancerous Cervical Biopsy Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: Reproducibility of cervical biopsy diagnoses is low and may vary based on where the diagnostic test is performed and by whom. Our objective was to measure multilevel variation in diagnoses across colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. METHODS: We cross-sectionally examined variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses within the 5 sites of the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium within levels defined by colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. Patients aged 18 to 65 years with a colposcopy with biopsy performed were included, with diagnoses categorized as normal, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1), grade 2 (CIN2), and grade 3 (CIN3). Using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo methods, we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for biopsy diagnoses and presented median odds ratios (MORs), which reflect the variability within each level. Median odds ratios can be interpreted as the average increased odds a patient would have for a given outcome (e.g., CIN2 or CIN3 vs normal or CIN1) when switching to a provider with higher odds of diagnosing that outcome. The MOR is always 1 or greater, and a value of 1 indicates no variation in outcome for that level, with higher values indicating greater variation. RESULTS: A total of 130,110 patients were included who received care across 82 laboratory facilities, 2,620 colposcopists, and 489 pathologists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses was found at each level, with the most occurring between laboratory facilities, followed by pathologists and colposcopists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses of CIN2 or CIN3 (vs normal or CIN1) was present between laboratory facilities (MOR: 1.26; 95% credible interval = 1.19-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Improving consistency in cervical biopsy diagnoses is needed to reduce underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment resulting from variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. RESULTS: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. IMPACT: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Gaps in the screening process for women diagnosed with cervical cancer in four diverse US health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Potential care gaps in the cervical cancer screening process among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in an era with increased human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have not been extensively evaluated. METHODS: Women diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 21 and 65 at four study sites between 2010 and 2014 were included. Screening histories were ascertained from 0.5 to 4 years prior to cervical cancer diagnosis. We identified potential care gaps in the screening history for each woman and classified them into one of three mutually exclusive types: lack of a screening test, screening test failure, and diagnostic/treatment care gap. Distributions of care gaps were tabulated by stage, histology, and study site. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to examine the associations between demographic and cancer characteristics and type of care gap. RESULTS: Of 499 women evaluated, 46% lacked a screening test in the time window examined, 31% experienced a screening test failure, and 22% experienced a diagnostic/treatment care gap. More than half of the women with advanced cancer and squamous cell carcinoma lacked a screening test compared to 31% and 24% of women with localized cancer and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Women aged 21-29 at diagnosis were more likely to experience screening test failure and diagnostic/treatment care gap, while those aged 50-65 were more likely to lack a screening test, compared to women aged 30-39. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a continuing need to develop interventions targeting unscreened and under-screened women and improve detection and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in women undergoing cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up.