Cost Effectiveness of Mailed Outreach Programs for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Analysis of a Pragmatic, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs. RESULTS: Mailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained. CONCLUSION: Mailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process.