Building a vertically integrated genomic learning health system: The biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine.

Precision medicine initiatives across the globe have led to a revolution of repositories linking large-scale genomic data with electronic health records, enabling genomic analyses across the entire phenome. Many of these initiatives focus solely on research insights, leading to limited direct benefit to patients. We describe the biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM Biobank) that was jointly developed by the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and UCHealth to serve as a unique, dual-purpose research and clinical resource accelerating personalized medicine. This living resource currently has more than 200,000 participants with ongoing recruitment. We highlight the clinical, laboratory, regulatory, and HIPAA-compliant informatics infrastructure along with our stakeholder engagement, consent, recontact, and participant engagement strategies. We characterize aspects of genetic and geographic diversity unique to the Rocky Mountain region, the primary catchment area for CCPM Biobank participants. We leverage linked health and demographic information of the CCPM Biobank participant population to demonstrate the utility of the CCPM Biobank to replicate complex trait associations in the first 33,674 genotyped individuals across multiple disease domains. Finally, we describe our current efforts toward return of clinical genetic test results, including high-impact pathogenic variants and pharmacogenetic information, and our broader goals as the CCPM Biobank continues to grow. Bringing clinical and research interests together fosters unique clinical and translational questions that can be addressed from the large EHR-linked CCPM Biobank resource within a HIPAA- and CLIA-certified environment.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

COVID-19 Mortality in the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine Biobank.

Over 6.37 million people have died from COVID-19 worldwide, but factors influencing COVID-19-related mortality remain understudied. We aimed to describe and identify risk factors for COVID-19 mortality in the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM) Biobank using integrated data sources, including Electronic Health Records (EHRs). We calculated cause-specific mortality and case-fatality rates for COVID-19 and common pre-existing health conditions defined by diagnostic phecodes and encounters in EHRs. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses of the association between each pre-existing condition and COVID-19 mortality. Of the 155,859 Biobank participants enrolled as of July 2022, 20,797 had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Of 5334 Biobank participants who had died, 190 were attributed to COVID-19. The case-fatality rate was 0.91% and the COVID-19 mortality rate was 122 per 100,000 persons. The odds of dying from COVID-19 were significantly increased among older men, and those with 14 of the 61 pre-existing conditions tested, including hypertensive chronic kidney disease (OR: 10.14, 95% CI: 5.48, 19.16) and type 2 diabetes with renal manifestations (OR: 5.59, 95% CI: 3.42, 8.97). Male patients who are older and have pre-existing kidney diseases may be at higher risk for death from COVID-19 and may require special care.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank.

Purpose: Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return. Methods: We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank. Results: Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5). Conclusion: PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

COVID-19 Surveillance in the Biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Characterizing the experience and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among various populations remains challenging due to the limitations inherent in common data sources, such as electronic health records (EHRs) or cross-sectional surveys. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe testing behaviors, symptoms, impact, vaccination status, and case ascertainment during the COVID-19 pandemic using integrated data sources. METHODS: In summer 2020 and 2021, we surveyed participants enrolled in the Biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM; N=180,599) about their experience with COVID-19. The prevalence of testing, symptoms, and impacts of COVID-19 on employment, family life, and physical and mental health were calculated overall and by demographic categories. Survey respondents who reported receiving a positive COVID-19 test result were considered a "confirmed case" of COVID-19. Using EHRs, we compared COVID-19 case ascertainment and characteristics in EHRs versus the survey. Positive cases were identified in EHRs using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes, health care encounter types, and encounter primary diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 25,063 (13.9%) survey respondents, 10,661 (42.5%) had been tested for COVID-19, and of those, 1366 (12.8%) tested positive. Nearly half of those tested had symptoms or had been exposed to someone who was infected. Young adults (18-29 years) and Hispanics were more likely to have positive tests compared to older adults and persons of other racial/ethnic groups. Mental health (n=13,688, 54.6%) and family life (n=12,233, 48.8%) were most negatively affected by the pandemic and more so among younger groups and women; negative impacts on employment were more commonly reported among Black respondents. Of the 10,249 individuals who responded to vaccination questions from version 2 of the survey (summer 2021), 9770 (95.3%) had received the vaccine. After integration with EHR data up to the time of the survey completion, 1006 (4%) of the survey respondents had a discordant COVID-19 case status between EHRs and the survey. Using all longitudinal EHR and survey data, we identified 11,472 (6.4%) COVID-19-positive cases among Biobank participants. In comparison to COVID-19 cases identified through the survey, EHR-identified cases were younger and more likely to be Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching and varying effects among our Biobank participants. Integrated data assets, such as the Biobank at the CCPM, are key resources for population health monitoring in response to public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Quality of life and the negative impact of comorbidities in long-term colorectal cancer survivors: a population-based comparison.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the USA. The objective of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) across long-term colorectal cancer survivors and unaffected matched controls while adjusting for comorbidities. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR) was used to randomly select and recruit CRC survivors (≥ 5 years from diagnosis) and matched controls for a cross-sectional survey. Nine geographically diverse sites in the USA from the CCFR participated in the study. Telephone interviews were conducted using computer-assisted methods to assess QoL. RESULTS: A total of 403 cases and 401 controls were included in the final sample. Unadjusted comparison revealed no significant difference between CRC survivors and controls with respect to measures of fatigue, social, emotional, functional, and physical well-being. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that case status had a significant negative influence on colorectal cancer-specific QoL measures. Higher comorbidity indices had a significant negative influence on overall QoL regardless of case status. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life among long-term CRC survivors is similar to control subjects, with the exception of worse CRC-specific QoL measures. Higher comorbidity indices were independently associated with poor QoL for both cases and controls. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors and healthcare providers should be aware that long-term QoL is comparable to the general population; however, there is potential that digestive tract-specific issues may persist.

Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial.

Purpose: American Indian adults have not experienced decreases in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality observed in other races or ethnic groups and their screening rates are low. Decision aids that explain available CRC screening options are one potential strategy to promote screening. The goal of this study was to test the effect of a culturally adapted decision aid on CRC-related outcomes among American Indian adults, including screening-related knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, intentions, and screening modality preferences. Methods: We recruited American Indian adults aged 50-75 years who were not current with CRC screening. Participants viewed a 9-min multimedia decision aid that used narrative vignettes to provide educational information about screening along with messages to address culturally specific barriers and values uncovered in formative research. We conducted a single-arm (pre-post) study and assessed screening-related outcomes at baseline and immediately after viewing the decision aid. Results: Among n=104 participants, knowledge scores increased from a mean of 36% correct to 76% correct. Participants also had statistically significant increases in positive attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and intent. The proportion of participants who identified a preference for a specific CRC screening modality rose from 81% identified at pre-intervention to 93% post-intervention (p=0.013). Conclusion: Our study provides promising new findings that our culturally adapted decision aid is efficacious in educating American Indian adults about CRC screening and increases their screening intentions and ability to state modality preferences. Future research is needed to test the decision aid as a component of CRC screening interventions with American Indian adults.

Poor Knowledge of Personal and Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk and Screening Recommendations Associated with Advanced Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advanced colorectal polyps (adenoma or sessile serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm, adenoma with villous features, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or any sessile serrated polyps with dysplasia) are associated with an increased risk of future advanced colorectal neoplasia and confer an increased risk of advanced neoplasia to first-degree family members. Professional societies therefore recommend more intensive surveillance of these polyps and earlier screening for first-degree relatives. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of personal and familial risk and recommendations among patients with advanced colorectal polyps and identify predictors of knowledge. METHODS: An online survey was designed to assess the domains of knowledge and risk perception regarding personal and familial colorectal cancer risk and screening recommendations. After expert review and pilot testing, the 37-item survey was electronically sent to all patients diagnosed with an advanced colon or rectal polyp under the age of 60. Patient report of polyp findings was compared to documented findings in the medical record. Univariable and multivariable regressions were performed to evaluate predictors of knowledge. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven out of 344 (39.8%) eligible patients responded to the survey. 28.5% of participants reported that the polyp they had removed was precancerous. 54.8% of participants reported that they have a higher risk of CRC, and 65.2% reported that they should be undergoing colonoscopy surveillance in 3 years or less. 40.1% reported that their first-degree family members are at increased CRC risk, and 38.0% reported that first-degree family members should get earlier screening. Participants reported their endoscopists as their top source of information about risk and recommendations, though only 7.3% of endoscopists made recommendations for family members. Female gender and higher income were predictors of accurate knowledge, as endoscopist was the main source of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced colorectal polyps have poor knowledge of personal and familial CRC risk and recommendations. Endoscopists who remove advanced polyps are in an ideal position to educate their patients about their personal risk and the risk and recommendations for first-degree family members.

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics via a health system-wide research biobank: the University of Colorado experience.

In recent years, the genomics community has witnessed the growth of large research biobanks, which collect DNA samples for research purposes. Depending on how and where the samples are genotyped, biobanks also offer the potential opportunity to return actionable genomic results to the clinical setting. We developed a preemptive clinical pharmacogenomic implementation initiative via a health system-wide research biobank at the University of Colorado. Here, we describe how preemptive return of clinical pharmacogenomic results via a research biobank is feasible, particularly when coupled with strong institutional support to maximize the impact and efficiency of biobank resources, a multidisciplinary implementation team, automated clinical decision support tools, and proactive strategies to engage stakeholders early in the clinical decision support tool development process.

The Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) as an Environment for Dissemination and Implementation Research: A Case Study of Developing a Multi-Site Research Study in Precision Medicine.

CONTEXT: In existence for nearly 25 years, the Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) is an established and sustainable network of health care systems that serves as a "real world" laboratory to enable the integration of research findings into practice. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how the HCSRN serves as an ideal environment for studying dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices into health care systems through the example of developing a multi-site study on the implementation of evidence-based precision medicine practices. CASE DESCRIPTION: The "Implementing Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening (IMPULSS)" study (NIH R01CA211723) involves seven HCSRN health care systems and two external health care systems. The IMPULSS study will describe and explain organizational variability around Lynch syndrome (LS) screening to identify which factors in different organizational contexts are important for successful implementation of LS screening programs and will create a toolkit to facilitate organizational decision making around implementation and improvement of precision medicine programs in health care systems. MAJOR THEMES: The strengths of the HCSRN that facilitate D&I research include: 1) a culture of collaboration, 2) standardization of data and processes across systems, and 3) researchers embedded in diverse health care systems. We describe how these strengths contributed to developing the IMPULSS study. CONCLUSION: Given the importance of conducting research in real world settings to improve patient outcomes, the unique strengths of the HCSRN are of vital importance. The IMPULSS study is one case example of how the strengths of the HCSRN make it an excellent environment for research on implementing evidence-based precision medicine practices in health care systems.

Implementing universal Lynch syndrome screening (IMPULSS): protocol for a multi-site study to identify strategies to implement, adapt, and sustain genomic medicine programs in different organizational contexts.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems. METHODS: This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation. DISCUSSION: The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Perspectives of American Indians in Eastern North Carolina on Socio-cultural Factors that Influence Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.

American Indians (AI) have disproportionately high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but there is relatively little research focused on developing AI CRC screening interventions. We held six focus groups with AIs in rural Eastern U.S. (n=74) and analyzed the qualitative data from them in order to identify individual and socio-cultural factors that influence AI CRC screening decisions. Screening fear and anxiety was a central theme of the focus groups. For example, participants told stories about how late-stage cancer diagnoses and deaths in the community contributed to their fears and cancer fatalism. Furthermore, CRC screening fears were reinforced by health communication norms that limited productive conversations about CRC screening. Our findings indicate that culturally adapted interventions, such as CRC screening decision aids, are needed to help AIs communicate and make informed decisions about CRC screening with support from family and health care providers. More research is needed on the influence of these interventions on CRC screening intentions, social norms, and shared decision-making.

Physical and psychological health in rare cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Registries provide a unique tool for tracking quality of life in rare cancer survivors, whose survivorship experience is less known than for common cancers. This paper reports on these outcomes in 321 patients enrolled in the Rare Cancer Genetics Registry diagnosed with rare gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, sarcoma, head/neck, or hematologic cancers. METHODS: Four outcomes were assessed, reflecting registrants' self-reported physical and mental health, psychological distress, and loneliness. Combining all patients into a single analysis, regression was used to evaluate the association between outcomes and socio-demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 0-9); 69 % were no longer in treatment. Poorer physical health was reported in registrants who were older at diagnosis, unmarried, and still in treatment. Poorer mental status was associated with younger diagnosis age and unmarried status. Psychological distress varied by cancer type and was higher among currently treated and unmarried registrants. Greater loneliness was reported in registrants with gynecological cancers, and those who were less educated or unmarried. The physical and mental health profile of rare cancer survivors is similar to what is reported for common cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Unmarried participants reported poorer outcomes on all measures of quality of life. Furthermore, physical and mental health were not significantly different by cancer type after adjustment for diagnosis age, whether currently in treatment and marital status. Thus, the combined analysis performed here is a useful way to analyze outcomes in less common diseases. Our findings could be valuable in guiding evaluation and intervention for issues impacting quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Rare cancer survivors, particularly those without spousal support, should be monitored for challenges to the physical as well as psychological aspects of quality of life.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer following a primary colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study.

Individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at risk of developing a metachronous CRC. We examined the associations between personal, tumour-related and lifestyle risk factors, and risk of metachronous CRC. A total of 7,863 participants with incident colon or rectal cancer who were recruited in the USA, Canada and Australia to the Colon Cancer Family Registry during 1997-2012, except those identified as high-risk, for example, Lynch syndrome, were followed up approximately every 5 years. We estimated the risk of metachronous CRC, defined as the first new primary CRC following an interval of at least one year after the initial CRC diagnosis. Observation time started at the age at diagnosis of the initial CRC and ended at the age at diagnosis of the metachronous CRC, last contact or death whichever occurred earliest, or were censored at the age at diagnosis of any metachronous colorectal adenoma. Cox regression was used to derive hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). During a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, 142 (1.81%) metachronous CRCs were diagnosed (mean age at diagnosis 59.8; incidence 2.7/1,000 person-years). An increased risk of metachronous CRC was associated with the presence of a synchronous CRC (HR = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.30-5.72) and the location of cancer in the proximal colon at initial diagnosis (compared with distal colon or rectum, HR = 4.16; 95% CI: 2.80-6.18). The presence of a synchronous CRC and the location of the initial CRC might be useful for deciding the intensity of surveillance colonoscopy for individuals diagnosed with CRC.

Knowledge and Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Colonoscopic Screening Among Individuals at Increased Risk for Lynch Syndrome and their Endoscopists from the Family Health Promotion Project.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals whose families meet the Amsterdam II clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are recommended to be referred for genetic counseling and to have colonoscopic screening every 1-2 years. To assess the uptake and knowledge of guideline-based genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening in unaffected members of families who meet Amsterdam II criteria and their treating endoscopists. METHODS: Participants in the Family Health Promotion Project who met the Amsterdam II criteria were surveyed regarding their knowledge of risk-appropriate guidelines for genetic counseling and colonoscopy screening. Endoscopy/pathology reports were obtained from patients screened during the study to determine the follow-up recommendations made by their endoscopists. Survey responses were compared using Fisher's Exact and the χ(2) test. Concordance in participant/provider-reported surveillance interval was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of the 165 participants, the majority (98%) agreed that genetics and family history are important predictors of CRC, and 63% had heard of genetic testing for CRC, although only 31% reported being advised to undergo genetic counseling by their doctor, and only 7% had undergone genetic testing. Only 26% of participants reported that they thought they should have colonoscopy every 1-2 years and 30% of endoscopists for these participants recommended 1-2-year follow-up colonoscopy. There was a 65% concordance (weighted kappa 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) between endoscopist recommendations and participant reports regarding screening intervals. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of individuals meeting Amsterdam II criteria in this series have had genetic testing and reported accurate knowledge of risk-appropriate screening, and only a small percentage of their endoscopists provided them with the appropriate screening recommendations. There was moderate concordance between endoscopist recommendations and participant knowledge suggesting that future educational interventions need to target both health-care providers and their patients.

Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk for the disease, yet screening rates still remain low. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, we examined the impact of a personalized, remote risk communication intervention on behavioral intention and colonoscopy uptake in relatives of CRC patients, assessing the original additive model and an alternative model in which each theoretical construct contributes uniquely. METHODS: We collected intention-to-screen and medical record-verified colonoscopy information on 218 individuals who received the personalized intervention. RESULTS: Structural equation modeling showed poor main model fit (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.109; standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.134; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.797; Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 11,601; Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 11,884). However, the alternative model (RMSEA = 0.070; SRMR = 0.105; CFI = 0.918; AIC = 11,186; BIC = 11,498) showed good fit. Cancer susceptibility (B = 0.319, p < 0.001) and colonoscopy self-efficacy (B = 0.364, p < 0.001) perceptions predicted intention to screen, which was significantly associated with colonoscopy uptake (B = 0.539, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide support of the utility of Extended Parallel Process Model for designing effective interventions to motivate CRC screening in persons at increased risk when individual elements of the model are considered. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Efficacy of a Telehealth Intervention on Colonoscopy Uptake When Cost Is a Barrier: The Family CARE Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: We tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE) compared with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers. METHODS: Family members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N = 232) or an educational brochure (N = 249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained nonadherent. Rates of medically verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared on the basis of group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically verified colonoscopy [OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.85-7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.52). CONCLUSIONS: TeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers. IMPACT: Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent.

Colon cancer screening for Colorado's underserved: a community clinic/academic partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable by finding and removing adenomas, but many people have not been screened, especially the uninsured with low income. PURPOSE: To establish a statewide infrastructure to ensure that low-income Coloradans receive colonoscopy for CRC screening and diagnostic evaluation. DESIGN: In 2006, a statewide program to provide free colonoscopy to uninsured Coloradans was developed as a partnership between the University of Colorado Cancer Center and Colorado safety-net clinics. Funded by excise tax revenues, the Colorado Colorectal Screening Program (CCSP) successfully embedded screening into primary care, providing patient navigation support and reimbursement that allowed primary care providers to refer patients for colonoscopy. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: More than 50 safety-net clinics joined the CCSP to provide colonoscopies to uninsured Coloradans with low income, aged ≥50 years or <50 years at elevated risk, lawfully present and needing CRC screening by American Cancer Society consensus guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process and clinical outcomes included people screened, show rates, patient satisfaction, and quality measures, such as adenoma detection rate, bowel cleansing quality, and timeliness of care. Program costs and benefits were estimated. The 2013 analysis was completed using 2006-2012 data on 13,252 of 13,774 people receiving colonoscopy. RESULTS: In 2006-2012, the CCSP screened 13,774 people, with 38% minorities and 39% men. Patient navigators ensured >90% of those referred attended their colonoscopy. Adenomas were removed from 27% of patients and 1% had cancers diagnosed. Total direct medical services cost was $998/person receiving colonoscopy. About 325 fewer future incident CRCs were predicted due to adenoma removal, projecting substantial future cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The CCSP, a successful community clinic/academic partnership provides cost-effective CRC screening and prevention services to low-income uninsured Coloradans and establishes the infrastructure to support screening low-income Coloradans as Affordable Care Act reforms provide payer coverage for them.