Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). DESIGN: Clustered stepped-wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps." INTERVENTION: Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. MAIN MEASURES: Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps." CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04585919.

A descriptive study of policy and system-level interventions to address cancer survivorship issues across six United States health systems.

PURPOSE: To describe policy and system-level interventions with potential to improve cancer care at six sites. METHODS: In 2016, six institutions received foundation support to develop unique multi-component interventions aimed at improving cancer care for underserved populations. These organizations, located across the United States, participated in a cross-site evaluation to assess the overall initiative impact and to identify potentially promising policy and system-level solutions for dissemination and broader implementation. A health system and policy tracking tool was developed to collect data from each site and included a description of their efforts, strategies employed, and changes achieved (e.g., new policies, clinical protocols). Tracking tool data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analyses and a matrix approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with site leaders (N = 65) and were analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sites reported 20 system and policy efforts, which resulted in improvements to electronic health records and telehealth strategies, changes to hospital/health system policies, and standardized clinical protocols/guidelines, among others. Efforts were aimed at: (1) coordinating care across multiple providers, supported by patient navigators; (2) expanding psychosocial and supportive care; (3) improving patient-provider communication; and (4) addressing barriers to accessing care. Interview analyses provided insights into successful strategies, challenges, and implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment, cancer care remains inequitable. System-level improvements aimed at eliminating common barriers faced by underserved populations offer opportunities to improve the delivery of equitable, effective, and efficient care.

Cytisine Versus Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.

INTRODUCTION: A smoking-cessation program was implemented as a randomized non-inferiority trial in primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia to investigate whether a standard 4-week treatment with cytisine was at least as effective and feasible as a standard 12-week treatment with varenicline in helping smokers quit. AIMS AND METHODS: Out of 982 surveyed smokers, 377 were recruited to the non-inferiority trial: 186 were randomly assigned to cytisine and 191 to varenicline treatment. The primary cessation outcome was 7-day abstinence after 24 weeks, while the primary feasibility outcome was defined by adherence to the treatment plan. We also compared the rates of adverse events between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: The cessation rate after 24 weeks was 32.46% (62/191) in the varenicline group and 23.12% (43/186) in the cytisine group (odds ratio [OR]: 95%, credible interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.98). Of 191 participants assigned to varenicline treatment 59.16% (113) were adherent, while 70.43% (131 of 186) were adherent in the cytisine group (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.56). Participants assigned to cytisine experienced fewer total (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) and fewer severe or more extreme adverse events (IRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized non-inferiority trial (n = 377) found the standard 4-week cytisine treatment to be less effective than the standard 12-week varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. However, adherence to the treatment plan, ie, feasibility, was higher, and the rate of adverse events was lower among participants assigned to cytisine treatment. IMPLICATIONS: The present study found the standard 12 weeks of varenicline treatment to be more effective than the standard 4 weeks of cytisine treatment for smoking cessation in a primary care setting in Croatia and Slovenia. Participants assigned to cytisine, however, had a higher adherence to the treatment plan and a lower rate of adverse events. Estimates from the present study may be especially suitable for generalizations to high-smoking prevalence populations in Europe. Given the much lower cost of cytisine treatment, its lower rate of adverse events, and higher feasibility (but its likely lower effectiveness with the standard dosage regimen), future analyses should assess the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for health policy considerations.

Reaching Populations to Address Disparities in Cancer Care Delivery: Results From a Six-Site Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Large segments of the US population do not receive quality cancer care due to pervasive and systemic inequities, which can increase morbidity and mortality. Multicomponent, multilevel interventions can address inequities and improve care, but only if they reach communities with suboptimal access. Intervention studies often underenroll individuals from historically excluded groups. METHODS: The Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care includes 6 grantees across the United States who implemented unique multicomponent, multilevel intervention programs with common goals of reducing disparities, increasing engagement, and improving the quality of care for targeted populations. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework informed the evaluation efforts across sites. Each Alliance site identified their intended populations, which included underrepresented minorities (eg, Black and Latinx persons), individuals who prefer a language other than English, and rural residents. We evaluated the demographic characteristics of participants to determine program reach. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, a total of 2,390 of 5,309 potentially eligible participants were enrolled across the 6 sites. The proportion of enrolled individuals with selected characteristics included 38% (n=908) Black adults, 24% (n=574) Latinx adults, 19% (n=454) preferring a language other than English, and 30% (n=717) rural residents. The proportion of those enrolled who were the intended population was commensurate to the proportion with desired characteristics in those identified as potentially eligible. CONCLUSIONS: The grantees met or exceeded enrollments from their intended populations who have been underserved by quality cancer care into patient-centered intervention programs. Intentional application of recruitment/engagement strategies is needed to reach individuals from historically underserved communities.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention.

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 3.2022.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years following diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised guidance on alternative chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced age and/or comorbidities, a new algorithm for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma based on developing research and novel therapeutic agents, and updated language regarding tumor molecular analysis applications in ovarian cancer.

Implementing patient navigation programs: Considerations and lessons learned from the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Six multidisciplinary cancer centers were selected and funded by the Merck Foundation (2017-2021) to collaborate in the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care ("Alliance"), an initiative to improve patient access, minimize health disparities, and enhance the quality of patient-centered cancer care. These sites share their insights on implementation and expansion of their patient navigation efforts. METHODS: Patient navigation represents an evidence-based health care intervention designed to enhance patient-centered care and care coordination. Investigators at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers outline their approaches to reducing health care disparities and synthesize their efforts to ensure sustainability and successful transferability in the management of patients with cancer and their families in real-world health care settings. RESULTS: Insights are outlined within the context of patient navigation program effectiveness and supported by examples from Alliance cancer center sites: 1) understand the patient populations, particularly underserved and high-risk patients; 2) capitalize on the existing infrastructure and institutional commitment to support and sustain patient navigation; and 3) build capacity by mobilizing community support outside of the cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: This process-level article reflects the importance of collaboration and the usefulness of partnering with other cancer centers to share interdisciplinary insights while undergoing intervention development, implementation, and expansion. These collective insights may be useful to staff at other cancer centers that look to implement, enhance, or evaluate the effectiveness of their patient navigation interventions.

Patient navigation to promote lung cancer screening in a community health center for people experiencing homelessness: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major cause of death among people experiencing homelessness, with mortality rates more than double those in the general population. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could reduce lung cancer deaths in this population, although the circumstances of homelessness present multiple barriers to LCS LDCT completion. Patient navigation is a promising strategy for overcoming these barriers. METHODS: The Investigating Navigation to Help Advance Lung Equity (INHALE) Study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient navigation for LCS among individuals receiving primary care at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP). Three hundred BHCHP patients who meet Medicare/Medicaid criteria for LCS will be randomized 2:1 to usual care with (n = 200) or without (n = 100) LCS navigation. Following a structured, theory-based protocol, the patient navigator assists with each step in the LCS process, providing lung cancer education, facilitating shared decision-making visits with primary care providers (PCPs), assisting in making and attending LCS LDCT appointments, arranging follow-up when needed, and offering tobacco cessation support for smokers. The primary outcome is receipt of LCS LDCT at 6 months. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, qualitative interviews with participants and PCPs will aid in interpreting and contextualizing the trial results. DISCUSSION: This trial will produce the first experimental evidence on patient navigation for cancer screening in a homeless health care setting. Results could inform cancer health equity efforts at the 299 Health Care for the Homeless programs that serve over 900,000 patients annually in the US.

Multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS): Protocol for a multilevel intervention to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results.

INTRODUCTION: While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests. RESULTS: The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.

Timeliness of Surveillance Colonoscopy in Underserved Populations: Association with Patient Navigation for Initial Screening Colonoscopy.

Patient navigation (PN) improves initial colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. Whether the impact persists and improves the timeliness of follow-up screening colonoscopy (FSC) is not known. Patients receiving PN at initial colonoscopy between 2010-2011 with findings requiring FSC were matched to unnavigated patients requiring FSC. The primary outcome was proportion of patients with timely FSC, defined as colonoscopy within six months of recommendation. Of 216 patients in the study 103 (48%) completed FSC: 33 of 62 (53%) who received PN compared with 70 of 154 (45%) in the control group (p=.30). After adjusting for insurance, education, language and visits, navigated patients had higher odds (AOR=1.53, 95% CI 0.80-2.92) of timely FSC completion compared with unnavigated patients. Timely FSC completion in underserved patients is low. Patients navigated for initial colonoscopy or not had similar rates of FSC completion. Future studies should investigate navigation for FSC to improve equity in CRC.

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.

BACKGROUND: Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. RESULTS: We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. LAY SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Navigation for Patients with Mental Illness and/or Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. METHODS: A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (n = 126) or usual care (n = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups. RESULTS: Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016P001322.

Health Care Use by Muslim Patients During Ramadan.

PURPOSE: Health care utilization during Ramadan has not been examined in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective review of billing and electronic health record data for Muslims (n = 2,919) and non-Muslims (n = 184,803) in primary care practices in Eastern Massachusetts. RESULTS: Muslim patients were younger, less educated, less often commercially insured, more likely to have Medicare, and less likely to be primary English speakers (p < .0001 for all comparisons). In multivariate models, during Ramadan, Muslims, compared with non-Muslims, had a higher rate of primary care visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.11), emergency department visits (IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.34-1.91), and hospitalizations (IRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Important demographic differences exist between Muslim and non-Muslim patients. Muslims, compared with non-Muslims, had higher health care utilization during Ramadan.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2019.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years from diagnosis. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. The best outcomes are observed in patients whose primary treatment includes complete resection of all visible disease plus combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Research efforts are focused on primary neoadjuvant treatments that may improve resectability, as well as systemic therapies providing improved long-term survival. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommendations, including the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the role of PARP inhibitors and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy options in select patients who have completed primary chemotherapy.

Long-Term Impact of a Culturally Tailored Patient Navigation Program on Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening in Refugee Women After the Program's End.

Purpose: To examine the long-term effects of a patient navigation (PN) program for mammography screening tailored to refugee women and to assess screening utilization among these women after PN ended. Methods: We assessed the proportion of patients completing mammography screening during the prior 2 years during 2012-2016 for refugee women who had previously received PN compared with that of English-speaking women cared for at the same health center during the same period, both overall and stratifying by age. We used logistic regression to compare screening completion between refugees and English speakers, adjusting for age, race, insurance status, number of clinic visits, and clustering by primary care physician and to test trends in screening over time. Results: In 2012, the year when the funding for PN ceased, among 126 refugee women eligible for breast cancer screening, mammography screening rates were significantly higher among refugees (90.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.5-94.7%) than among English speakers (81.9%, 95% CI: 76.2-86.5%, p=0.006). By 2016, screening rates decreased among refugee women (76.5%, 95% CI: 61.6-86.9%, p=0.023) but were not statistically significantly different from those among English-speaking women (80.5%, 95% CI: 74.4-85.3%, p=0.460). Screening prevalence for refugee women remained above the pre-PN program screening levels, and considerably so in women <50 years. Conclusion: The culturally and language-tailored PN program for refugee women appeared to have persistent effects, with refugee women maintaining similar levels of mammography screening to English-speaking patients 5 years after the PN program's end.