Initial Stage of Disease Similar for White and Black Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer at a Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are more likely to present with advanced-stage disease than their Non-Hispanic White (NHW) counterparts. To further elucidate whether differences in tumor biology or disparities in access to care may be responsible, we examined the association between race/ethnicity and initial stage of disease, time to diagnosis, and tumor characteristics among NHW and NHB patients with EOCRC cared for in a safety-net health care setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of NHW and NHB patients diagnosed with primary EOCRC who received care at Boston Medical Center between January 2000 and May 2020. We compared demographics, risk factors, presenting signs/symptoms, time to diagnosis, health care utilization, and tumor characteristics (stage, grade, location, and mutational status). RESULTS: We identified 103 patients (mean age 41.5±7.2 y, 53.4% men), including 40 NHWs and 63 NHBs, with EOCRC. NHB and NHW patients were similar with respect to demographics, presenting signs/symptoms, and risk factor distribution. There were also no significant differences between NHWs and NHBs with respect to the advanced stage of disease at presentation (45.0% vs. 42.9%, P =0.83), the median time to diagnosis [152 d (IQR, 40 to 341) vs. 160 d (IQR, 61 to 312), P =0.79] or tumor characteristics, except for a predilection for proximal disease among NHBs (30.2% vs. 15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: NHB patients were no more likely than NHW patients to present with advanced-stage disease, aggressive tumor histology, or experience delays in diagnosis within a safety-net health care system.

Estimate of Increase in Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses with Expansion of Fecal Immunochemical Testing in an Urban Safety-Net Population.

BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is less effective in detecting advanced adenomas (AA) than colonoscopy. Increase in FIT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening may lead to an increased number of undetected AAs which may develop into future CRCs. AIM: We determined the potential impact of FIT expansion on missed AAs and future CRC diagnoses in an urban, tertiary-care, safety-net hospital. METHODS: CRC and AA diagnoses were identified in patients undergoing colonoscopy for average-risk CRC screening or positive FIT between 2017 and 2019 at Boston Medical Center. Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the frequency of AAs per year by age group using data from 2017 to 2019, assuming average outpatient volume and proportion of screening colonoscopies. Total number of patients who received FIT was extrapolated from those who underwent colonoscopy for positive FIT. We estimated AAs per year if 'one-time' FIT was used for screening in 75% and 100% of the population and subtracted this from the estimated AAs per year under the Poisson model to determine missed AAs. We used previously described, age and gender specific estimates of the annual progression of AA to CRC. RESULTS: The estimated number of CRCs detected per year is 4.6/1785 males and 4.6/2086 females screened. With 75% FIT expansion, we estimate an additional 3.5 (95% CI 1.3, 9.5) and 2.2 (95% CI 0.64, 7.6) CRCs; with 100% FIT expansion, we estimate an additional 7.4 (95% CI 3.7, 14.9) and 4.2 (95% CI 1.7, 10.5) CRCs, in 5 years, in males and females, respectively. CONCLUSION: Expansion of FIT may substantially increase CRC incidence.

Prevalence and Predictors of Young-Onset Colorectal Neoplasia: Insights From a Nationally Representative Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A disturbing increase in early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) has prompted recent guidelines to recommend lowering the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening starting age from 50 to 45 years old for average-risk individuals. Little is known about the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals between 45 and 49 years old, or even younger, in the United States. We analyzed a large, nationally representative data set of almost 3 million outpatient colonoscopies to determine the prevalence of, and risk factors for, colorectal neoplasia among patients aged 18 to 54. METHODS: Findings from high-quality colonoscopies were analyzed from AMSURG ambulatory endoscopy centers (ASCs) that report their results in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) Registry. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for EOCRC. RESULTS: Increasing age, male sex, White race, family history of CRC, and examinations for bleeding or screening were all associated with higher odds of advanced premalignant lesions (APLs) and CRC. Among patients aged 45 to 49, 32% had any neoplasia, 7.5% had APLs, and 0.58% had CRC. Rates were almost as high in those aged 40 to 44. Family history of CRC portended neoplasia rates 5 years earlier. Rates of APLs were higher in American Indian/Alaskan Natives, but lower among Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, compared with White counterparts. The prevalence of any neoplasia and APL gradually increased between 2014 and 2019, in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide support for lowering the screening age to 45 for all average-risk individuals. Early messaging to patients and providers in the years leading up to age 45 is warranted, especially in those with a family history of CRC.

Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risks of missed findings after inadequate bowel preparation are not fully characterized in a diverse cohort. We aimed to evaluate the likelihood of missed polyps after an inadequate preparation as assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). METHODS: In this observational study of prospectively collected data within a large, national, endoscopic consortium, we identified patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent average-risk screening colonoscopy (C1) followed by a second colonoscopy for any indication within 3 years (C2). We determined the polyp detection rates (PDRs) and advanced PDRs during C2 stratified by C1 BBPS scores. RESULTS: Among segment pairs without polyps at C1 (N = 601), those with inadequate C1 BBPS segment scores had a higher PDR at C2 (10%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation at C1 (5%; P = .04). Among segment pairs with polyps at C1 (N = 154), segments with inadequate bowel preparation scores at C1 had higher advanced PDRs at C2 (20%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation scores at C1 (4%; P = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of advanced polyps at C1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.1-10.8) but not inadequate BBPS scores at C1 (adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.1) was associated with a significantly increased risk of advanced polyps at C2. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate BBPS segment scores generally are associated with higher rates of polyps and advanced polyps at subsequent colonoscopy within a short timeframe. The presence of advanced polyps as well as inadequate BBPS segment scores can inform the risk of missed polyps and help triage which patients warrant a timely repeat colonoscopy.

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.

Refining the Patient Navigation Role in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Results From an Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patient navigators help individuals overcome barriers to increase access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and timely treatment. This study, part of a randomized intervention trial investigating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colonoscopy completion, examined navigators' activities to ameliorate barriers to colonoscopy screening in a medically disadvantaged population. METHODS: This study was conducted from 2012 through 2014 at Boston Medical Center. We analyzed navigator service delivery and survey data collected on 420 participants who were navigated for colonoscopy screening after randomization to this intervention. Key variables under investigation included barriers to colonoscopy, activities navigators undertook to reduce barriers, time navigators spent on each activity and per contact, and patient satisfaction with navigation services. Descriptive analysis assessed how navigators spent their time and examined what aspects of patient navigation were most valued by patients. RESULTS: Navigators spent the most time assessing patient barriers/needs; facilitating appointment scheduling; reminding patients of appointments; educating patients about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening, and the colonoscopy preparation and procedures; and arranging transportation. Navigators spent an average of 44 minutes per patient. Patients valued the navigators, especially for providing emotional/peer support and explaining screening procedures and bowel preparation clearly. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help clarify the role of the navigator in colonoscopy screening within a medically disadvantaged community. These findings may help further refine the navigator role in cancer screening and treatment programs as facilities strive to effectively and efficiently integrate navigation into their services.

A Risk Prediction Index for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer screening. Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) might facilitate more effective shared decision making when selecting an appropriate screening option. Our objective was to develop and validate a clinical index for estimating the probability of ACN at screening colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average-risk patients 50-79 years of age undergoing screening colonoscopy at two urban safety net hospitals. Predictors of ACN were identified using multiple logistic regression. Model performance was internally validated using bootstrapping methods. RESULTS: The final index consisted of five independent predictors of risk (age, smoking, alcohol intake, height, and a combined sex/race/ethnicity variable). Smoking was the strongest predictor (net reclassification improvement (NRI), 8.4%) and height the weakest (NRI, 1.5%). Using a simplified weighted scoring system based on 0.5 increments of the adjusted odds ratio, the risk of ACN ranged from 3.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-3.9) for the low-risk group (score ≤2) to 8.6% (95% CI, 7.4-9.7) for the intermediate/high-risk group (score 3-11). The model had moderate to good overall discrimination (C-statistic, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and good calibration (P=0.73-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A simple 5-item risk index based on readily available clinical data accurately stratifies average-risk patients into low- and intermediate/high-risk categories for ACN at screening colonoscopy. Uptake into clinical practice could facilitate more effective shared decision-making for CRC screening, particularly in situations where patient and provider test preferences differ.

Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel cleansing is associated with missed lesions, yet whether polyp and adenoma detection rates (PDR, ADR) increase at the highest levels of bowel cleanliness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between bowel preparation quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and PDR and ADR among colonoscopies with adequate preparation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Boston Medical Center (BMC) and the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI). PATIENTS: Average-risk ambulatory patients attending screening colonoscopy with adequate bowel preparation defined as BBPS score ≥6. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PDR and ADR stratified by BBPS score. RESULTS: Among the 3713 colonoscopies at BMC performed by 19 endoscopists, the PDR, ADR, and advanced ADR were 49.8%, 37.7%, and 6.0%, respectively. Among the 5532 colonoscopies in CORI performed by 85 endoscopists at 41 different sites, the PDR was 44.5%, and the PDR for polyps >9 mm (surrogate for advanced ADR) was 6.2%. The PDR associated with total BBPS scores of 6, 7, and 8 were higher than those associated with a BBPS score of 9 at BMC (BBPS 6, 51%; BBPS 7, 53%; BBPS 8, 52% vs BBPS 9, 46%; P = .002) and CORI (BBPS 6, 51%; BBPS 7, 48%; BBPS 8, 45% vs BBPS 9, 40%; P < .0001). This trend persisted after we adjusted for age, sex, and race and/or ethnicity and was observed for ADR and advanced ADR. PDR was higher among good compared with excellent preparations at BMC (odds ratio [OR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5) and CORI (OR 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: The PDR and ADR decreased at the highest levels of bowel cleanliness. Endoscopists finding a pristine bowel preparation should avoid a sense of overconfidence for polyp detection during the inspection phase of screening colonoscopy and still perform a careful evaluation for polyps. Furthermore, endoscopists expending additional effort to maximize cleansing of the bowel should never sacrifice on their inspection technique or inspection time.

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences. OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM. DESIGN: Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution. MAIN MEASURES: Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool. KEY RESULTS: Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

Epidemiology of goblet cell and microvesicular hyperplastic polyps.

OBJECTIVES: Serrated polyps compromise both typical hyperplastic polyps as well as sessile serrated adenomas and dysplastic serrated polyps. Hyperplastic polyps exhibit two histological patterns: microvesicular hyperplastic polyps (MVHPs) and goblet cell hyperplastic polyps (GCHPs). MVHPs and GCHPs differ in their molecular signature. MVHPs have been frequently found to have the BRAF(V600E) mutation as well as aberrant methylation. In contrast, GCHPs have been associated with the KRAS mutation (KRAS-mut), which are infrequently seen in dysplastic serrated sessile adenomas. The particular risk factors that are associated with development of the types of hyperplastic polyps have not been previously studied. The purpose of this study is to characterize the associations between particular risk factors and the development of goblet cell or microvesicular hyperplastic polyps. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,543 asymptomatic, mostly average risk patients 50 and 79 years of age undergoing open-access screening colonoscopy between March 2005 and January 2012. Each patient was given a survey regarding 25 reputed risk factors for colorectal neoplasia and the responses were correlated with findings at colonoscopy. Associations between putative risk factors for colorectal neoplasia and MVHPs and GSHPs were examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: MVHPS and GCHPs were identified in 5.3% and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that a history of smoking greater than 20 years is associated with an increased risk of MVHPs (P<0.005) and GCHPs (P<0.005). An elevated BMI >30 kg/m(2) was also associated with the presence of MVHP at colonoscopy (P<0.005). Blacks and Asians appear to be protected from the development of MVHPs. In contrast, there was a positive association with the presence of GCHP at colonoscopy in blacks. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the development of the distinct histological types of hyperplastic polyps are associated with distinct modifiable and non-modifiable lifestyle factors.

Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a threshold of bowel cleanliness below which colonoscopies should be repeated at accelerated intervals is important, yet there are no standardized definitions for an adequate preparation. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores could serve as a standard definition of adequacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational analysis of colonoscopy data from 36 adult GI endoscopy practices and prospective survey showing 4 standardized colonoscopy videos with varying degrees of bowel cleanliness. SETTING: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients attending screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Recommended follow-up intervals among average-risk, screening colonoscopies without polyps stratified by BBPS scores. RESULTS: We evaluated 2516 negative screening colonoscopies performed by 74 endoscopists. If the BBPS score was ≥2 in all 3 segments (N = 2295), follow-up was recommended in 10 years in 90% of cases. Examinations with total BBPS scores of 3 to 5 (N = 167) had variable recommendations. Follow-up within 1 year was recommended for 96% of examinations with total BBPS scores of 0 to 2 (N = 26). Similar results were noted among 167 participants in a video survey with pre-established BBPS scores. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: BBPS scores correlate with endoscopist behavior regarding follow-up intervals for colonoscopy. A total BBPS score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2 provides a standardized definition of adequate for 10-year follow-up, whereas total scores ≤2 indicate that a procedure should be repeated within 1 year. Future work should focus on finding consensus for management of examinations with total scores of 3 to 5.

Validity of a Web-based educational program to disseminate a standardized bowel preparation rating scale.

GOALS: Our goal was to assess the validity of a Web-based educational program on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). BACKGROUND: Data on Web-based education for improving the practice and quality of colonoscopy are limited. STUDY: Endoscopists worldwide participated in the BBPS Educational Program. We assessed program completion rates, satisfaction, short-term (0 to 90 d) and long-term (91 to 180 d) uptake of the BBPS, and the validity of the program by measuring the reliability of the BBPS among participants. RESULTS: A total of 207 endoscopists completed the program. Overall, 93% found the content relevant, 89% felt confident in using the BBPS, and 97% thought the quality was good or excellent. Uptake of the BBPS into clinical practice was robust with 91% and 98% of colonoscopy reports containing the BBPS at short-term and long-term follow-up, respectively. The interobserver and test-retest reliability of BBPS segment and total scores were both substantial. CONCLUSIONS: A BBPS Web-based educational program facilitates adoption into clinical practice and teaches the BBPS to be used reliably by a diverse group of endoscopists worldwide.

Whites and blacks have similar risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for surveillance of colonic neoplasia are based on data from predominantly white populations, yet whether these recommendations are applicable to blacks is unknown. AIM: To define the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among whites and blacks undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of asymptomatic, average-risk non-Hispanic white (N = 246) and non-Hispanic black (N = 203) patients with colorectal neoplasia who underwent baseline screening colonoscopy between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007, and a surveillance colonoscopy before December 31, 2010, at an academic safety-net hospital. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma or sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) ≥ 10 mm, any adenoma with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, any serrated lesion with dysplasia, or invasive cancer at surveillance. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, the overall prevalence of ACN at surveillance was similar among blacks and whites (11.3 vs. 9.8 %; P = 0.59) with an odds ratio of 1.18 (95 % CI 0.65-2.16) [corrected]. Blacks and whites with non-advanced neoplasia had similar rates of ACN at the 1-3, 4-5, and >5 year follow-up intervals. Blacks with ACN or multiplicity at baseline had higher rates of ACN at the 1- to 3-year interval compared with whites, but the difference was non-significant (26.7 vs. 12.5 %; P = 0.32). No interval cancers were observed for either group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of ACN was similar between non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites undergoing surveillance in a safety-net healthcare setting suggesting that current surveillance guidelines are appropriate for both blacks and whites.

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. MAIN OUTCOMES: Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. CONCLUSION: Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.

Prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in white and black patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in a safety-net hospital.

UNLABELLED: Chinese translation BACKGROUND: Black persons are more likely than white persons to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and to die from it. The extent to which genetic or biological factors versus disparities in screening rates explain this variance remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To define the prevalence and location of presymptomatic advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among white and black persons undergoing screening colonoscopy, controlling for other epidemiologic risk factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey between 22 March 2005 and 31 January 2012. SETTING: Urban, open-access, academic, safety-net hospital in Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Asymptomatic, average-risk white (n = 1172) and black (n = 1681) persons aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: Adjusted prevalence and location of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma 10 mm or more in size, any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, any dysplastic serrated lesion, or invasive cancer. RESULTS: The prevalence of ACN was higher among white patients than black patients (6.8% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.039) but varied by sex (white vs. black men, 9.3% vs. 5.7%; white vs. black women, 3.5% vs. 4.3%; interaction P = 0.034). After controlling for many risk factors, black men were 41% less likely than white men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89]) to have ACN. No statistically significant difference was seen for women (AOR, 1.32 [CI, 0.73 to 2.40]). Black patients with ACN had a higher percentage of proximal disease (52% vs. 39%) after adjustment for age and sex (P = 0.055). LIMITATION: Single-institution study with inadequate statistical power for subgroup analyses and recall bias. CONCLUSION: Black men are less likely than white men to have ACN at screening colonoscopy in a safety-net health care setting. Disparities in access to screening and differential exposure to modifiable risk factors rather than genetic or biological factors may be largely responsible for the higher incidence of CRC among black men. Genetic or biological factors may explain the predilection for proximal disease.

Performance of a risk index for advanced proximal colorectal neoplasia among a racially/ethnically diverse patient population (risk index for advanced proximal neoplasia).

OBJECTIVES: Tailoring the use of screening colonoscopy based on the risk of advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) has been advocated as a strategy for reducing demand and optimizing effectiveness. A 7-point index based on age, sex, and distal findings at sigmoidoscopy has been proposed that stratifies individuals into low, intermediate, and high-risk categories. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis was to determine the validity of this index, which was originally derived and validated among mostly whites, for black and Hispanic patients. METHODS: Data, including age, sex, colonoscopic findings, and pathology, were collected retrospectively from 1,481 white, 1,329 black, and 689 Hispanic asymptomatic, average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy between 2000 and 2005. Cumulative scores ranging from 0 to 7 were derived for each subject and categorized as low, intermediate, or high risk. Rates of APN were assessed for each risk category after stratification by race/ethnicity. Index performance was assessed using the C-statistic and compared across the three racial groups. RESULTS: Rates of APN among patients categorized as low, intermediate, or high risk increased from 1.0 to 2.8 to 3.7% for whites, 1.0 to 2.2 to 4.2% for blacks, and 0.6 to 1.9 to 3.7% for Hispanics. The index performed similarly for all three groups, but showed limited ability to discriminate low from intermediate-risk patients, with C-statistic values of 0.62 for whites, 0.63 for blacks, and 0.68 for Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: A risk index based on age, sex, and distal endoscopic findings has limited ability to discriminate low from intermediate-risk white, black, and Hispanic patients for APN.

A pilot study of motivational interviewing training in a virtual world.

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based, patient-centered counseling strategy proven to support patients seeking health behavior change. Yet the time and travel commitment for MI training is often a barrier to the adoption of MI by health care professionals. Virtual worlds such as Second Life (SL) are rapidly becoming part of the educational technology landscape and offer not only the potential to improve access to MI training but also to deepen the MI training experience through the use of immersive online environments. Despite SL's potential for medical education applications, little work is published studying its use for this purpose and still less is known of educational outcomes for physician training in MI using a virtual-world platform. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to (1) explore the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a virtual-world platform for delivering MI training designed for physicians and (2) pilot test instructional designs using SL for MI training. METHODS: We designed and pilot tested an MI training program in the SL virtual world. We trained and enrolled 13 primary care physicians in a two-session, interactive program in SL on the use of MI for counseling patients about colorectal cancer screening. We measured self-reported changes in confidence and clinical practice patterns for counseling on colorectal cancer screening, and acceptability of the virtual-world learning environment and the MI instructional design. Effectiveness of the MI training was assessed by coding and scoring tape-recorded interviews with a blinded mock patient conducted pre- and post-training. RESULTS: A total of 13 physicians completed the training. Acceptability ratings for the MI training ranged from 4.1 to 4.7 on a 5-point scale. The SL learning environment was also highly rated, with 77% (n = 10) of the doctors reporting SL to be an effective educational medium. Learners' confidence and clinical practice patterns for colorectal cancer screening improved after training. Pre- to post-training mean confidence scores for the ability to elicit and address barriers to colorectal cancer screening (4.5 to 6.2, P = .004) and knowledge of decision-making psychology (4.5 to 5.7, P = .02) and behavior change psychology (4.9 to 6.2, P = .02) increased significantly. Global MI skills scores increased significantly and component scores for the MI skills also increased, with statistically significant improvements in 4 of the 5 component skills: empathy (3.12 to 3.85, P = .001), autonomy (3.07 to 3.85, P < .001), collaboration (2.88 to 3.46, P = .02), and evocative response (2.80 to 3.61, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study suggest that virtual worlds offer the potential for a new medical education pedagogy that will enhance learning outcomes for patient-centered communication skills training.

The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Primary care clinicians initiate and oversee colorectal screening for their patients, but colonoscopy, a central component of screening programs, is usually performed by consultants. The accuracy and safety of colonoscopy varies among endoscopists, even those with mainstream training and certification. Therefore, it is a primary care responsibility to choose the best available colonoscopy services. A working group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable identified a set of indicators that primary care clinicians can use to assess the quality of colonoscopy services. Quality measures are of actual performance, not training, specialty, or experience alone. The main elements of quality are a complete report, technical competence, and a safe setting for the procedure. We provide explicit criteria that primary care physicians can use when choosing a colonoscopist. Information on quality indicators will be increasingly available with quality improvement efforts within the colonoscopy community and growth in the use of electronic medical records.