Barriers to Follow-up Colonoscopies for Patients With Positive Results From Fecal Immunochemical Tests During Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer is common yet largely preventable. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a highly recommended screening method, but patients with positive results must receive a follow-up colonoscopy to determine if they have precancerous or cancerous lesions. We characterized colonoscopic follow-up evaluations and reasons for lack of follow-up in a Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients 50 to 75 years old with a positive FIT result from January 1, 2014, through May 31, 2016, in a network of 12 VAs sites in southern California. We determined the proportion of patients who received a follow-up colonoscopy, median time to colonoscopy, and colonoscopy findings. For patients who did not undergo colonoscopy, we determined the documented reason for lack of colonoscopy and factors associated with declining the colonoscopy examination. RESULTS: Of the 10,635 FITs performed, 916 (8.6%) produced positive results; 569 of these (62.1%) were followed by colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy after a positive FIT result was 83 days (interquartile range, 54-145 d), which did not vary between veterans who received a colonoscopy at a VA facility (81 d; interquartile range, 52-143 d) vs a non-VA site (87 d; interquartile range, 60-154 d) (P = .2). For the 347 veterans (37.9%) who did not undergo follow-up colonoscopy, the reasons were patient-related (49.3%), provider-related (16.4%), system-related (12.1%), or multifactorial (22.2%). Overall, patient decline of colonoscopy (35.2%) was the most common reason. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of veterans with positive results from FITs during CRC screening, reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy varied and included patient, provider, and system factors. These findings can be used to reduce barriers to follow-up colonoscopy and to address system-level challenges in scheduling and attrition for colonoscopy.

A multicenter evaluation of a new EUS core biopsy needle: Experience in 200 patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We present a multicenter study of a new endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA). The aim of the study was to analyze the needle's clinical performance when sampling solid lesions and to assess the safety of this device. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study of patients undergoing EUS-FNB during July 1-November 15, 2016. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (121 males and 79 females) underwent EUS-FNB of solid lesions with the Acquire needle. Lesions included solid pancreatic masses (n = 109), adenopathy (n = 45), submucosal lesions (n = 34), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 8), liver lesions (n = 6), and other (n = 8). Mean lesion size was 30.6 mm (range: 3-100 mm). The mean number of passes per target lesion was 3 (range: 1-7). Rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) by a cytologist was performed in all cases. Tissue obtained by EUS-FNB was adequate for evaluation and diagnosis by ROSE in 197/200 cases (98.5%). Data regarding the presence or absence of a core of tissue obtained after EUS-FNB were available in 145/200 procedures. In 131/145 (90%) of cases, a core of tissue was obtained. Thirteen out of 200 patients (6.5%) underwent some form of repeat EUS-based tissue acquisition after EUS-FNB with the Acquire needle. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: Overall, this study showed a high rate of tissue adequacy and production of a tissue core with this device with no adverse events seen in 200 patients. Comparative studies of different FNB needles are warranted in the future to help identify which needle type and size is ideal in different clinical settings.