Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Screening Beyond the Evidence: Patterns of Age and Comorbidity for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide continuation of screening beyond the recommended ages of national guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, although increasing age and comorbidity burden is likely to reduce the screening benefit of lower mortality. OBJECTIVE: Characterize screening after recommended stopping ages, by age and comorbidities in a large, diverse sample. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals in the PROSPR-I consortium cohorts from 75 to 89 years of age for breast cancer screening, 66-89 years of age for cervical cancer screening, and 76-89 years of age for colorectal cancer screening from 2011 to 2013. The lower age thresholds were based on the guidelines for each respective cancer type. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of annual screening by cancer type in relation to age and Charlson comorbidity score and median years of screening past guideline age. We estimated the likelihood of screening past the guideline-based age as a function of age and comorbidity using logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: The study cohorts included individuals screening for breast (n = 33,475); cervical (n = 459,318); and colorectal (n = 556,356) cancers. In the year following aging out, approximately 30% of the population was screened for breast cancer, 2% of the population was screened for cervical, and almost 5% for colorectal cancer. The median number of years screened past the guideline-based recommendation was 5, 3, and 4 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Of those screening > 10 years past the guideline-based age,15%, 46%, and 25% had ≥ 3 comorbidities respectively. Colorectal cancer screening had the smallest decline in the likelihood of screening beyond the age-based recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of screening past guideline-based age decreased with comorbidity burden for breast and cervical cancer screening but not for colorectal. These findings suggest the need to evaluate shared decision tools to help patients understand whether screening is appropriate and to generate more evidence in older populations.

Patterns of Care Following a Positive Fecal Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.

Place of care in the last three years of life for Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Most older adults prefer aging in place; however, patients with advanced illness often need institutional care. Understanding place of care trajectory patterns may inform patient-centered care planning and health policy decisions. The purpose of this study was to characterize place of care trajectories during the last three years of life. METHODS: Linked administrative, claims, and assessment data were analyzed for a 10% random sample cohort of US Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2018, aged fifty or older, and continuously enrolled in Medicare during their last five years of life. A group-based trajectory modeling approach was used to classify beneficiaries based on the proportion of days of institutional care (hospital inpatient or skilled nursing facility) and skilled home care (home health care and home hospice) used in each quarter of the last three years of life. Associations between group membership and sociodemographic and clinical predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 199,828 Medicare beneficiaries. Nine place of care trajectory groups were identified, which were categorized into three clusters: home, skilled home care, and institutional care. Over half (59%) of the beneficiaries were in the home cluster, spending their last three years mostly at home, with skilled home care and institutional care use concentrated in the final quarter of life. One-quarter (27%) of beneficiaries were in the skilled home care cluster, with heavy use of skilled home health care and home hospice; the remaining 14% were in the institutional cluster, with heavy use of nursing home and inpatient care. Factors associated with both the skilled home care and institutional care clusters were female sex, Black race, a diagnosis of dementia, and Medicaid insurance. Extended use of skilled home care was more prevalent in southern states, and extended institutional care was more prevalent in midwestern states. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified distinct patterns of place of care trajectories that varied in the timing and duration of institutional and skilled home care use during the last three years of life. Clinical, socioregional, and health policy factors influenced where patients received care. Our findings can help to inform personal and societal care planning.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Fecal Immunochemical Testing, Colonoscopy Services, and Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in a Large United States Community-based Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical services globally, including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic testing. We investigated the pandemic's impact on fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening, colonoscopy utilization, and colorectal neoplasia detection across 21 medical centers in a large integrated health care organization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients ages 18 to 89 years in 2019 and 2020 and measured changes in the numbers of mailed, completed, and positive FITs; colonoscopies; and cases of colorectal neoplasia detected by colonoscopy in 2020 vs 2019. RESULTS: FIT kit mailings ceased in mid-March through April 2020 but then rebounded and there was an 8.7% increase in kits mailed compared with 2019. With the later mailing of FIT kits, there were 9.0% fewer FITs completed and 10.1% fewer positive tests in 2020 vs 2019. Colonoscopy volumes declined 79.4% in April 2020 compared with April 2019 but recovered to near pre-pandemic volumes in September through December, resulting in a 26.9% decline in total colonoscopies performed in 2020. The number of patients diagnosed by colonoscopy with CRC and advanced adenoma declined by 8.7% and 26.9%, respectively, in 2020 vs 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to fewer FIT screenings and colonoscopies in 2020 vs 2019; however, after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, FIT screenings exceeded, and colonoscopy volumes nearly reached numbers from those same months in 2019. Overall, there was an 8.7% reduction in CRC cases diagnosed by colonoscopy in 2020. These data may help inform the development of strategies for CRC screening and diagnostic testing during future national emergencies.

Association of US County-Level Eviction Rates and All-Cause Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Housing instability is a key social determinant of health and has been linked to adverse short- and long-term health. Eviction reflects a severe form of housing instability and disproportionately affects minority and women residents in the USA; however, its relationship with mortality has not previously been described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the independent association of county-level eviction rates with all-cause mortality in the USA after adjustment for county demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-six US counties with available 2016 county-level eviction and mortality data. EXPOSURE: 2016 US county-level eviction rate. OUTCOME: 2016 US county-level age-adjusted all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Among 686 counties (66.1 million residents, 50.5% [49.7-51.2] women, 2% [0.5-11.1] Black race) with available eviction and mortality data in 2016, we observed a significant and graded relationship between county-level eviction rate and all-cause mortality. Counties in the highest eviction tertile demonstrated a greater proportion of residents of Black race and women and a higher prevalence of poverty and comorbid health conditions. After adjustment for county-level sociodemographic traits and prevalent comorbid health conditions, age-adjusted all-cause mortality was highest among counties in the highest eviction tertile (Tertile 3 vs 1 (per 100,000 people) 33.57: 95% CI: 10.5-56.6 p=.004). Consistent results were observed in continuous analysis of eviction, with all-cause mortality increasing by 9.32 deaths per 100,000 people (4.77, 13.89, p<.0001) for every 1% increase in eviction rates. Significant interaction in the relationship between eviction and all-cause mortality was observed by the proportion of Black and women residents. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional analysis, county-level eviction rates were significantly associated with all-cause mortality with the strongest effects observed among counties with the highest proportion of Black and women residents. State and federal protections from evictions may help to reduce the health consequences of housing instability and address disparities in health outcomes.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Regional Safety-Net Health System over a 10-Year Period: Lessons for Population Health.

BACKGROUND: Despite national policy efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, rates in vulnerable populations remain suboptimal. Many types of interventions have been employed, but their impact on improving population-level rates of CRC screening over time is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of 10 years of different in-reach and outreach strategies to improve CRC screening and identify factors associated with being screen up-to-date (SUTD). DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-74 years from 12 community-based primary care clinics in an integrated, regional safety-net health system. INTERVENTIONS: Multiple system-level interventions were implemented over time (visit-based electronic health record [EHR] reminders, quality measurement, annual preventive service letters, and mailed fecal immunohistochemical stool tests [FIT]). MAIN MEASURES: CRC SUTD rates by calendar year among those with a primary care (PC) visit in the prior 1 and 3 years and their multivariable correlates. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 31,786-40,405 patients/year. In 2011, mean age was 58.9, 63.9% were women, 37.0% were Hispanic, 39.3% Black, 16.8% White, and 6.6% Asian/Other, and 60.5% were uninsured/Medicaid. Three-quarters of patients had ≥ 1 PC visit in the prior year. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, annual prevention letters) had limited impact on SUTD rates (2-3% rise). Implementing system-wide mailed FIT increased rates from 51.2 to 61.9% among those with a PC visit in the past year (40.5 to 46.8% with a PC visit ≤ 3 years). Stopping mailed FIT due to COVID wiped out these gains. Higher screening rates were associated with the following: older age; female; more comorbidities, PC clinic visits, and prior FITs; and better insurance coverage. Hispanics had the highest SUTD rates followed by Asians, Blacks, and Whites (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a system-wide mailed FIT program had the greatest impact on SUTD rates. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, and patient letters) had limited effects.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Association of medical tests use with care continuity in primary care service: evidence from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care (CoC) is an important component of health care delivery that can have cost implications and improve patient outcomes. We analysed data obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine the relationship between CoC and use of image-oriented diagnostic tests in patients with comorbid chronic conditions. METHODS: A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study involving participants ≥18 years old, with comorbid diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We used a multivariate linear regression model to test whether greater care continuity, measured using a care continuity index (CCI), is associated with less frequent use of diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Total of 267,442 patients and 8,142,036 tests were included. Of the diagnostic tests we chose to evaluate, the 4 most frequently ordered tests were X-ray (45.6%), electrocardiogram (EKG, 16.8%), computerized tomography (CT, 13.4%), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, 3.4%). Overall, greater CCI was associated with fewer use of tests (P < 0.001). A 1 standard deviation (SD, 0.27) increase in CCI was associated with 4.2% decrease (P < 0.001) in number of tests. But a mixed pattern existed. For X-ray and EKG, greater continuity was associated with less testing, 6.2% (P < 0.001) and 3.3% (P < 0.05) reductions, respectively. Whereas, for CT and MRI, greater continuity was associated with more testing, 2.3% (P < 0.001) and 1.4% increases (P < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, greater CoC was associated with fewer use of tests, representing a greater presumed efficiency of care. This has implications for designing health care delivery.

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Stenting to Medical Therapy Among Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: No completed trials have compared carotid artery stenting (CAS) to medical therapy (MT). We examined the effectiveness of CAS compared with MT in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 219 979 Veterans ≥65 years who received carotid imaging for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between 2005 and 2009 in the US Veterans Health Administration. We constructed a sample of patients who received MT (n=2509) and comparable patients who received CAS (n=551) and followed them for 5 years. Using target trial methodology, we computed weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and estimated the risk of fatal and nonfatal stroke in each group over 5 years of follow-up. We also estimated the cumulative incidence functions for fatal and nonfatal stroke accounting for nonstroke deaths as competing risks. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one patients received CAS, and 2509 patients received MT. The observed rate of stroke or death (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CAS arm was 2.2%. Using the target trial methodology, the 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal stroke was similar among patients assigned to CAS (6.9%) compared with patients assigned to MT (7.1%; risk difference, -0.1% [95% CI, -2.6% to 2.7%]). In an analysis that incorporated the competing risk of death, the risk difference between the two arms remained nonsignificant (risk difference, -1.5% [95% CI, -3.0% to 0.3%]). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of older male adults, we found no difference between MT and CAS in the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Future studies in other settings are needed to confirm these findings.

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

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

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Yield in a Mailed Outreach Program in a Safety-Net Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Screening with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, screening remains low in underserved populations. Mailed outreach, including an invitation letter, FIT, and test instructions, is an evidence-based strategy to improve screening. AIMS: To examine screening completion and yield in a mailed outreach program in a safety-net healthcare system. METHODS: We identified and mailed outreach invitations to patients due for screening in a large safety-net system between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019. We examined: (1) screening completion, the proportion of patients completing FIT or screening colonoscopy within 6 months of the mailed invitation; and (2) timely diagnostic colonoscopy, the proportion of patients completing colonoscopy within 6 months of positive FIT. RESULTS: We mailed 14,879 invitations to 13,190 patients. Nearly half (n = 6098, 46.2%) of patients completed screening: 4,896 (80.3%) completed FIT through mailed outreach; 1,114 (18.3%) FIT through usual care; and 88 (1.4%) screening colonoscopy through usual care. Of patients with a positive FIT (n = 289), 50.5% completed diagnostic colonoscopy within 6 months, 10.7% within 6-12 months, and 4.8% after 12 months. A total of 8 cancers and 83 advanced adenomas were detected in the 191 patients completing diagnostic colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: After implementing and scaling up mailed outreach in a safety-net system, about half of patients completed screening, and the majority did so through mailed outreach. However, many patients failed to complete diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT. Results highlight the importance of adapting mailed outreach programs to local contexts and constraints of healthcare systems, in order to support efforts to improve CRC screening in underserved populations.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric. Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017. Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings. METHODS: Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

Survival of women diagnosed with breast cancer and who have survived a previous cancer.

PURPOSE: Many women diagnosed with breast cancer have survived previous cancer; yet little is known about the impact of previous cancer on overall and cancer-specific survival. METHODS: This population-based cohort study using SEER-Medicare data included women (age ≥ 66 years) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2015. Separately by breast cancer stage, we estimated effect of previous cancer on overall survival using Cox regression and on cause-specific survival using competing risk regression; all survival analyses adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 138,576 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 8% had a previous cancer of another organ site, most commonly colorectal or uterine cancer or melanoma. Many of these women (46.3%) were diagnosed within 5 years of breast cancer. For all breast cancer stages except IV wherein there was no difference, women with vs. without previous cancer had worse overall survival. This survival disadvantage was driven by deaths due to the previous cancer and other causes. In contrast, women with previous cancer generally had favorable breast-cancer-specific survival, although this varied by stage. Overall survival varied by previous cancer type, timing, and stage; previous lung cancer, cancer diagnosed within 1 year of incident breast cancer, and previous cancer at a distant stage were associated with the worst survival. In contrast, women with a previous melanoma had equivalent overall survival to women without previous cancer. CONCLUSION: We observed variable impact of previous cancer on overall and breast-cancer-specific survival depending on breast cancer stage at diagnosis and the type, timing, and stage of previous cancer.

Reimbursement Matters: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual.

BACKGROUND: Accrual to cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. Few data exist regarding whether financial reimbursement might increase accruals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess perceptions about reimbursement to overcome barriers to trial accrual. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: Oncologists identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. MEASURES: We report descriptive statistics, associations of physician characteristics with perceptions of reimbursement, domains, and subthemes of free-text comments. RESULTS: Respondents (n=1030) were mostly medical oncologists (59.4%), ages 35-54 (67%), and male (75%). Overall, 30% reported discussing trials with >25% of patients. Barriers perceived were administrative/regulatory, physician/staff time, and eligibility criteria. National Cancer Institute cooperative group participants and practice owners were more likely to endorse higher reimbursement. Respondents indicated targeted reimbursement would help improve infrastructure, but also noted potential ethical problems with reimbursement for discussion (40.7%) and accrual (85.9%). Free-text comments addressed reimbursement sources, recipients, and concerns about the real and apparent conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Though concerns about a potential conflict of interest remain paramount and must be addressed in any new system of reimbursement, oncologists believe reimbursement to enhance infrastructure could help overcome barriers to trial accrual.

Man vs. Machine: Comparing Physician vs. Electronic Health Record-Based Model Predictions for 30-Day Hospital Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-based readmission risk prediction models can be automated in real-time but have modest discrimination and may be missing important readmission risk factors. Clinician predictions of readmissions may incorporate information unavailable in the EHR, but the comparative usefulness is unknown. We sought to compare clinicians versus a validated EHR-based prediction model in predicting 30-day hospital readmissions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of internal medicine clinicians in an urban safety-net hospital. Clinicians prospectively predicted patients' 30-day readmission risk on 5-point Likert scales, subsequently dichotomized into low- vs. high-risk. We compared human with machine predictions using discrimination, net reclassification, and diagnostic test characteristics. Observed readmissions were ascertained from a regional hospitalization database. We also developed and assessed a "human-plus-machine" logistic regression model incorporating both human and machine predictions. RESULTS: We included 1183 hospitalizations from 106 clinicians, with a readmission rate of 20.8%. Both clinicians and the EHR model had similar discrimination (C-statistic 0.66 vs. 0.66, p = 0.91). Clinicians had higher specificity (79.0% vs. 48.9%, p < 0.001) but lower sensitivity (43.9 vs. 75.2%, p < 0.001) than EHR model predictions. Compared with machine, human was better at reclassifying non-readmissions (non-event NRI + 30.1%) but worse at reclassifying readmissions (event NRI - 31.3%). A human-plus-machine approach best optimized discrimination (C-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.74), sensitivity (65.5%), and specificity (66.7%). CONCLUSION: Clinicians had similar discrimination but higher specificity and lower sensitivity than EHR model predictions. Human-plus-machine was better than either alone. Readmission risk prediction strategies should incorporate clinician assessments to optimize the accuracy of readmission predictions.

Is Statin Use Associated With Risk of Thyroid Diseases? Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Given the ubiquity of statin use and prevalence of thyroid diseases, such as thyroid cancer, hyperthyroidism, and thyroiditis, understanding their association deserves further attention. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between statin use and thyroid cancer, thyrotoxicosis, goiter, and thyroiditis. METHODS: Using Tricare data, 2 propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts of statin users and nonusers were formed: (1) a PS-matched general cohort (all patients aged 30-85 years) and (2) a PS-matched healthy cohort (excluded patients with cardiovascular diseases or severe comorbidities). Outcomes were thyroid cancer, thyrotoxicosis, goiter, and thyroiditis. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs of outcomes were estimated using conditional regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 43 438 patients, the PS-matched general cohort matched 6342 statin users to 6342 nonusers. The OR of thyroid cancer was 0.62 (95% CI = 0.39-0.996). There was no significant difference between statin users and nonusers in risk of thyrotoxicosis (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.71-1.09), goiter (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.77-1.03), or thyroiditis (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.53-1.15). In the PS-matched healthy cohort (3351 statin users to 3351 nonusers), there was no difference between statin users and nonusers in any outcome. Limitations of the study include its retrospective observational design and use of administrative codes in outcomes ascertainment. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study did not demonstrate any association of statins with harmful effects on thyroid diseases, which offers assurance to clinicians and patients. Furthermore, statin use appears to be associated with a decreased risk of thyroid cancer, but more studies are needed.

Mailed Outreach Invitations Significantly Improve HCC Surveillance Rates in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with early tumor detection and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis; however, effectiveness is limited by underuse. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach and patient navigation strategies to increase HCC surveillance in a racially diverse cohort of patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for screening ultrasound (n = 600), mailed outreach plus patient navigation (n = 600), or usual care with visit-based screening (n = 600) among 1800 patients with cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 to March 2017. Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received reminder telephone calls. Patient navigation included an assessment of barriers to surveillance and encouragement of surveillance participation. The primary outcome was HCC surveillance (abdominal imaging every 6 months) over an 18-month period. All 1800 patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. HCC surveillance was performed in 23.3% of outreach/navigation patients, 17.8% of outreach-alone patients, and 7.3% of usual care patients. HCC surveillance was 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0%-20.0%) and 10.5% (95% CI: 6.8%-14.2%) higher in outreach groups than usual care (P < 0.001 for both) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-10.1%) higher for outreach/navigation than outreach alone (P = 0.02). Both interventions increased HCC surveillance across predefined patient subgroups. The proportion of HCC patients detected at an early stage did not differ between groups; however, a higher proportion of patients with screen-detected HCC across groups had early-stage tumors than those with HCC detected incidentally or symptomatically (83.3% versus 30.8%, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Mailed outreach invitations and navigation significantly increased HCC surveillance versus usual care in patients with cirrhosis.