No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening by Getting FIT Right
... For example, in Australia, Indigenous Australians are significantly less likely to participate in CRC screening than non-Indigenous Australians [34], while in the UK, von Wagner and colleagues found reduced uptake of CRC screening in the most ethnically diverse and lower socioeconomic areas [35]. Levin has demonstrated the unequal distribution of reduced CRC mortality rates across the US which is strongly correlated with the uptake of screening [36]. The use of iFOBT by Kaiser Permanente in Northern California has contributed to a substantial increase in the CRC screening rate from 37% to 75% and in the Medicare population from 41% to 85% between 2005 and 2011 [36] − unprecedented levels of participation. ...
... Levin has demonstrated the unequal distribution of reduced CRC mortality rates across the US which is strongly correlated with the uptake of screening [36]. The use of iFOBT by Kaiser Permanente in Northern California has contributed to a substantial increase in the CRC screening rate from 37% to 75% and in the Medicare population from 41% to 85% between 2005 and 2011 [36] − unprecedented levels of participation. Importantly, this increased screening rate is associated with earlier staging of CRC and a reduced incidence of CRC [36]. ...
... The use of iFOBT by Kaiser Permanente in Northern California has contributed to a substantial increase in the CRC screening rate from 37% to 75% and in the Medicare population from 41% to 85% between 2005 and 2011 [36] − unprecedented levels of participation. Importantly, this increased screening rate is associated with earlier staging of CRC and a reduced incidence of CRC [36]. Such success has led Levin to comment that "The question facing clinicians and health care delivery system policy and decision makers is no longer whether to use FIT [fecal immunochemical test] as part of the screening menu of options, but which FIT to use and how to optimize FIT use" [36]. ...
Background
There are many test options available for colorectal cancer screening. The choice of test relates to the objectives of those offering or considering screening.
Discussion
While all screening programs aim to detect disease early in order to improve the length and/or quality of life for the individual, some organizations and individuals prefer screening tests that offer the opportunity for cancer prevention. Others favor maximizing participation or the opportunity for shared decision-making, including discussion of information on test quality and availability. We propose three additional objectives for screening: minimizing harms, optimizing economic efficiency and maximizing equity of access to screening.
Summary
Applying these objectives to colorectal cancer screening, we advocate the use of immunochemical FOBTs as the preferred screening strategy, as it satisfies all three of these important objectives.
... Healthcare providers and systems could undertake outreach efforts to distribute kits to their under-screened patients, similar to the current use of fecal immunochemical tests to increase colorectal cancer screening. Kits could be distributed using approaches such as (1) direct mailings based on medical records review, (2) clinics that do not traditionally provide cervical cancer screening (e.g., county STI clinics or seasonal flu clinics), or (3) public outreach events [68,69]. There is also potential for phone-based dissemination of the selfcollection kits. ...
Background:
Screening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. More than half of invasive cervical cancers are attributable to infrequent screening or not screening at all. The current study, My Body My Test (MBMT), evaluates the impact of mailed kits for self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on completion of cervical cancer screening in low-income, North Carolina women overdue for cervical cancer screening.
Methods/design:
The study will enroll at least 510 US women aged 25-64 years who report no Pap test in the last 4 years and no HPV test in the last 6 years. We will randomize participants to an intervention or control arm. The intervention arm will receive kits to self-collect a sample at home and mail it for HPV testing. In both the intervention and control arms, participants will receive assistance in scheduling an appointment for screening in clinic. Study staff will deliver HPV self-collection results by phone and assist in scheduling participants for screening in clinic. The primary outcome is completion of cervical cancer screening. Specifically, completion of screening will be defined as screening in clinic or receipt of negative HPV self-collection results. Women with HPV-negative self-collection results will be considered screening-complete. All other participants will be considered screening-complete if they obtain co-testing or Pap test screening at a study-affiliated institution or other clinic. We will assess whether the self-collection intervention influences participants' perceived risk of cervical cancer and whether perceived risk mediates the relationship between HPV self-collection results and subsequent screening in clinic. We also will estimate the incremental cost per woman screened of offering at-home HPV self-collection kits with scheduling assistance as compared to offering scheduling assistance alone.
Discussion:
If mailed self-collection of samples for HPV testing is an effective strategy for increasing cervical cancer screening among women overdue for screening, this method has the potential to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality in medically underserved women at higher risk of developing cervical cancer.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02651883, Registered on 11 January 2016.
... The increase has been even greater for the Medicare population within the Kaiser system, rising from 41% to 91% during the same period. 75 Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle Group Health is a community-based, nonprofit integrated system in which coverage and care are combined in one organization. This HMO is focused on a high standard for preventive services, like most other HMOs. ...
... The increase has been even greater for the Medicare population within the Kaiser system, rising from 41% to 91% during the same period. 75 Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle Group Health is a community-based, nonprofit integrated system in which coverage and care are combined in one organization. This HMO is focused on a high standard for preventive services, like most other HMOs. ...
Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Screening to detect polyps or cancer at an early stage has been shown to produce better outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Programs with a population-based approach can reach a large majority of the eligible population and can offer cost-effective interventions with the potential benefit of maximizing early cancer detection and prevention using a complete follow-up plan. The purpose of this review was to summarize the key features of population-based programs to increase CRC screening in the United States. A search was conducted in the SCOPUS, OvidSP, and PubMed databases. The authors selected published reports of population-based programs that met at least 5 of the 6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for cancer prevention and were known to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Interventions at the level of individual practices were not included in this review. IARC cancer prevention criteria served as a framework to assess the effective processes and elements of a population-based program. Eight programs were included in this review. Half of the programs met all IARC criteria, and all programs led to improvements in screening rates. The rate of colonoscopy after a positive stool test was heterogeneous among programs. Different population-based strategies were used to promote these screening programs, including system-based, provider-based, patient-based, and media-based strategies. Treatment of identified cancer cases was not included explicitly in 4 programs but was offered through routine medical care. Evidence-based methods for promoting CRC screening at a population level can guide the development of future approaches in health care prevention. The key elements of a successful population-based approach include adherence to the 6 IARC criteria and 4 additional elements (an identified external funding source, a structured policy for positive fecal occult blood test results and confirmed cancer cases, outreach activities for recruitment and patient education, and an established rescreening process). CA Cancer J Clin 2015. © 2015 American Cancer Society.
© 2015 American Cancer Society.
... Furthermore, LMICs should be ready to handle an initial rise in diagnosis of CRC that would have normally been diagnosed a few years later. Experience from HIC showed that when immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) was first used as a screening tool in the USA, an increase in the CRC screening rate from 37% in 2005 to 75% in 2011 was noted [45]. Later on, the mortality from CRC was significantly reduced [46]. ...
ABSTRACT In-depth knowledge of local conditions is necessary in order to enhance care in low- and middle-income countries. In this review we discuss: improving cancer diagnosis, optimizing patient management, increasing health awareness, prevention, early detection, eradication of causative infectious diseases and agents, tobacco control, healthy diets and lifestyles, availability of diagnostic methods, easy access to care, affordable costs, improving infrastructures, quality care measures, implementing and adapting guidelines, multidisciplinary management, supportive and survivorship care, research and optimization of medical school curriculum and training in oncology. Establishment of national cancer control plans by policy makers, physician societies, medical schools, and patient advocates is recommended. We will review evidence and controversies, and outline the next steps needed to prevent cancer and enhance care of cancer patients in LMICs.
... 40 Implementation of an organized population-based CRC screening program has the potential to make a significant public health impact by substantially increasing screening rates. 13,36 Using the results from the current study, if we assume that each individual screened in the first year was not up to date with CRC screening, after the first year of program implementation, the percentage of adults aged 50 years to 75 years being up to date would increase from 59% to approximately 86% to 88%. However, if we take a more conservative approach and assume that only one-half of those newly screened were not up to date, the percentage of adults being up to date with screening would increase from 59% to approximately 72% to 73%. ...
BACKGROUND
Despite clear recommendations and evidence linking colorectal cancer screening to lower incidence and mortality, > 40% of adults are not up to date with screening. Existing domestic and international models of organized cancer screening programs have been effective in increasing screening rates. Implementing an organized, evidence-based, national screening program may be an effective approach to increasing screening rates.METHODS
In the current study, the authors estimated the initial investment required and the cost per person screened of a nationwide fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening program among adults aged 50 years to 75 years.RESULTSThe initial additional investment required was estimated at 318.2 million annually, with an estimated 8.7 to 9.4 million individuals screened at a cost of 39 per person screened. The program was estimated to prevent 2900 to 3100 deaths annually.CONCLUSIONS
The results of the current study indicate that implementing a national screening program would make a substantial public health impact at a moderate cost per person screened. Results from this analysis may provide useful information for understanding the public health benefit of an organized screening delivery system and the potential resources required to implement a nationwide colorectal cancer screening program, and help guide decisions about program planning, design, and implementation. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
... Large integrated health delivery systems, with their robust organizational structures and resources, can combine many of the benefits of national programs and primary care-based colorectal cancer screening programs. One of the best examples of this can be found at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large health care system employing more than 7,000 physicians caring for more than 3 million insured patients (37). As a privately run health care organization in a competitive marketplace, KPNC has both the incentives and the resources to invest in clinical programs to increase screening rates, leveraging multiple levels of the health care organization. ...
Colorectal cancer is a significant cause of mortality in the United States and globally. In the United States, increased access to screening and effective treatment has contributed to a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality for the general population, though significant disparities persist. Worldwide, the disparities are even more pronounced, with vastly different colorectal cancer mortality rates and trends among nations. Newly organized colorectal cancer screening programs in economically developed countries with a high burden of colorectal cancer may provide pathways to reduce these disparities over time. This article provides an overview of colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, screening, and disparities in the United States and other world populations. Promising strategies and resources are identified to address colorectal cancer screening rates and disparities in the United States and worldwide. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health Volume 34 is March 17, 2013. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
... This cutoff simply refl ects the concentration of hemoglobin in the sample buffer and not the feces, and thus cannot be translated to other tests. Moreover, recent publications sometimes do not even give the units that are used for test results and express the hemoglobin cutoff concentrations using cryptic terms [eg, "a FIT 50 strategy" ( 25 )]. Such shorthand expressions have no clear meaning and simply add to the confusion. ...
Fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin are replacing traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests in population screening programs for many reasons. However, the many available fecal immunochemical test devices use a range of sampling methods, differ with regard to hemoglobin stability, and report hemoglobin concentrations in different ways. The methods for sampling, the mass of feces collected, and the volume and characteristics of the buffer used in the sampling device also vary among fecal immunochemical tests, making comparisons of test performance characteristics difficult. Fecal immunochemical test results may be expressed as the hemoglobin concentration in the sampling device buffer and, sometimes, albeit rarely, as the hemoglobin concentration per mass of feces. The current lack of consistency in units for reporting hemoglobin concentration is particularly problematic because apparently similar hemoglobin concentrations obtained with different devices can lead to very different clinical interpretations. Consistent adoption of an internationally accepted method for reporting results would facilitate comparisons of outcomes from these tests. We propose a simple strategy for reporting fecal hemoglobin concentration that will facilitate the comparison of results between fecal immunochemical test devices and across clinical studies. Such reporting is readily achieved by defining the mass of feces sampled and the volume of sample buffer (with confidence intervals) and expressing results as micrograms of hemoglobin per gram of feces. We propose that manufacturers of fecal immunochemical tests provide this information and that the authors of research articles, guidelines, and policy articles, as well as pathology services and regulatory bodies, adopt this metric when reporting fecal immunochemical test results.
... This is likely related to a simpler specimen collection process, no requirement for dietary restrictions and, for most FITs, collection of just one specimen. Indeed, in northern California (USA), a significant improvement in CRC screening participation has been associated with the use of FIT in a comprehensive program, with participation rates rising from 35% in 2004 to 75% in 2011 (4). ...
Purpose:
To determine the return rate of community-delivered fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits in a rural population and to identify significant predictors of returning kits.
Methods:
Residents were recruited in 8 rural Kentucky counties to enroll in the study and receive an FIT kit. Of 345 recruited, 82.0% returned an FIT kit from the point of distribution. These participants were compared to the remainder relative to age, sex, marital status, having an annual income below 15,000 were 2.85 times more likely to return their kits (95% CI: 1.56-5.24; P < .001). Also, those not perceiving themselves to be overweight/obese were 1.95 times more likely to return their kits (95% CI: 1.07-3.55; P = .029).
Conclusions:
An outreach-based colorectal cancer screening program in a rural population may yield high return rates. People with annual incomes below $15,000 and those not having perceptions of being overweight/obese may be particularly likely to return FIT kits.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a malignant epithelial neoplasm (adenocarcinoma) developing in the glandular tissue of the colon or rectum. The great majority of CRCs develop from adenomatous colorectal polyps in a process called the adenoma-carcinoma sequence (Muto et al., Cancer 36(6):2251–2270, 1975). Colorectal polyps are a histopathologic group of benign lesions that include hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps that project above the surrounding mucosa as well as the less common, non-polypoid polyps. The adenomatous polyps (adenomas) are benign, neoplastic precursors that arise in the colorectal glandular epithelium. In the United States (USA), colorectal adenoma (CRA) prevalence is approximately 25 % by age 50 and rises to around 50 % by age 70. The histological hallmarks of a CRA are altered glandular architecture and dysplasia of the epithelium. A benign CRA progresses to invasive CRC when the dysplastic cells gain the capacity to invade through the muscularis mucosa. The development of invasive cancer from the earliest CRA may take from years to decades. While most CRCs develop from CRAs, the slow rate of progress results in less than 10 % ever progressing to CRC. In this chapter, we review the molecular characteristics of the disease and provide an update on the epidemiology including reviewing evidence for established and suspected risk factors for CRC. Given the dramatic impact that screening and early detection have had on reducing the incidence and mortality suspected of CRC and death from CRC, we have included a detailed review of the different screening recommendations and their efficacy.
Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates are low among men and women who seek health care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). This study explores health care providers' perspectives about their patient's motivators and impediments to CRCS and receptivity to preparatory education. A mixed methods design consisting of in-depth interviews, focus groups, and a short survey is used in this study. The participants of this study are 17 health care providers practicing in FQHCs in the Tampa Bay area. Test-specific patient impediments and motivations were identified including fear of abnormal findings, importance of offering less invasive fecal occult blood tests, and need for patient-centered test-specific educational materials in clinics. Opportunities to improve provider practices were identified including providers' reliance on patients' report of symptoms as a cue to recommend CRCS and overemphasis of clinic-based guaiac stool tests. This study adds to the literature on CRCS test-specific motivators and impediments. Providers offered unique approaches for motivating patients to follow through with recommended CRCS and were receptive to in-clinic patient education. Findings readily inform the design of educational materials and interventions to increase CRCS in FQHCs.
To evaluate a population outreach program to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) among average-risk insured men and women.
In 2008, 58,440 Kaiser Permanente Colorado members unscreened for CRC received an interactive voice response (IVR) call followed by mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or colonoscopy if requested. We used a quasi-experimental design with staged implementation, in which a random subset of eligible members was selected each week to receive the intervention. This design allowed the entire group to ultimately receive the intervention.
Survival models summarized time-specific comparisons of screening behaviors for members who received immediate outreach compared with those who had not yet received it.
A total of 26,003 (45%) of the unscreened population completed screening, predominately due to the mailed kits. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the outreach effect on screening completion was 4.08 (95% confidence interval: 3.93-4.25) and adjusted HR was 3.75 (3.60-3.91). Lower levels of screening were seen in African Americans (HR 0.83; 0.77-0.90) and Hispanics (HR 0.84; 0.80-0.88) compared with whites, and in smokers (HR 0.77; 0.74-0.80) compared with nonsmokers. The outreach had greater impact among those without a primary care (HR 4.5 vs 3.0, P <.0001) or specialty care (HR 5.2 vs 3.5, P <.0001) visit compared with those with 1 or more visits.
The rate of colorectal cancer screening in members after mailed FIT with IVR was almost 4 times higher than usual care, particularly in those without an office visit. Targeted approaches are needed for groups at risk for not screening.
This review concerns quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, especially colonoscopy and will emphasize research and guidelines published since January 2011. Important articles from previous years have been included for background.
Critical lapses in endoscope processing and administration of intravenous sedation alerted us to the infection risk of endoscopy. Increases in cost of colonoscopy, evidence for overuse and studies demonstrating missed cancers have led some to question the value of endoscopy. Despite these setbacks, the National Polyp Study (NPS) consortium published their long-term follow-up of the original NPS patients and confirmed that colonoscopy with polyp removal can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer for an extended period. In this article, we will focus on ways to improve the value of outpatient colonoscopy.
The United States national quality improvement agenda recently became organized into a more coordinated effort spearheaded by several public and private entities. They comprise the infrastructure by which performance measures are developed and implemented as accountability standards. Understanding wherein a gastroenterology (GI) practice fits into this infrastructure and learning ways we can improve our endoscopic practice is important for physicians who provide this vital service to patients. This article will provide a roadmap for developing a quality assurance program for endoscopic practice.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is most commonly performed in the United States using an opportunistic approach: patients coming to a physician's office for other unrelated reasons are offered screening with either fecal occult blood tests or, more commonly, a referral for colonoscopy. This approach has been effective to a point. CRC screening rates are increasing, but are still suboptimal and vary across different regions of the United States. Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach has the potential to allow more consistent CRC screening, by moving beyond opportunistic, office visit-based screening, to an organized approach. The study by van Roon et al. in this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology demonstrates that mailing FIT collection devices will not result in decreased sensitivity for 10-14 days following the specimen collection.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rates have been decreasing for many decades in the United States, with the decrease accelerating in the most recent time period. The extent to which this decrease varies across states and its influence on the geographic patterns of rates is unknown.
We analyzed the temporal trend in age-standardized CRC death rates for each state from 1990 to 2007 using joinpoint regression. We also examined the change in death rates between 1990-1994 and 2003-2007 using rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals and illustrated the change in pattern using maps. The relationship between the change in mortality rates and CRC screening rates for 2004 by state was examined using Pearson's correlation.
CRC mortality rates significantly decreased in all states except Mississippi between 1990 and 2007 based on the joinpoint model. The decrease in death rates between 1990-1994 and 2003-2007 ranged from 9% in Alabama to greater than 33% in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and Alaska; Mississippi and Wyoming showed no significant decrease. Generally, the northeastern states showed the largest decreases, whereas southern states showed the smallest decreases. The highest CRC mortality rates shifted from the northeastern states during 1990 to 1994 to the southern states along the Appalachian corridor during 2003 to 2007. The decrease in CRC mortality rates by state correlated strongly with uptake of screening (r = -0.65, P < 0.0001).
Progress in reducing CRC mortality varies across states, with the Northeast showing the most progress and the South showing the least progress.
These findings highlight the need for wider dissemination of CRC screening.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of primary care and economic barriers to health care on CRC testing relative to the 2001 Medicare expansion of screening coverage.
Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data were use to study community-dwelling enrollees aged 65 to 80 years, free of renal disease and CRC, and who participated in the survey in 2000 (n = 8,330), 2003 (n = 7,889), or 2005 (n = 7,614). Three outcomes were examined: colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy within 5 years (recent endoscopy), endoscopy more than 5 years previously, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years.
Endoscopy use increased and FOBT use decreased during the 6-year period, with no significant independent differences between those receiving care from primary care physicians and those receiving care from other physicians. Beneficiaries without a usual place of health care were the least likely to undergo CRC testing, and that gap widened with time: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.39) for FOBT, and AOR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.27-0.46) for endoscopy in 2000 compared with AOR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.30) for FOBT and AOR = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) for endoscopy in 2005. Disparities in use of recent endoscopy by type of health insurance coverage in both 2000 and 2005 were greater for enrollees with a high school education or higher than they were for less-educated enrollees. There were no statistically significant differences by delayed care due to cost after adjustment for health insurance.
Despite expanding coverage for screening, complex CRC screening disparities persisted based on differences in the usual place and cost of health care, type of health insurance coverage, and level of education.
Although colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, it requires a considerable net investment by governments or insurance companies. If screening was cost saving, governments and insurance companies might be more inclined to invest in colorectal cancer screening programs. We examined whether colorectal cancer screening would become cost saving with the widespread use of the newer, more expensive chemotherapies.
We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to assess whether widespread use of new chemotherapies would affect the treatment savings of colorectal cancer screening in the general population. We considered three scenarios for chemotherapy use: the past, the present, and the near future. We assumed that survival improved and treatment costs for patients diagnosed with advanced stages of colorectal cancer increased over the scenarios. Screening strategies considered were annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), annual immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and annual guaiac FOBT. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the health-care system for a cohort of 50-year-old individuals who were at average risk of colorectal cancer and were screened with 100% adherence from age 50 years to age 80 years and followed up until death.
Compared with no screening, the treatment savings from preventing advanced colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer deaths by screening more than doubled with the widespread use of new chemotherapies. The lifetime average treatment savings were larger than the lifetime average screening costs for screening with Hemoccult II, immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II (average savings vs costs per individual in the population: Hemoccult II, 859; immunochemical FOBT, 1565; sigmoidoscopy, 1575; sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II 1878). Colonoscopy did not become cost saving, but the total net costs of this strategy decreased from 296 per individual in the population.
With the increase in chemotherapy costs for advanced colorectal cancer, most colorectal cancer screening strategies have become cost saving. As a consequence, screening is a desirable approach not only to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but also to control the costs of colorectal cancer treatment.
The cutoff of semi-quantitative immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (iFOBTs) influences colonoscopy referrals and detection rates. We studied the performance of an iFOBT (OC-Sensor) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at different cutoffs.
Dutch screening participants, 50-75 years of age, with average CRC risk and an iFOBT value >or=50 ng ml(-1) were offered colonoscopy. The detection rate was the percentage of participants with CRC or advanced adenomas (>or=10 mm, >or=20% villous, high-grade dysplasia). The number needed to scope (NNTScope) was the number of colonoscopies to be carried out to find one person with CRC or advanced adenomas.
iFOBT values >or=50 ng ml(-1) were detected in 526 of 6157 participants (8.5%) and 428 (81%) underwent colonoscopy. The detection rate for advanced lesions (28 CRC and 161 with advanced adenomas) was 3.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-3.5%) and the NNTScope was 2.3. At 75 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was 2.7%, the NNTScope was 2.0 and the CRC miss rate compared with 50 ng ml(-1) was <5% (N=1). At 100 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was 2.4% and the NNTScope was <2. Compared with 50 ng ml(-1), up to 200 ng ml(-1) CRC miss rates remained at 16% (N=4).
Cutoffs below the standard 100 ng ml(-1) resulted in not only higher detection rates of advanced lesions but also more colonoscopies. With sufficient capacity, 75 ng ml(-1) might be advised; if not, up to 200 ng ml(-1) CRC miss rates are acceptable compared with the decrease in performed colonoscopies.
Colorectal cancer can be prevented via screening by the detection and removal of colorectal adenomas. Few data exist on screening capacity by rural/urban areas. Therefore, the aims of this work were to evaluate current colorectal cancer endoscopy screening capacity and to estimate potential volume for rural and urban regions in Arizona. Gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons practicing in Arizona completed a survey (n = 105) that assessed current colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy screening and estimated future capacity. Resources needed to increase capacity were identified, and differences between rural and urban regions were examined. Responders were more likely to practice in an urban region (89.5%). Physicians reported performing 8,717 endoscopic procedures weekly (8,312 in urban and 405 in rural regions) and the vast majority were colonoscopies (91% in urban and 97% in rural regions). Urban physicians estimated being able to increase their capacity by 35.7% (95% confidence interval 34.7-35.7) whereas rural physicians estimated an increase of 53.1% (95% confidence interval 48.1-58.0). The most commonly cited resource needed to increase capacity was a greater number of physicians in urban regions (52.1%); while the top response in rural areas was appropriate compensation (54.6%). Lastly, 27.3% of rural physicians noted they did not need additional resources to increase their capacity. In conclusion, Arizona has the ability to expand colorectal cancer screening endoscopic capacity; this potential increase was more pronounced in rural as compared to urban regions.
Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely accepted, but there is no consensus on the preferred strategy. We conducted a randomised trial comparing participation and detection rates (DR) per screenee of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), immunochemical FOBT (FIT), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for CRC screening.
A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 15 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1:1:1 randomised prior to invitation to one of the three screening strategies. Colonoscopy was indicated for screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT, and for those in whom FS revealed a polyp with a diameter > or = 10 mm; adenoma with > or = 25% villous component or high grade dysplasia; serrated adenoma; > or = 3 adenomas; > or = 20 hyperplastic polyps; or CRC.
The participation rate was 49.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.1 to 50.9%) for gFOBT, 61.5% (CI, 60.1 to 62.9%) for FIT and 32.4% (CI, 31.1 to 33.7%) for FS screening. gFOBT was positive in 2.8%, FIT in 4.8% and FS in 10.2%. The DR of advanced neoplasia was significantly higher in the FIT (2.4%; OR, 2.0; CI, 1.3 to 3.1) and the FS arm (8.0%; OR, 7.0; CI, 4.6 to 10.7) than the gFOBT arm (1.1%). FS demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees (2.4; CI, 2.0 to 2.8) than gFOBT (0.6; CI, 0.4 to 0.8) or FIT (1.5; CI, 1.2 to 1.9) screening.
This randomised population-based CRC-screening trial demonstrated superior participation and detection rates for FIT compared to gFOBT screening. FIT screening should therefore be strongly preferred over gFOBT screening. FS screening demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield per 100 invitees than both FOBTs.
Lower rates of screening among minorities and low-income populations contribute to colorectal cancer health disparities. Therefore, we examined patterns of colorectal cancer screening and associations with race-ethnicity, education, and income over time.
Repeated cross-sectional data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey of noninstitutionalized colorectal cancer-free Medicare enrollees ages 65 to 80 years interviewed in 2000 (n = 8,355), 2003 (n = 7,922), and 2005 (n = 7,646). We examined rates of colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use within 5 years (recent endoscopy), colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use >5 years previously, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years.
Among those included in the analyses, there was a steady increase in recent endoscopy rates and decrease in FOBT use over the 6-year period among all racial, educational, and income groups. During each of the survey years, those less educated or in lower-income groups were less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening in a dose-response fashion. In multinomial regression analyses that adjusted for factors including health insurance, there were no significant differences in recent endoscopy or FOBT rates between Blacks or Hispanics and Whites, but differences by education and income remained. Compared with those in higher-income group, lower-income enrollees had lower rates of screening, and differences by income were larger for enrollees residing in metropolitan areas.
Among Medicare beneficiaries, there are persistent colorectal cancer screening disparities due to a complex combination of socioeconomic disadvantages from lower education and income, place of residence, and inadequate insurance. However, insurance alone does not eliminate socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer screening.
Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing (FIT) provides quantitative test results, which allows optimisation of the cut-off value for follow-up colonoscopy. We conducted a randomised population-based trial to determine test characteristics of FIT (OC-Sensor micro, Eiken, Japan) screening at different cut-off levels and compare these with guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening in an average risk population. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=10 011), aged 50-74 years, was 1 : 1 randomised before invitation to gFOBT and FIT screening. Colonoscopy was offered to screenees with a positive gFOBT or FIT (cut-off 50 ng haemoglobin/ml). When varying the cut-off level between 50 and 200 ng ml(-1), the positivity rate of FIT ranged between 8.1% (95% CI: 7.2-9.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.9-4.2%), the detection rate of advanced neoplasia ranged between 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6-3.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6%), and the specificity ranged between 95.5% (95% CI: 94.5-96.3%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 98.4-99.0%). At a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1), the detection rate was two times higher than with gFOBT screening (gFOBT: 1.2%; FIT: 2.5%; P<0.001), whereas the number needed to scope (NNscope) to find one screenee with advanced neoplasia was similar (2.2 vs 1.9; P=0.69). Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values. From our experience, a cut-off value of 75 ng ml(-1) provided an adequate positivity rate and an acceptable trade-off between detection rate and NNscope.
This document is the first update of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations since 2000. The CRC screening tests are now grouped into cancer prevention tests and cancer detection tests. Colonoscopy every 10 years, beginning at age 50, remains the preferred CRC screening strategy. It is recognized that colonoscopy is not available in every clinical setting because of economic limitations. It is also realized that not all eligible persons are willing to undergo colonoscopy for screening purposes. In these cases, patients should be offered an alternative CRC prevention test (flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years, or a computed tomography (CT) colonography every 5 years) or a cancer detection test (fecal immunochemical test for blood, FIT).
Despite its effectiveness in reducing mortality, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low, especially among low-income and minority groups; however, physician recommendation can increase screening rates.
We performed a multilevel analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to Medicare claims and the Area Resource File to identify determinants of racial and socioeconomic disparities in CRC screening among 9985 Medicare Parts A and B beneficiaries with a usual physician. Recent CRC screening was defined as receipt of either a home fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy at recommended intervals.
Unadjusted rates of screening were 48% for white and 39% for black beneficiaries (P<.001). Racial differences in CRC screening receipt were eliminated after adjustment for socioeconomic status as measured by income and education. Socioeconomic status disparities decreased but remained significant after adjustment for personal and health system factors. Awareness of CRC (adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 2.29-3.33) and having a primary care generalist (vs another specialist) as one's usual physician (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.53) were associated with higher odds of screening, controlling for other factors. The odds of screening were also higher among those whose usual physician was rated more highly on information-giving skills.
Racial differences in CRC screening rates among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual physician are explained by differences in socioeconomic status. Beneficiaries with a primary care generalist as their usual physician had higher rates of CRC screening receipt. Increased efforts to make Medicare beneficiaries aware of the benefits of CRC screening may capitalize on the associations found in this study between CRC knowledge, physician information giving, and timely screening.
Background One type of fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the unrehydrated guaiac fecal occult blood test (GT), is recommended by the United
States Preventive Services Task Force and the Institute of Medicine for use in screening programs, but it has relatively low
sensitivity as a single test for detecting advanced colonic neoplasms (cancer and adenomatous polyps ≥1 cm in diameter). Thus,
improving the sensitivity of FOBT should make colon cancer screening programs that use these tests more effective.
Although in its infancy, organized screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the general population is increasing at regional and national levels. Documenting and describing these initiatives is critical to identifying, sharing and promoting best practice in the delivery of CRC screening. Subsequently, the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network (ICRCSN) was established in 2003 to promote best practice in the delivery of organized screening programs. The initial aim was to identify and document organized screening initiatives that commenced before May 2004. Each identified initiative was sent 1 questionnaire per screening modality: fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. Information was collected on screening methodology, testing details and initiative status. In total, 35 organized initiatives were identified in 17 countries, including 10 routine population-based screening programs, 9 pilots and 16 research projects. Fecal occult blood tests were the most frequently used screening modality, and total colonoscopy was seldom used as a primary screening test. The eligible age for screening ranged from 40 years old to no upper limit; most initiatives included participants aged 50 to 64. Recruitment was usually done by a mailed invitation or during a visit to a family physician. In conclusion, this is the first investigation describing the delivery of CRC screening protocols to various populations. The work of the ICRCSN is enabling valuable information to be shared and a common nomenclature to be established.
Despite poor performance, guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (G-FOBT) are most frequently implemented for colorectal cancer screening. Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) are claimed to perform better, without randomized comparison in screening populations. Our aim was to randomly compare G-FOBT with I-FOBT in a screening population.
We conducted a population-based study on a random sample of 20,623 individuals 50-75 years of age, randomized to either G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II) or I-FOBT (OC-Sensor). Tests and invitations were sent together. For I-FOBT, the standard cutoff of 100 ng/ml was used. Positive FOBTs were verified with colonoscopy. Advanced adenomas were defined as >or=10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or >or=20% villous component.
There were 10,993 tests returned: 4836 (46.9%) G-FOBTs and 6157 (59.6%) I-FOBTs. The participation rate difference was 12.7% (P < .01). Of G-FOBTs, 117 (2.4%) were positive versus 339 (5.5%) of I-FOBTs. The positivity rate difference was 3.1% (P < .01). Cancer and advanced adenomas were found, respectively, in 11 and 48 of G-FOBTs and in 24 and 121 of I-FOBTs. Differences in positive predictive value for cancer and advanced adenomas and cancer were, respectively, 2.1% (P = .4) and -3.6% (P = .5). Differences in specificities favor G-FOBT and were, respectively, 2.3% (P < .01) and -1.3% (P < .01). Differences in intention-to-screen detection rates favor I-FOBT and were, respectively, 0.1% (P < .05) and 0.9% (P < .01).
The number-to-scope to find 1 cancer was comparable between the tests. However, participation and detection rates for advanced adenomas and cancer were significantly higher for I-FOBT. G-FOBT significantly underestimates the prevalence of advanced adenomas and cancer in the screening population compared with I-FOBT.
Background: Screening lowers colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. CRC is preventable through the removal of premalignant polyps and is curable if diagnosed early. Increased CRC screening and reduced CRC incidence and mortality are among the Healthy People 2020 objectives. Methods: CRC screening data are reported using information from 2002--2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. State-specific CRC incidence and mortality data were drawn from the United States Cancer Statistics. Annual percentage changes (APCs) in incidence and death rates from 2003 to 2007 were calculated by state. Results: From 2002 to 2010, the percentage of persons aged 50--75 years who were adequately screened for colorectal cancer increased from 52.3% to 65.4%. In 2007, CRC incidence ranged from 34.3 per 100,000 population in Utah to 56.9 in North Dakota; death rates ranged from 12.3 per 100,000 in Utah to 21.1 in the District of Columbia (DC). From 2003 to 2007, CRC incidence declined significantly in 35 states, and mortality declined in 49 states and DC, with APCs ranging from 1.0% per year in Alabama to 6.3% per year in Rhode Island. Conclusions: CRC incidence and mortality have declined in recent years throughout the United States, and CRC screening has increased.
Two European randomized trials (N = 30,000) compared guaiac fecal occult blood testing with quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and showed better attendance rates and test characteristics for FIT. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective FIT cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy based on data from these trials and allowing for differences in screening ages.
We used the validated MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Colon microsimulation model to estimate costs and effects of different screening strategies for FIT cutoff levels of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL hemoglobin. For each cutoff level, screening strategies were assessed with various age ranges and screening intervals. We assumed sufficient colonoscopy capacity for all strategies.
At all cost levels, FIT screening was most effective with the 50 ng/mL cutoff level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biennial screening between ages 55 and 75 years using FIT at 50 ng/mL, for example, was 3900 euro per life year gained. Annual screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,900 euro per life year gained, in combination with a wider age range (between ages 45 and 80 years). In the sensitivity analysis, 50 ng/mL remained the preferred cutoff level.
FIT screening is more cost-effective at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL than at higher cutoff levels. This supports the recommendation to use FIT at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL, which is considerably lower than the values used in current practice.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an ideal target for early detection and prevention through screening. Noninvasive screening options are the guaiac fecal occult blood test and the fecal immunochemical test. Organized screening offers the promise of uniformly delivering screening to all members of a population who are eligible and due. Organized screening is defined as an explicit policy with defined age categories, method, and interval for screening in a defined target population with a defined implementation and quality assurance structure, and tracking of cancer in the population. The UK National Health Service; the Ontario, Canada Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and the US Veteran's Health Administration have used varied organized approaches to deliver guaiac fecal occult blood test screening to their populations. Kaiser Permanente Northern California began CRC screening in the 1960s, initially using flexible sigmoidoscopy. Implementation of organized fecal immunochemical test outreach was associated with improved Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set CRC screening rates between 2005 and 2010 from 37% to 69% and from 41% to 78% in the commercial and Medicare populations, respectively. Organized fecal immunochemical test screening has been associated with an increase in annually detected CRCs, almost entirely because of increased detection of localized-stage cancers.
Although some studies have shown that the quantitative, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (qFIT) has better performance characteristics than the standard guaiac-based FOBT (GT) for identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN), there is limited information on test performance of these tests in average-risk populations.
Seven hundred seventy consecutive average-risk patients from four centers who were undergoing screening colonoscopy also provided stool samples. Stool specimens from three consecutive bowel movements were applied to a hemoccult II test card (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA) and OC-SENSA MICRO (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) sampling probes at the same time. We measured the diagnostic value of the qFIT for detecting an ACRN by using three criteria: sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. A receiver operating characteristic curve for determining the qFIT cutoff values and the number of tests that best discriminated between ACRNs and other findings were determined.
Seventy-eight ACRNs were identified during colonoscopy. At all hemoglobin thresholds, the sensitivity of the qFIT was higher than that of the GT for cancer or ACRN. The sensitivity and specificity of the GT for detecting advanced adenomas, cancer, and ACRNs were 13.6%/92.4%, 30.8%/92.4%, and 16.7%/92.9%, respectively. Using the 100 ng/ml cut point and three-sample qFIT results, the sensitivity and specificity of the qFIT for detecting advanced adenomas, cancer, and ACRNs were 33.9%/90.6%, 84.6%/89.8%, and 43.7%/91.9%, respectively. The area under the curve for cancer indicated that using either 2 or 3 tests provided the best discrimination for cancer.
The qFIT provides a higher sensitivity for detecting ACRN and cancer than the GT, and has an acceptable specificity that significantly reduces the need for colonoscopic evaluation in the screened population.
Hemoccult II, a widely used guaiac test for fecal occult blood, has a low sensitivity for detecting colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic patients at average risk. In such patients, the performance characteristics of screening tests developed to improve on Hemoccult II are not known.
A set of three fecal occult-blood tests--Hemoccult II; Hemoccult II Sensa, a more sensitive guaiac test; and HemeSelect, an immunochemical test for human hemoglobin--was mailed to all patients 50 years of age or older who were scheduled for personal health appraisals at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Oakland, California. The performance of each test and of a combination test (HemeSelect to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results) was evaluated by identifying screened patients who had colorectal neoplasma (carcinoma or a polyp > or = 1 cm in diameter) in the two years after screening.
Of the 10,702 eligible patients, 8104 (75.7 percent) had at least one interpretable sample and were screened on the basis of at least one test; 96 percent of these patients had complete two-year follow-up. The sensitivity of the tests for detecting carcinoma was lowest with Hemoccult II (37.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 19.7 to 54.6 percent), intermediate with the combination test (65.6 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 47.6 to 83.6 percent) and with HemeSelect (68.8 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 51.1 to 86.4 percent), and highest with Hemoccult II Sensa (79.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 64.3 to 94.5 percent). The specificity for detecting carcinoma was 86.7 percent with Hemoccult II Sensa, 94.4 percent with HemeSelect, 97.3 percent with the combination test, and 97.7 percent with Hemoccult II. HemeSelect and the combination test detected more colorectal carcinomas and polyps than Hemoccult II, with only slight increases in the number of colonoscopies needed.
HemeSelect and a combination test in which HemeSelect is used to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results improve on Hemoccult II in screening patients for colorectal carcinoma.
Colorectal cancer screening and treatment are rapidly evolving. Aims To reappraise stool-based colorectal cancer screening in light of changing test performance characteristics, lower test cost and increasing colorectal cancer care costs.
Using a Markov model, we compared faecal DNA testing every 3 years, annual faecal occult blood testing or immunochemical testing, and colonoscopy every 10 years.
In the base case, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing gained life-years/person and cost less than no screening. Faecal DNA testing version 1.1 at 16 900/life-year gained and faecal DNA testing version 2 (enhanced test) gained 5795 life-years/100 000 persons at 100 000/life-year gained vs. faecal immunochemical testing when per-cycle adherence with faecal immunochemical testing was 22%. Faecal immunochemical testing with excellent adherence was superior to colonoscopy every 10 years.
As novel biological therapies increase colorectal cancer treatment costs, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing could become cost-saving. The cost-effectiveness of faecal DNA testing compared with no screening has improved, but faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing are preferred to faecal DNA testing when patient adherence is high. Faecal immunochemical testing may be comparable to colonoscopy every 10 years in persons adhering to yearly testing.
In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed among men and women and the second leading cause of death from cancer. CRC largely can be prevented by the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, and survival is significantly better when CRC is diagnosed while still localized. In 2006 to 2007, the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology came together to develop consensus guidelines for the detection of adenomatous polyps and CRC in asymptomatic average-risk adults. In this update of each organization's guidelines, screening tests are grouped into those that primarily detect cancer early and those that can detect cancer early and also can detect adenomatous polyps, thus providing a greater potential for prevention through polypectomy. When possible, clinicians should make patients aware of the full range of screening options, but at a minimum they should be prepared to offer patients a choice between a screening test that primarily is effective at early cancer detection and a screening test that is effective at both early cancer detection and cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps. It is the strong opinion of these 3 organizations that colon cancer prevention should be the primary goal of screening.
Cutoff value deter-mines the performance of a semi-quantitative immunochemical Editorials, continued 1554 faecal occult blood test in a colorectal cancer screening programme
- Van Rossum
- Lg
- Van Rijn Af
- Laheij Rj
van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, et al. Cutoff value deter-mines the performance of a semi-quantitative immunochemical Editorials, continued 1554 faecal occult blood test in a colorectal cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1274 –1281.
Comparison of guaiac-based and quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing in a pop-ulation at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening
- Ryu S Kim
- Yh
Park DI, Ryu S, Kim YH, et al. Comparison of guaiac-based and quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing in a pop-ulation at average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2017–2025.