How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity

Colonoscopy demand and capacity in New Hampshire

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer has been clearly shown to decrease the incidence and mortality from this disease. Accurate information about the demand and capacity for screening, particularly with colonoscopy, is critical in planning screening strategies. National assessments have recently begun; estimates of smaller geographic regions should improve the accuracy of national estimates, as well as inform strategies for individual states. This study evaluates the demand and capacity for colonoscopy in the state of New Hampshire.

METHODS

All endoscopy sites in the state of New Hampshire were contacted to determine their number of endoscopists, monthly colonoscopies, and estimates of the percentage of colonoscopy done for screening. Barriers to increasing current capacity were also assessed. The capacity estimates were compared to demand estimates based on population census figures. Data were collected in 2003 to 2004 and analyzed in 2005 to 2006.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen endoscopists at 36 centers performed 49,352 colonoscopies in 2002, an average of 39 to 43 total monthly colonoscopies per endoscopist. Approximately 60% were estimated to have been done for screening. Estimated demand was approximately twice the available capacity for screening and surveillance. The impact of factors such as compliance, percent screening, and population growth were assessed to inform future screening strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2002, demand for screening colonoscopy in New Hampshire for patients aged more than 50 years was approximately twice the available capacity. However, if the assessed screening capacity of 2002 were to increase by 20%, combined with a target of 60% population compliance with screening as an initial goal, the demand for colonoscopy in New Hampshire would be met.

Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy

Some patients who undergo colonoscopy that appeared to have cleared the colorectum of neoplasia return within a short interval (1-3 yr) with colorectal cancer. Although several a priori mechanisms could account for this occurrence, wide variation in detection rates of adenomas and cancer at colonoscopy suggests that suboptimal colonoscopic technique is a significant contributor. Optimal technique with white-light colonoscopy involves taking adequate time for inspection during withdrawal (an average of at least 6 min in normal colons), interrogating the proximal sides of folds, flexures, and valves, clearing fluid and debris, and distending adequately. Some adjunctive techniques are directed toward exposing more colonic mucosa during colonoscopy. Wide-angle colonoscopy appears to improve efficiency but does not eliminate miss rates. Colonoscopy in retroflexion was unsuccessful in reducing miss rates in one study, whereas cap-fitted colonoscopy was successful in reducing miss rates in one small study. Techniques to improve detection of flat lesions include pancolonic chromoendoscopy (CE). In two randomized controlled trials, CE improved adenoma detection, but CE does not appear to provide substantially greater yields than those obtained by the more sensitive white-light colonoscopists. Narrow band imaging and autofluorescence are being assessed for improved detection of flat lesions. Adenoma detection rates are an important measure of the quality of colonoscopy and should be reported to endoscopists in quality improvement programs in colonoscopy.

Impact of a colonoscopic screening examination for colorectal cancer on later utilization of distal GI endoscopies

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer is being implemented in an increasing number of countries. This might lead to a demand for colonoscopies that could outstrip supply.

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to investigate whether undergoing a colonoscopic examination for colorectal cancer would affect the utilization of later distal GI endoscopies for other indications than follow-up of the findings at the screening examination (usual-care endoscopies).

DESIGN

Prospective case control study.

PATIENTS

In 1996, a screening group of 634 individuals, aged 63 to 72 years, randomly drawn from the official population registry, was invited to a "once only" colonoscopic screening examination for colorectal cancer. A total of 451 individuals (71%) attended. An age- and sex-matched control group of 634 individuals was enrolled from the same registry. Both groups belonged to the encatchment area of a single hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Distal endoscopies performed in the 2 groups from January 1996 to November 2004 were registered by investigating medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 1268 individuals (52.4% women) were followed for 9 years. Sixty-three individuals (9.9%) in the screening group and 110 (17.4%) individuals in the control group (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.73) had had a total of 85 and 169 usual-care distal endoscopies, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Undergoing a colonoscopic examination for colorectal cancer seems to reduce the utilization of later usual-care endoscopic examinations. This finding could have an impact on the estimation of endoscopic resources needed for colorectal cancer screening.

Afternoon colonoscopies have higher failure rates than morning colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

There are several known predictors of an incomplete colonoscopy or difficult colonoscopy. In addition, inadequate bowel preparation has been reported in procedures scheduled later in the day. Operator fatigue, which tends to be higher as the day passes on, may also impact colonoscopy completion rate.

AIMS

To determine the influence of performing outpatient colonoscopies in the afternoon versus morning on the completion rates of colonoscopy and adequacy of bowel preparation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all outpatient colonoscopies performed between November 2003 and October 2004 in the Division of Gastroenterology at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Patient demographics, indications for procedure, and colonoscopic findings were reviewed. Patients received polyethylene glycol electrolyte-based bowel preparation in the evening prior to the day of the scheduled colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 2,087 colonoscopies was performed, of which 1,084 were in the morning and 999 were in the afternoon. Patients in the morning and afternoon were similar in regards to the known risk factors predictive of an incomplete colonoscopy. The incompletion rate was significantly higher in the afternoon compared to the morning (6.5% vs 4.1%, P= 0.013, OR for incompletion was 1.64, CI 1.11-2.44). Inadequate bowel preparation was found in 167 out of 1,084 (15.4%) colonoscopies in the morning and 197 out of 999 (19.7%) colonoscopies in the afternoon (P= 0.011). Even after excluding incomplete colonoscopies due to poor bowel preparation precluding examination, the incompletion rate was still higher in the afternoon (5% vs 3.2%, P= 0.043, OR 1.60, CI 1.03-2.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Scheduling of colonoscopies in the afternoon compared to the morning may be an independent predictor of an incomplete colonoscopy and inadequate bowel preparation. According to our study findings, scheduling of all outpatient colonoscopies preferentially in the morning would avoid suboptimal procedures in 5% of patients and the need for unnecessary repeat colonoscopy or an alternative imaging study in 2.4% of patients.

Risk stratification for colon neoplasia: screening strategies using colonoscopy and computerized tomographic colonography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup.

RESULTS

In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

Sedation impacts every aspect of endoscopy practice--the quality fo the examination, the satisfaction of endoscopist and of patient, the efficiency and cost of delivering services, and the compliance of patients with surveillance guidelines. New sedation agents and improved patient-monitoring and drug-delivery technologies are challenging traditional practices. Increasing demand for endoscopic services, shrinking reimbursements, and competing diagnostic technologies are prompting recognition that new approaches to sedation can improve practice efficiency and patient outcome. This article discusses new developments in endoscopic sedation and their implications for practice management.

Gastroenterology practice in 2006: challenges and opportunities

Two main developments will dominate the future of gastroenterology in the United States. The first is changing demography, and the second is revolutionary change in the structure of health insurance, that is, the advent of consumer-driven health care. This article details some of the demographic and insurance changes that gastroenterologists will have to contend with in the future and outlines some of the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because the drug is commonly used to produce deep sedation or general anesthesia. Propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines can be titrated to moderate sedation, which might be safer.

AIM

To compare recovery time, patient satisfaction, and other end points with propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol combination therapy with opioids and/or benzodiazepines.

METHOD

A randomized controlled clinical trial of propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus fentanyl plus propofol versus midazolam plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam plus propofol in 200 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Each combination regimen was titrated to moderate sedation.

RESULTS

Patients receiving propofol alone received higher doses of propofol and had deeper sedation scores compared with combination therapy (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving combination regimens were discharged more quickly (median 13.0-14.7 versus 18.1 min) than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.01). There were no differences in vital signs or oxygen saturations among the study arms. There were no significant differences in pain or satisfaction among the study arms in the recovery area. At a follow-up phone call, patients receiving fentanyl and propofol remembered more of the procedure than those in the other regimens (p < 0.005) and remembered more pain than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol in combination with fentanyl and/or midazolam can be titrated to moderate levels of sedation without substantial loss of satisfaction and with shorter recovery times compared with propofol titrated to deep sedation throughout the procedure.

On attitudes about colorectal cancer screening among gastrointestinal specialists and general practitioners in the Netherlands

AIM: To find out whether there are differences in attitudes about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and general practitioners (GPs) and which method is preferred in a national screening program

METHODS: Four hundred and twenty Dutch GI specialists in the Netherlands and 400 GPs in Amsterdam were questioned in 2004. Questions included demographics, affiliation, attitude towards screening both for the general population and themselves, methods of screening, family history and individual risk.

RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of the GI specialists returned the questionnaire in comparison to 32% of the GPs (P < 0.001). Among the GI specialists, 92% favoured population screening whereas 51% of GPs supported population screening (P < 0.001). Of the GI specialists 95% planned to be screened themselves, while 30% of GPs intended to do so (P < 0.001). Regarding the general population, 72% of the GI specialists preferred colonoscopy as the screening method compared to 27% of the GPs (P < 0.001). The method preferred for personal screening was colonoscopy in 97% of the GI specialists, while 29% of the GPs favoured colonoscopy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Screening for CRC is strongly supported by Dutch GI specialists and less by GPs. The major health issue is possibly misjudged by GPs. Since GPs play a crucial role in a successful national screening program, CRC awareness should be realized by increasing knowledge about the incidence and mortality, thus increasing awareness of the need for screening among GPs.

Screening for colorectal cancer with flexible sigmoidoscopy: is a 5-yr interval appropriate? A comparison of the detection of neoplasia 3 yr versus 5 yr after a normal examination

CONTEXT

The recommended interval for colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was recently lengthened from 3 to 5 yr. Direct evidence supporting the longer interval is lacking. The appropriateness of the longer interval has been questioned.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of neoplasia detected on FS in individuals who had undergone an FS either 3 yr or 5 yr after a normal examination.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PATIENTS

Subjects were drawn from 5,359 individuals who underwent two FS examinations performed for colorectal cancer screening. Examinations were performed by gastroenterologists at a single academic medical center between 1987 and 2002. A total of 2,146 subjects with a normal baseline examination and a follow-up examination 3 and 5 yr later was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

To compare the incidence of neoplasia, including advanced neoplasia, detected 3 yr versus 5 yr after a normal FS.

RESULTS

915 subjects underwent FS at 3 yr and 1,231 subjects at 5 yr after a normal examination. Neoplasia was detected in 3.2% of the 3-yr and 4.3% of the 5-yr subjects (p=0.17). No significant differences were detected in the pathology, multiplicity, or size of neoplasms between the 3- and 5-yr groups. Advanced neoplasms occurred in 0.9% (including one adenocarcinoma) of subjects at 3 yr and 1.1% of subjects at 5 yr (p=0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Few individuals will develop rectosigmoid neoplasms 3 or 5 yr after a normal FS. The majority of neoplasms detected are low-risk lesions. A screening interval of 5 yr after a normal FS does not portend an increased risk of advanced neoplasms including cancer. This direct evidence supports the current recommendations of a 5-yr interval for colorectal cancer screening with FS.

Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of new sedative agents as well as a desire for improved patient satisfaction and greater efficiency has changed the practice of endoscopic sedation. This survey was designed to provide national and regional data on endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices within the United States.

METHODS

A 22-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed to 5,000 American College of Gastroenterology physician members nationwide.

RESULTS

A total of 1,353 questionnaires (27.1%) were returned. Respondents performed an average of 12.3 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 22.3 colonoscopies per wk. Endoscopic procedures were performed within a hospital setting (55.2) more often than at an ambulatory center (35.8%) or private office (8.8%). The vast majority of EGDs and colonoscopies (>98%) were performed with endoscopic sedation. Almost three quarters (74.3%) of the respondents used a narcotic and benzodiazepine for sedation, while propofol was preferred by 25.7%. Sedation practices varied considerably within different geographic regions of the United States. Respondents routinely monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (99.2% and 98.6%, respectively), and supplemental oxygen was administered to all patients during EGD by 72.7% of endoscopists. Endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was greater among those using propofol than conventional sedation (10 vs 8, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

During the past 15 yr, the volume of procedures performed by endoscopists in the United States has increased two- to fourfold. Propofol is currently being used for sedation in approximately one quarter of all endoscopies in the United States. The findings from this survey may help in the formulation of updated policies and practice guidelines pertaining to endoscopic sedation.

Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines, physicians tend to perform postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies too frequently.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the baseline compliance rate with postpolypectomy guidelines in our unit and to determine the influence of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) intervention on improving the compliance rate and on decreasing the potential additional costs because of the scheduling of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies earlier than indicated.

DESIGN

This was a single-arm, pretest-posttest design.

SETTING

This study took place at a tertiary care, academic medical center.

PATIENTS

The medical records of all patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy in our unit retrospectively during 6 months preceding (baseline period) and prospectively for 6 months after an intervention (postintervention period) were reviewed for patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, and scheduling of repeat colonoscopies.

INTERVENTION

We used 3 components: (1) distribution of a wallet-size card with a summary of postpolypectomy guidelines to all endoscopists, (2) placement of guideline charts near computers used for typing endoscopy reports, and (3) distribution and reinforcement of the guidelines in a monthly continuous quality improvement meeting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were compliance rates, mean times to repeat colonoscopy, and additional costs from surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than indicated were compared between the two periods.

RESULTS

There were 278 patients in the baseline period and 242 in the postintervention period, with similar patient and polyp characteristics. After the intervention, the compliance rate with guidelines improved from 57.2% to 81% (p < 0.001). The mean time to a repeat colonoscopy increased from 4.5 to 5.2 years (p = 0.003) (i.e., a 14% reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies performed per year). This would result in a reduction of a total of 73 surveillance colonoscopies per year in our unit, with a projected cost savings of 171,331 dollars per year (cost of a colonoscopy assumed at 2347 dollars).

LIMITATIONS

The limitation of the study was possible enhanced performance secondary to being observed (Hawthorne effect). Because more than 1 intervention was used, we do not know which one is more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively simple and easy-to-implement quality improvement initiatives can significantly enhance compliance with postpolypectomy guidelines and result in cost savings because of a reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than recommended guidelines.

Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective and cost-effective, but the potential national impact of widespread screening is uncertain. It is controversial whether screening colonoscopy can be offered widely and how emerging tests may impact health services demand. Our aim was to produce integrated, comprehensive estimates of the impact of widespread screening on national clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.

METHODS

We used a Markov model and census data to estimate the national consequences of screening 75% of the US population with conventional and emerging strategies.

RESULTS

Screening decreased CRC incidence by 17%-54% to as few as 66,000 cases per year and CRC mortality by 28%-60% to as few as 23,000 deaths per year. With no screening, total annual national CRC-related expenditures were 8.4 US billion dollars. With screening, expenditures for CRC care decreased by 1.5-4.4 US billion dollars but total expenditures increased to 9.2-15.4 US billion dollars. Screening colonoscopy every 10 years required 8.1 million colonoscopies per year including surveillance, with other strategies requiring 17%-58% as many colonoscopies. With improved screening uptake, total colonoscopy demand increased in general, even assuming substantial use of virtual colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite savings in CRC care, widespread screening is unlikely to be cost saving and may increase national expenditures by 0.8-2.8 US billion dollars per year with conventional tests. The current national endoscopic capacity, as recently estimated, may be adequate to support widespread use of screening colonoscopy in the steady state. The impact of emerging tests on colonoscopy demand will depend on the extent to which they replace screening colonoscopy or increase screening uptake in the population.

Market for colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy in the United States

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among all cancer sites in incidence, and second in cancer-related mortality. Although screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality, current screening rates among the average-risk population are low. The traditional way of promoting CRC screening has been to educate healthcare providers and the public on its benefits, available screening procedures, and current guidelines. In this paper, we focus on economics and provide an overview of some key factors that affect the demand for and the supply of CRC screening by endoscopy. Factors affecting the demand for endoscopic CRC screening include the number of people for whom screening is recommended, consumers' income and health insurance status, time and travel costs, prices of non-endoscopic CRC screening tests, and personal preferences and perceived quality of care. Factors influencing the supply of endoscopic screening include the availability of endoscopic providers, increased efficiency, procedure costs, current reimbursement rates for endoscopic procedures, and technical progress. The volume of screening tests in the market is determined jointly by the collective demand and supply decisions of consumers and providers. The discussion includes policy implications for the current effort to promote widespread use of CRC screening in the United States.

Persistent demographic differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization despite Medicare reimbursement

Background

Colorectal cancer screening is widely recommended, but often under-utilized. In addition, significant demographic differences in screening utilization exist. Insurance coverage may be one factor influencing utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of claims for outpatient services for Washington state Medicare beneficiaries in calendar year 2000. We determined the proportion of beneficiaries utilizing screening fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or double contrast barium enema in the overall population and various demographic subgroups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative odds of screening in different demographic groups.

Results

Approximately 9.2% of beneficiaries had fecal occult blood tests, 7.2% had any colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or barium enema (invasive) colon tests, and 3.5% had invasive tests for screening indications. Colonoscopy accounted for 41% of all invasive tests for screening indications. Women were more likely to receive fecal occult blood test screening (OR 1.18; 95%CI 1.15, 1.21) and less likely to receive invasive tests for screening indications than men (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.77, 0.83). Whites were more likely than other racial groups to receive any type of screening. Rural residents were more likely than urban residents to have fecal occult blood tests (OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.17, 1.23) but less likely to receive invasive tests for screening indications (OR 0.89; 95%CI 0.85, 0.93).

Conclusion

Reported use of fecal occult blood testing remains modest. Overall use of the more invasive tests for screening indications remains essentially unchanged, but there has been a shift toward increased use of screening colonoscopy. Significant demographic differences in screening utilization persist despite consistent insurance coverage.

Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening rates for colorectal cancer remain low compared with screening rates for other cancers. The size of the unscreened population and the capacity to provide widespread screening are unknown. We estimated the number of average-risk persons aged 50 years or older not screened for colorectal cancer, the number of procedures required for this population, and the endoscopic capacity to satisfy this unmet need.

METHODS

Using data from the US Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health Interview Survey, we designed a forecasting model to estimate the number of persons in the United States currently not screened for colorectal cancer and the number of examinations needed to screen these persons. Test need was compared with available capacity, based on results from the national Survey of Endoscopic Capacity, assuming different proportions of available capacity were used for colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

Approximately 41.8 million average-risk people aged 50 years or older have not been screened for colorectal cancer according to national guidelines. Sufficient capacity exists to screen the unscreened population within 1 year using fecal occult blood testing followed by diagnostic colonoscopy for positive tests. Depending on the proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening, it could take up to 10 years to screen the unscreened population using flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The capacity exists for widespread screening with fecal occult blood testing. The capacity for screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy depends on the proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening.

Outcomes among African-Americans and Caucasians in colon cancer adjuvant therapy trials: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project

BACKGROUND

African-Americans generally have lower survival rates from colon cancer than Caucasian Americans. This disparity has been attributed to many sources, including diagnosis at later disease stage and other unfavorable disease features, inadequate treatment, and socioeconomic factors. The randomized clinical trial setting ensures similarity in disease stage and a uniform treatment plan between blacks and whites. In this study, we evaluated survival and related end points for African-American and Caucasian patients with colon cancer participating in randomized clinical trials of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) to determine whether outcomes were less favorable for African-Americans.

METHODS

The study included African-American (n = 663) or Caucasian (n = 5969) patients from five serially conducted, randomized clinical trials of the NSABP. We compared recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival (recurrence, new primary cancer, or death), and survival (death from any cause) between blacks and whites by using statistical modeling to account for differences in patient and disease characteristics between the groups. Statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Dukes' stage and number of positive lymph nodes were remarkably similar between African-American and Caucasian patients in each trial. Over all trials combined, an 8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -6% to 25%; P =.27) excess risk of colon cancer recurrence that was not statistically significant was observed for blacks. A greater disparity in survival was seen, with blacks experiencing a statistically significant 21% (95% CI = 6%-37%; P =.004) greater risk of death. Treatment efficacy appeared similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While the overall survival prognosis was less favorable for African-Americans compared with Caucasians in these trials, other outcomes measured were considerably more similar than those seen in the population at large, suggesting that earlier detection and adjuvant therapy could appreciably improve colon cancer prognosis for African-Americans. Continued investigations into causes of the deficits noted are warranted.