Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach

Effect of GP visits in the compliance of preventive services: a cross-sectional study in Europe

BACKGROUND

Performing cardiovascular and cancer screenings in target populations can reduce mortality. Visiting a General Practitioner (GP) once a year is related to an increased likelihood of preventive care. The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of visiting a GP in the last year on the delivery of preventive services based on sex and household income.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using data collected from the European Health Interview Survey 2013-2015 of individuals aged 40-74 years from 29 European countries. The variables included: sociodemographic factors (age, sex, and household income (HHI) quintiles [HHI 1: lowest income, HHI 5: more affluent]), lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and preventive care services (cardiometabolic, influenza vaccination, and cancer screening). Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and multilevel models (level 1: citizen, level 2: country) were performed.

RESULTS

242,212 subjects were included, 53.7% were female. The proportion of subjects who received any cardiometabolic screening (92.4%) was greater than cancer screening (colorectal cancer: 44.1%, gynaecologic cancer: 40.0%) and influenza vaccination. Individuals who visited a GP in the last year were more prone to receive preventive care services (cardiometabolic screening: adjusted OR (aOR): 7.78, 95% CI: 7.43-8.15; colorectal screening aOR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.80-1.95; mammography aOR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.69-1.83 and Pap smear test: aOR: 1.89, 95% CI:1.85-1.94). Among those who visited a GP in the last year, the highest ratios of cardiometabolic screening and cancer screening benefited those who were more affluent. Women underwent more blood pressure measurements than men regardless of the HHI. Men were more likely to undergo influenza vaccination than women regardless of the HHI. The highest differences between countries were observed for influenza vaccination, with a median odds ratio (MOR) of 6.36 (under 65 years with comorbidities) and 4.30 (over 65 years with comorbidities), followed by colorectal cancer screening with an MOR of 2.26.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater adherence to preventive services was linked to individuals who had visited a GP at least once in the past year. Disparities were evident among those with lower household incomes who visited a GP. The most significant variability among countries was observed in influenza vaccination and colorectal cancer screening.

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.

Availability of Primary Care Physicians and Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer-Related Mortality in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States (US), however racial disparities in outcomes persist. We sought to assess the correlation of availability of primary care physicians (PCPs) and racial disparities in CRC-related mortality.

METHODS

We studied the correlation between age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates of CRC among all 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) with the number of actively practicing PCPs in all 50 states and D.C. from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) State Physician Workforce Data Report. Pearson's coefficient was used to study correlations and the two-sample t test was used for comparing state-level PCP/CRC ratios between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using VassarStats.

RESULTS

The mean AAMR per 100,000 population for CRC was significantly higher among AA versus White populations (t = 5.79, p < 0.001). Higher state-wide PCP per CRC case ratio correlated with lower state-wide CRCrelated mortality (r = -0.36, p = 0.011). The mean PCP per CRC case ratio was significantly lower among AA compared to White populations (t = -15.95, p < 0.0001). Higher PCP per CRC case ratio correlated with lower CRC-related mortality among both White (r = -0.64, p < 0.0001) and AA (r = -0.57, p = 0.0002) populations.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that racial disparities in CRC-related mortality may at least in part be related to lower availability of PCPs. Efforts focused on the development of strategies focused on improving access to primary care may help bridge racial disparities in CRC-related outcomes.

Patient preferences for the design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program

PURPOSE

To assess preferences for design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (PharmFIT™) among screening-eligible adults in the United States (US) and explore the impact of rurality on pharmacy use patterns (e.g., pharmacy type, prescription pick-up preference, service quality rating).

METHODS

We conducted a national online survey of non-institutionalized US adults through panels managed by Qualtrics, a survey research company. A total of 1,045 adults (response rate 62%) completed the survey between March and April 2021. Sampling quotas matched respondents to the 2010 US Census and oversampled rural residents. We assessed pharmacy use patterns by rurality and design preferences for learning about PharmFIT™; receiving a FIT kit from a pharmacy; and completing and returning the FIT kit.

RESULTS

Pharmacy use patterns varied, with some notable differences across rurality. Rural respondents used local, independently owned pharmacies more than non-rural respondents (20.4%, 6.3%, p < 0.001) and rated pharmacy service quality higher than non-rural respondents. Non-rural respondents preferred digital communication to learn about PharmFIT™ (36% vs 47%; p < 0.001) as well as digital FIT counseling (41% vs 49%; p = 0.02) more frequently than rural participants. Preferences for receiving and returning FITs were associated with pharmacy use patterns: respondents who pick up prescriptions in-person preferred to get their FIT (OR 7.7; 5.3-11.2) and return it in-person at the pharmacy (OR 1.7; 1.1-2.4).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacies are highly accessible and could be useful for expanding access to CRC screening services. Local context and pharmacy use patterns should be considered in the design and implementation of PharmFIT™.

Does Health Literacy Affect Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates?

This study aims to determine the relationship between adult colorectal cancer screening behaviors and health literacy levels. This cross-sectional study aims to determine the relationship between adult colorectal cancer screening behaviors and health literacy levels. Of the participants, only a small proportion had undergone this screening (9.3%). Having an intestinal disease (OR = 23) and having a relative with colorectal cancer (OR = 8) had the highest effect on colorectal screening. There were significant differences between the colorectal screening groups concerning most THLS-32 subgroup scores, including the THLS-32 total score. Health literacy affects colorectal cancer screening rates. Primary care workers, especially community health nurses, are in an ideal position to increase health literacy and thereby increase cancer screening rates.

Randomized controlled trials of biomarker targets

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials are used to estimate the causal effect of a treatment on a health outcome of interest in a patient population. Often the specified treatment in a randomized controlled trial is a medical intervention-such as a drug or procedure-experienced directly by the patient. Sometimes the "treatment" in a randomized controlled trial is a target-such as a goal biomarker measurement-that the patient's physician attempts to reach using available medications or procedures. Large randomized controlled trials of biomarker targets are common in clinical research, and trials have been conducted to compare targets in the management of hypertension, diabetes, anemia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, different randomized controlled trials intended to evaluate the same biomarker targets have produced conflicting recommendations, and meta-analyses that aggregate results of trials of biomarker targets have been inconclusive.

METHODS

We use causal reasoning to explain why randomized controlled trials of biomarker targets can arrive at conflicting or misleading conclusions. We describe four key threats to the validity of trials of targets: (1) intention-to-treat analysis can be misleading when a direct effect of target assignment on the outcome exists due to lack of blinding; (2) incomparability in results across trials of targets; (3) time-varying adaptive treatment strategies; and (4) Goodhart's law, "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

RESULTS

We illustrate these findings using evidence from 15 randomized controlled trials of blood pressure targets for management of hypertension. Randomized trials of blood pressure targets exhibit substantial variation in the trial patient populations and antihypertensives used to achieve the blood pressure targets assigned in the trials. The trials did not compare or account for time-varying treatment strategies used to reach the randomized targets. Possible "off-target" effects of antihypertensive medications needed to reach lower blood pressure targets may explain the absence of a clear benefit from intensive blood pressure control.

DISCUSSION

Researchers should critically assess meta-analyses of trials of targets for variation in the types, distributions, and off-target effects of therapies studied. Trial investigators should release detailed information about the biomarker targets compared in new randomized trials, as well as confounders, treatments delivered, and outcomes. New randomized controlled trials should experimentally compare treatment algorithms incorporating biomarkers, rather than targets alone. Causal inference methodology that adjusts for time-varying confounding should be used to compare time-varying treatment strategies in observational settings.

Persistent Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Tell-Tale Sign for Implementing New Guidelines in Younger Adults

BACKGROUND

In May 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 45 (vs. 50) years.

METHODS

We estimated prevalence of colorectal cancer screening (by colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, or stool-based tests) in adults ages 50 to 75 years using data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018. For each survey year, we estimated prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance. We also compared increases in prevalence of screening from 2000 to 2018 in 5-year age groups (50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, and 70-75 years).

RESULTS

Overall, prevalence of colorectal cancer screening increased from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018. Screening prevalence in 2018 was lowest for age 50 to 54 years (47.6%), Hispanics (56.5%), Asians (57.1%), and participants with less than a high school degree (53.6%), from low-income families (56.6%), or without insurance (39.7%). Increases in prevalence over time differed by five-year age group. For example, prevalence increased from 28.2% in 2000 to 47.6% in 2018 (+19.4%; 95% CI, 13.1-25.6) for age 50 to 54 years but from 46.4% to 78.0% (+31.6%; 95% CI, 25.4%-37.7%) for age 70 to 75 years. This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening remains low in adults ages 50 to 54 years.

IMPACT

As new guidelines are implemented, care must be taken to ensure screening benefits are realized equally by all population groups, particularly newly eligible adults ages 45 to 49 years. See related commentary by Brawley, p. 1671.

Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

There has been increased interest in interventions to promote hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance given low utilization and high proportions of late stage detection. Accurate prediction of patients likely versus unlikely to respond to interventions could allow a cost-effective approach to outreach and facilitate targeting more intensive interventions to likely non-responders.

DESIGN

We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial evaluating a mailed outreach strategy to promote HCC surveillance among 1200 cirrhosis patients at a safety-net health system between December 2014 and March 2017. We developed regularized logistic regression (RLR) and gradient boosting machine (GBM) algorithm models to predict surveillance completion during each of the 3 screening rounds in a training set (n = 960). Model performance was assessed using multiple performance metrics in an independent test set (n = 240).

RESULTS

Among 1200 patients, surveillance was completed in 41-47% of patients over the three rounds. The RLR and GBM models demonstrated good discriminatory accuracy, with area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.67 and 0.66 respectively in the first surveillance round and improved to 0.77 by the third surveillance round after incorporating prior screening behavior as a feature. Additional performance characteristics including the Brier score, Hosmer-Lemeshow test and reliability diagrams were also evaluated. The most important variables for the predictive model were prior screening completion status and past primary care contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive models can help stratify patients' likelihood to respond to surveillance outreach invitations, facilitating tailored strategies to maximize effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCC surveillance population health programs.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff

PURPOSE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program.

METHODS

We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates.

RESULTS

We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Routine and preventive health care use in the community among women sentenced to probation

BACKGROUND

Women involved in the criminal legal (CL) system in the United States have much higher levels of chronic and infectious illness than women in the general population. Over 80% of women in the CL system are on community supervision, which means they receive health care in community settings. While the use of Emergency Department care among CL involved populations has been examined fairly extensively, less is known about engagement in routine and preventive medical care among people on community supervision.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study of health care utilization among women with Medicaid who were currently or previously sentenced to probation in Alameda County, CA (N = 328). At baseline, 6- and 12-months, we interviewed participants about every medical care visit in the six months prior, and about potential influences on  health care utilization based on the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations (BMVP). Associations between BMVP factors and utilization of routine or preventive care were estimated using Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used account for repeated measures over time.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of one or more chronic illnesses was reported by 82% of participants. Two-thirds (62%) of women engaged in routine or preventive care in the six months prior to interview. A quarter of women engaging in routine or preventive care did not have a primary care provider (PCP). Having a PCP doubled the likelihood of using routine or preventive care (adjusted Relative Risk [adjRR] 2.27, p < 0.001). Subsistence difficulty (adjRR 0.74, p = 0.01) and unmet mental health care need (adjRR 0.83, p = 0.001) were associated with a lower likelihood of using routine or preventive care.

CONCLUSION

Findings underscore the importance of meeting the basic needs of women on community supervision and of connecting them with primary health care providers.

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.

Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Digital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied.

RESULTS

Common criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

Spatial Insights for Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening in Disproportionately Affected Populations, Central Texas, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce morbidity and mortality; however, important disparities exist in CRC uptake. Our study examines the associations of distance to care and frequency of using primary care and screening.

METHODS

To examine the distribution of screening geographically and according to several demographic features, we used individual patient-level data, dated September 30, 2018, from a large urban safety-net health system in Central Texas. We used spatial cluster analysis and logistic regression adjusted for age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, and health insurance status.

RESULTS

We obtained screening status data for 13,079 age-eligible patients from the health system's electronic medical records. Of those eligible, 55.1% were female, and 55.9% identified as Hispanic. Mean age was 58.1 years. Patients residing more than 20 miles from one of the system's primary care clinics was associated with lower screening rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93). Patients with higher screening rates included those who had a greater number of primary care-related (nonspecialty) visits within 1 year (OR, 6.90; 95% CI, 6.04-7.88) and those who were part of the county-level medical assistance program (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84). Spatial analysis identified an area where the level of CRC screening was particularly low.

CONCLUSION

Distance to primary care and use of primary care were associated with screening. Priorities in targeted interventions should include identifying and inviting patients with limited care engagements.

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Modality Among Newly Age-Eligible Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

This study examines individual- and practice-level predictors of screening modality among 1,484 Medicaid enrollees who initiated colorectal cancer screening (fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood tests or colonoscopy) within a year of turning age 50 years. Understanding screening modality patterns for patients and health systems can help optimize colorectal cancer screening initiatives that will lead to high screening completion rates.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression was conducted in 2019 to analyze Medicaid claims data (January 2013-June 2015) to explore predictors of colonoscopy screening (versus fecal testing).

RESULTS

Overall, 64% of enrollees received a colonoscopy and 36% received a fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Male (OR=1.21, 95% CI=1.08, 1.37) compared with female enrollees and those with 4-6 (OR=1.57, 95% CI=1.15, 2.15), 7-10 (OR=2.23, 95% CI=1.64, 3.03), and ≥11 (OR=1.79, 95% CI=1.22, 2.65) primary care visits compared with 0-3 visits had higher odds of colonoscopy screening. Non-White, non-Hispanic enrollees (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.58, 0.87) compared with White, non-Hispanics Whites had lower odds of colonoscopy screening. Practices with an endoscopy facility within their ZIP code (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.08, 2.08) compared with practices without a nearby endoscopy facility had higher odds of colonoscopy screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees who received colorectal cancer screening, non-White, non-Hispanic individuals were less likely and male enrollees and those with ≥4 primary care visits were more likely to undergo colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Colonoscopy also was the more common modality among adults whose primary care clinic had an endoscopy facility in the same ZIP code. Future research is needed to fully understand patient, provider, and practice preferences regarding screening modality.

A Motivational Interviewing Intervention to Promote CRC Screening: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Appalachian Kentuckians suffer a disproportionate incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and are screened at lower rates (35%) compared with 47% of Kentuckians.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a motivational interviewing intervention delivered by trained Lay Health Advisors on CRC screening.

METHOD

Eligible participants recruited from an emergency department (ED) completed a baseline survey and were randomized to either the control or the motivational interviewing intervention provided by Lay Health Advisors. Follow-up surveys were administered 3 and 6 months after baseline. To evaluate potential differences in treatment and control groups, t tests, χ, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used.

RESULTS

At either the 3- or 6-month assessment, there was no difference in the CRC screening by group (χ = 0.13, P = .72). There was a significant main effect for the study group in the susceptibility to CRC model; regardless of time, those in the intervention group reported approximately 1-point higher perceived susceptibility to CRC, compared with controls (est. b = 0.68, P = .038). Age and financial adequacy had a significant effect related to CRC screening. Older participants (est. b = 0.09, P = .014) and those who reported financial inadequacy (est. b = 2.34, P = .002) reported more screening barriers.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study elucidated important factors influencing the uptake of CRC for an ED transient population and this may be useful in the design of future interventions using motivational interviewing in EDs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses can provide information about CRC screening guidelines and provide referrals to appropriate screening resources in the community.

Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.

METHODS

We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.

RESULTS

The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.

Primary care visits increase utilization of evidence-based preventative health measures

BACKGROUND

Primary care visits can serve many purposes and potentially influence health behaviors. Although previous studies suggest that increasing primary care provider numbers may be beneficial, the mechanism responsible for the association is unclear, and have not linked primary care access to specific preventative interventions. We investigated the association between the number of times patients accessed their primary care provider team and the likelihood they received selected preventative health interventions.

METHODS

Patients with complete data sets from Sanford Health were categorized based on the number of primary care visits they received in a specified time period and the preventative health interventions they received. Patient characteristics were used in a propensity analysis to control for variables. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to estimate the likelihood of obtaining preventative measures based on number of primary care visits compared with patients who had no primary care visits during the specified time period.

RESULTS

The likelihood of a patient receiving three specified preventative interventions was increased by 127% for vaccination, 122% for colonoscopy, and 75% for mammography if the patient had ≥ 1 primary care visit per year. More primary care visits correlated with increasing frequency of vaccinations, but increased primary care visits beyond one did not correlate with increasing frequency of mammography or colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

One or more primary care visits per year is associated with increased likelihood of specific evidence-based preventative care interventions that improve longitudinal health outcomes and decrease healthcare costs. Increasing efforts to track and increase the number of primary care visits by clinics and health systems may improve patient compliance with select preventative measures.

Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.

An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

The use of screening can prevent death from colorectal cancer, yet people without regular healthcare visits may not realize the benefits of this preventive intervention. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a mailed screening invitation or mailed fecal immunochemical test in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in veterans without recent primary care encounters.

STUDY DESIGN

Three-arm pragmatic randomized trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants were screening-eligible veterans aged 50-75 years, without a recent primary care visit who accessed medical services at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017. All data were analyzed from March 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized to (1) usual opportunistic screening during a healthcare visit (n=260), (2) mailed invitation to screen and reminder phone calls (n=261), or (3) mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach plus reminder calls (n=61).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome under investigation was the completion of colorectal cancer screening within 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

Of 782 participants in the trial, 53.9% were aged 60-75 years and 59.7% were African American. The screening rate was higher in the mailed fecal immunochemical test group (26.1%) compared with usual care (5.8%) (rate difference=20.3%, 95% CI=14.3%, 26.3%; RR=4.52, 95% CI=2.7, 7.7) or screening invitation (7.7%) (rate difference=18.4%, 95% CI=12.2%, 24.6%; RR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1, 5.4). Screening completion rates were similar between invitation and usual care (rate difference=1.9%, 95% CI= -2.4%, 6.2%; RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.7, 2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed fecal immunochemical test screening promotes colorectal cancer screening participation among veterans without a recent primary care encounter. Despite the addition of reminder calls, an invitation letter was no more effective in screening participation than screening during outpatient appointments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02584998.

A Retrospective Analysis of Gender-Based Difference in Adherence to Initial Colon Cancer Screening Recommendations

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, despite being largely preventable and treatable. Improving overall screening rates among both men and women is considered an important and effective strategy toward reducing morbidity and mortality from CRC. In order to optimize screening strategies, factors associated with decreased compliance need to be understood. This study aimed to compare initial CRC screening rates between males and females in a population of patients who presented for an annual physical examination. Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 380 patients designed to compare rates of initial CRC screening between males and females was conducted. Patients who were seen at our institution for an annual physical examination and were between 51 and 60 years of age were included. Results: There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of initial colon cancer screening between females (83.0%) and males (80.9%) in either unadjusted analysis (odds ratio = 1.16, P = .59) or in multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounding variables (odds ratio = 1.16, P = .61). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the rate of initial CRC screening between males and females who presented for an annual physical examination. This suggests that designing interventions to improve screening specific to gender may not be needed in a population of patients who attend routine preventive health examinations. Further study is needed in the general population to examine for gender-based differences in initial CRC screening among patients who do not regularly follow up for preventive examinations.

Vital Signs: Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Use - United States, 2018

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States of cancers that affect both men and women. Despite strong evidence that screening for CRC reduces incidence and mortality, CRC screening prevalence is below the national target. This report describes current CRC screening prevalence by age, various demographic factors, and state.

METHODS

Data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed to estimate the percentages of adults aged 50-75 years who reported CRC screening consistent with the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation.

RESULTS

In 2018, 68.8% of adults were up to date with CRC screening. The percentage up to date was 79.2% among respondents aged 65-75 years and 63.3% among those aged 50-64 years. CRC screening prevalence was lowest among persons aged 50-54 years (50.0%) and increased with age. Among respondents aged 50-64 years, CRC screening prevalence was lowest among persons without health insurance (32.6%) and highest among those with reported annual household income of ≥$75,000 (70.8%). Among respondents aged 65-75 years, CRC screening prevalence was lowest among those without a regular health care provider (45.6%), and highest among those with reported annual household income ≥$75,000 (87.1%). Among states, CRC screening prevalence was highest in Massachusetts (76.5%) and lowest in Wyoming (57.8%).

DISCUSSION

CRC screening prevalence is lower among adults aged 50-64 years, although most reported having a health care provider and health insurance. Concerted efforts are needed to inform persons aged <50 years about the benefit of screening so that screening can start at age 50 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in People With and Without HIV in an Integrated Health Care Setting

BACKGROUND

As people with HIV (PWH) live longer, age-appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is increasingly important. Limited data exist on CRC screening and outcomes comparing PWH and persons without HIV.

SETTING

Large integrated health care system.

METHODS

This study included PWH and demographically matched persons without HIV who were aged 50-75 years during 2005-2016 and had no previous CRC screening. We evaluated time to first CRC screening (fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). We also assessed detection of adenoma and CRC with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy by HIV status, accounting for CRC risk factors including sex, age, race/ethnicity, number of outpatient visits, smoking, body mass index, type-2 diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease. Among PWH, we evaluated whether CD4 count (<200/200-499/≥500 cells/µL) was associated with adenoma and CRC.

RESULTS

Among 3177 PWH and 29,219 persons without HIV, PWH were more likely to be screened (85.6% vs. 79.1% within 5 years, P < 0.001). Among those with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, adenoma was detected in 161 (19.6%) PWH and 1498 (22.6%) persons without HIV, and CRC was detected in 4 (0.5%) PWH and 69 (1.0%) persons without HIV. In adjusted analyses, we found no difference in prevalence of either adenoma or CRC by HIV status (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 1.12). Lower CD4 count did not increase likelihood of adenoma or CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Within an integrated health care system with an organized CRC screening program, we found no disparities in CRC screening uptake or outcomes among people with and without HIV, and CD4 count did not influence CRC risk among PWH.

Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have explored how individual- and practice-level factors influence colorectal cancer screening initiation among Medicaid enrollees newly age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (i.e., turning 50 years). This study explored colorectal cancer screening initiation among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees in Oregon.

METHODS

Medicaid claims data (January 2013 to June 2015) were used to conduct multivariable logistic regression (in 2018 and 2019) to explore individual- and practice-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening initiation among 9,032 Medicaid enrollees.

RESULTS

A total of 17% of Medicaid enrollees initiated colorectal cancer screening; of these, 64% received a colonoscopy (versus fecal testing). Colorectal cancer screening initiation was positively associated with turning 50 years in 2014 (versus 2013; OR=1.21), being Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic white; OR=1.41), urban residence (versus rural; OR=1.23), and having 4 to 7 (OR=1.90) and 8 or more (OR=2.64) primary care visits compared with 1 to 3 visits in the year after turning 50 years. Having 3 or more comorbidities was inversely associated with initiation (OR=0.75). The odds of screening initiation were also higher for practices with 3 to 4 (OR=1.26) and 8 or more (OR=1.34) providers compared with 1 to 2 providers, and negatively associated with percentage of Medicaid panel age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (OR=0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Both individual- and practice-level factors are associated with disparities in colorectal cancer screening initiation among Oregon Medicaid enrollees. Future work promoting colorectal cancer screening might focus on additional barriers to the timely initiation of colorectal cancer screening and explore the effect of practice in-reach and population outreach strategies.

Colorectal cancer screening in newly insured Medicaid members: a review of concurrent federal and state policies

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized by Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured. Multiple national and state policies were enacted from 2010 to 2014 to increase access to Medicaid and to promote CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. We aimed to determine the impact of these policies on screening initiation among newly enrolled Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries age-eligible for CRC screening.

METHODS

We identified national and state policies affecting Medicaid coverage and preventive services in Oregon during 2010-2014. We used Oregon Medicaid claims data from 2010 to 2015 to conduct a cohort analysis of enrollees who turned 50 and became age-eligible for CRC screening (a prevention milestone, and an age at which guideline-concordant screening can be assessed within a single year) during each year from 2010 to 2014. We calculated risk ratios to assess whether first year of Medicaid enrollment and/or year turned 50 was associated with CRC screening initiation.

RESULTS

We identified 14,576 Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned 50 during 2010-2014; 2429 (17%) completed CRC screening within 12 months after turning 50. Individuals newly enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 or 2014 were 1.58 and 1.31 times more likely, respectively, to initiate CRC screening than those enrolled by 2010. A primary care visit in the calendar year, having one or more chronic conditions, and being Hispanic was also associated with CRC screening initiation.

DISCUSSION

The increased uptake of CRC screening in 2013 and 2014 is associated with the timing of policies such as Medicaid expansion, enhanced federal matching for preventive services offered to Medicaid enrollees without cost sharing, and formation of Medicaid accountable care organizations, which included CRC screening as an incentivized quality metric.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.

Proximal Femur Hounsfield Units on CT Colonoscopy Correlate With Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry

BACKGROUND

Quantifying bone mineral density (BMD) on CT using commercial software demonstrates good-to-excellent correlations with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) results. However, previous techniques to measure Hounsfield units (HUs) within the proximal femur demonstrate less successful correlation with DEXA results. An effective method of measuring HUs of the proximal femur from CT colonoscopy might allow for opportunistic osteoporosis screening.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Do proximal femur HU measurements from CT colonoscopy correlate with proximal femur DEXA results? (2) How effective is our single HU measurement technique in estimating the likelihood of overall low BMD? (3) Does the relationship between our comprehensive HU measurement and DEXA results change based on age, sex, or time between studies?

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated the measurement of HU of the femur obtained on CT colonoscopy studies compared with DEXA results. Between 2010 and 2017, five centers performed 9085 CT colonoscopy studies; of those, 277 (3%) also had available DEXA results and were included in this study, whereas 8809 (97%) were excluded for inadequate CT imaging, lack of DEXA screening, or lack of proximal femur DEXA results. The median number of days between CT colonoscopy and DEXA scan was 595 days; no patient was excluded based on time between scans because bone remodeling is a long-term process and this allowed subgroup analysis based on time between scans. Two reviewers performed HU measurements at four points within the proximal femur on the CT colonoscopy imaging and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate interrater reliability. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to compare the comprehensive (average of eight measurements) and a single HU measurement with each DEXA result-proximal femur BMD, proximal femur T-score, femoral neck BMD, and femoral neck T-score-to identify the best measurement technique within this study. Based on their lowest DEXA T-score, we stratified patients to a diagnosis of osteoporosis, osteopenia, or normal BMD. We then calculated the area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUCs) to evaluate the classification ability of a single HU value to identify possible threshold(s) for detecting low BMD. For each subgroup analysis, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between DEXA and HUs and evaluated each subgroup's contribution to the overall predictive model using an interaction test in a linear regression model.

RESULTS

The Pearson correlation coefficient between both the comprehensive and single HU measurements was highest compared with the proximal femur T-score at 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.80) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), respectively. Interobserver reliability, measured with intraclass correlation coefficients, for the comprehensive and single HU measurements was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), respectively. Based on DEXA results, 20 patients were osteoporotic, 167 had osteopenia, and 90 patients had normal BMD. The mean comprehensive HU for patients with osteoporosis was 70 ± 30 HUs; for patients with osteopenia, it was 110 ± 36 HUs; and for patients with normal BMD, it was 158 ± 43 HUs (p < 0.001). The AUC of the single HU model was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.87). A threshold of 214 HUs is 100% sensitive and 59 HUs is 100% specific to identify low BMD; a threshold of 113 HUs provided 73% sensitivity and 76% specificity. When stratified by decade age groups, each decade age group demonstrated a positive correlation between the comprehensive HU and proximal femur T-score, ranging between 0.71 and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91). Further subgroup analysis similarly demonstrated a positive correlation between the comprehensive HU and proximal femur T-score when stratified by > 6 months or < 6 months between CT and DEXA (0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84) as well as when stratified by sex (0.70-0.76; 95% CI, 0.48-0.81). The linear regression model demonstrated that the overall positive correlation coefficient between HUs and the proximal femur T-score is not influenced by any subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Our measurement technique provides a reproducible measurement of HUs within the proximal femur HUs on CT colonoscopy. Hounsfield units of the proximal femur based on this technique can predict low BMD. These CT scans are frequently performed before initial DEXA scans are done and therefore may lead to earlier recognition of low BMD. Future research is needed to validate these results in larger studies and to determine if these results can anticipate future fracture risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach

OBJECTIVES

METHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of those sent initial messaging through the EHR portal (9.5% opt-in versus 37.5% in opt-out).

CONCLUSIONS

.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests.

METHODS

Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Primary Care Collaboration to Improve Diagnosis and Screening for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death, reducible by screening and early diagnosis, yet many patients fail to receive recommended screening. As part of an academic improvement collaborative, 25 primary care practices worked to improve CRC screening and diagnosis.

METHODS

The project featured triannual learning sessions, monthly conference calls, practice coach support, and monthly reporting. The project phases included literature review and interviews with national leaders/organizations, development of driver diagrams to identify key factors and change ideas, project launch and practice team planning, and a practice improvement phase.

RESULTS

The project activities included (1) inventory of barriers and best practices, (2) driver diagram to drive improvements, (3) list of changes to try, (4) compilation of lessons learned, and (5) five key changes to optimize screening and follow-up. Practices leveraged prior transformation efforts to track patients for screening and follow-up during and between office visits. By mapping processes, testing changes, and collecting data, sites targeted opportunities to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and patient and care team experience. Successful change interventions centered around partnering with gastroenterology, engaging leadership, leveraging registries and health information technology, promoting alternative screening options, and partnering with and supporting patients. Several practices achieved improvement in screening rates, while others demonstrated no change from baseline during the 10-month testing and implementation phase (July 2014-April 2015).

CONCLUSION

The collaborative effectively engaged teams in a broad set of process improvements with key lessons learned related to barriers, information technology challenges, outreach challenges/strategies, and importance of stakeholder and patient engagement.