Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System

Residential Segregation and Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States, 2010 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Residential segregation limits the access to resources, primarily because of disinvestment. This study evaluated the association between residential segregation and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and whether findings differed by race and ethnicity.

METHODS

Restricted National Health Interview Survey data (2010-2018) were used to ascertain colorectal cancer screening adherence per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Residential segregation was operationalized using the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), based on income, race, and ethnicity information obtained from the 2014 to 2018 American Community Survey estimates for counties. Multivariable logistic regression models with robust variance estimators accounting for within-county correlation were used. Analyses were stratified by race and ethnicity and weighted to represent the US population.

RESULTS

In this cross-sectional study (n = 44,690), participants residing in less advantaged counties had lower colorectal cancer screening adherence than those residing in the most advantaged counties [Q1 vs. Q5, OR (95% confidence interval): ICE income, 0.77 (0.70-0.86); ICE race, 0.86 (0.77-0.96); ICE race + income, 0.75 (0.67-0.84)]. In analyses stratified by race and ethnicity, we observed that overall findings were mostly driven by White people and estimates were less precise with no clear gradients among racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Among Black participants, colorectal cancer screening did not vary across quintiles of economic segregation.

CONCLUSIONS

Residential segregation was associated with colorectal cancer screening.

IMPACT

Interventions aimed at improving colorectal cancer screening uptake in the United States should address structural barriers present in areas with higher concentrations of low-income minoritized racial and ethnic groups and how features of residential segregation might differentially affect racial and ethnic groups.

Achieving Equitable Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Texas Safety Net Health System

INTRODUCTION

A lung cancer screening program using low dose CT (LDCT) in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Central Texas was developed and assessed for equitable implementation.

METHODS

From 11/2020-8/2023, patients aged 55-77 years who currently smoked or quit within 15 years with ≥20 pack-years of exposure were identified through EHR query and mailed outreach, or through direct provider referrals. A bilingual social worker confirmed eligibility, provided telecare shared decision-making (SDM), coordinated screening, and offered smoking cessation. To assess equity, LDCT completion across demographics was compared, in 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 6,486 patients were mailed outreach materials; 479 patients responded, of whom 108 (22.5%) were eligible and 71 (65.7%) participated in SDM. 629 eligible patients were referred internally; 579 (92.0%) completed SDM. Of the 650 patients who completed SDM, 636 (97.8%) agreed to screening. Mean age was 61.7 years; 38.1% were female. The population was diverse: 35.8% identified as Latino, 17.8% as African American, 26.8% had Medicare or Medicaid, 48.0% used the county medical assistance program, 14.2% were uninsured, and 76.7% currently smoked. Overall, 528 (83.0%) patients completed LDCT. There were no statistically significant differences in completion by age, gender, race/ethnicity, or insurance status. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete the CT than English speakers (OR 2.22, 95% CI=1.22, 4.41) and those who formerly smoked were more likely to complete the CT than patients who currently smoked (OR 1.93, 95% CI=1.12, 3.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The navigator-centered program achieved equitable implementation of lung cancer screening in a diverse FQHC system.

Community Collaboration to Advance Racial/Ethnic Equity in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Multilevel Intervention to Improve Screening and Follow-up in Community Health Centers

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization is low among low-income, uninsured, and minority populations that receive care in community health centers (CHCs). There is a need for evidence-based interventions to increase screening and follow-up care in these settings.

METHODS

A multilevel, multi-component pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial is being conducted at 8 CHCs in two metropolitan areas (Boston and Los Angeles), with two arms: (1) Mailed FIT outreach with text reminders, and (2) Mailed FIT-DNA with patient support. We also include an additional CHC in Rapid City (South Dakota) that follows a parallel protocol for FIT-DNA but is not randomized due to lack of a comparison group. Eligible individuals in participating clinics are primary care patients ages 45-75, at average-risk for CRC, and overdue for CRC screening. Participants with abnormal screening results are offered navigation for follow-up colonoscopy and CRC risk assessment.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is the completion rate of CRC screening at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include the screening completion rate at 180 days and the rate of colonoscopy completion within 6 months among participants with an abnormal result. Additional goals are to enhance our understanding of facilitators and barriers to CRC risk assessment in CHC settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study assesses the effectiveness of two multilevel interventions to increase screening participation and follow-up after abnormal screening in under-resourced clinical settings, informing future efforts to address CRC disparities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05714644.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates at Federally Qualified Health Centers From 2014 to 2022: Incomplete Recovery From COVID-19 and Worsening Disparities

INTRODUCTION

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) provide preventive health services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to low-income and underinsured individuals. Overall CRC screening participation in the United States declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovered by 2021; however, trends in underresourced settings are unknown.

METHODS

Using Uniform Data System data from 2014 to 2022, we assessed trends in FQHC CRC screening rates nationally, in California, and in Los Angeles County and determined clinic-level factors associated with recent screening rate changes. For each FQHC, we calculated the screening rate change from 2019 to 2020, 2020 to 2021, and 2020 to 2022. We used mixed-effects linear regression to determine clinic-level characteristics associated with each screening rate change.

RESULTS

Across all FQHC (n = 1,281), 7,016,181 patients were eligible for CRC screening in 2022. Across the United States and in California, median screening rates increased from 2014 to 2019, severely declined in 2020, and failed to return to prepandemic levels by 2022. Both nationally and in California, CRC screening declined most dramatically from 2019 to 2020 in FQHC serving majority Hispanic/Latino patients or a high proportion of patients experiencing homelessness. From 2020 to 2022, screening rates did not recover completely in US FQHC, with disproportionate recovery among FQHC serving majority non-Hispanic Black patients.

DISCUSSION

CRC screening rates at FQHC did not return to prepandemic levels by 2022, and recovery varied by FQHC patient characteristics. Tailored interventions addressing low and decreasing CRC screening rates in FQHC are urgently needed to mitigate worsening CRC disparities.

Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas

Introduction

Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program.

Conclusions

A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.