Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

Longer travel times to acute hospitals are associated with lower likelihood of cancer screening receipt among rural-dwelling adults in the U.S. South

PURPOSE

Given rural hospitals' role in providing outpatient services, we examined the association between travel burdens and receipt of cancer screening among rural-dwelling adults in the U.S. South region.

METHODS

First, we estimated network travel times and distances to access the nearest and second nearest acute care hospital from each rural census tract in the U.S. South. After appending the Centers for Disease Control's PLACES dataset, we fitted generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Longer distances to the second nearest hospital are negatively associated with breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening receipt among eligible rural-dwelling adults. Rural-dwelling women in counties with 1 closure had reduced likelihood of breast cancer screening. Residence in a partial- or whole-county Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) was negatively associated with cancer screening receipt. Specialist (OB/GYN and gastroenterologist) supply was positively associated with receipt of cancer screening. Uninsurance was positively associated with cervical and breast cancer screening receipt. Medicaid expansion was associated with increased breast and cervical cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural residents in partial-county primary care HPSAs had the lowest rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, compared with whole-county HPSAs and non-shortage areas. These residents also faced the greatest distances to their nearest and second nearest hospital. This is notable because rural residents in the South face greater travel burdens for cancer care compared with residents in other regions. Finally, the positive association between uninsurance and breast and cervical cancer screening may reflect the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program's effectiveness.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening.

METHODS

This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer.

IMPACT

These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction.

PURPOSE

To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time.

LIMITATIONS

We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021268219.

FUNDING SOURCE

NHMRC APP1113532.

Inappropriate Multi-Target Stool DNA Use for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Risks, Compliance, and Outcomes

Background Inappropriate or "off-label" use of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests refers to their use in patients for whom colonoscopy or no testing at all is warranted. Examples include a positive family history of colorectal cancer, a history of inflammatory bowel disease, or medical issues necessitating diagnostic colonoscopy, among others. Current understanding of off-label mt-sDNA use for colorectal cancer screening, its associated risks, and outcomes is lacking. We examined off-label mt-sDNA prescription and compliance with testing in an outpatient setting in southeast Michigan. Aims The primary aims of the study were determining the extent of off-label mt-sDNA testing and compliance, and results of all testing, as well as demographic factors associated with off-label prescriptions. The secondary aims were to examine explanations for incomplete testing and factors contributing to successful completion. Methods Using a retrospective design, we identified mt-sDNA orders from outpatient internal medicine clinics between January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019, to evaluate the proportion of off-label mt-sDNA, results of testing, and follow-up colonoscopies up to one year after order placement. Patients were categorized as "off-label" if any inappropriate criteria were met. Statistical analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Results From 679 mt-sDNA orders within the study period, 81 (12.1%) had at least one off-label criterion for testing. In total, 404/679 (59.5%) patients completed testing. Lack of follow-up comprised the majority of incompletions (216/275; 78.6%). Only 52 (70.3%) out of 74 positive results were followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. Retired employment status (OR = 1.87; 95%CI, 1.17-2.98; P = 0.008) and age of 76 years or older (OR = 2.28; 95%CI, 0.99-5.21; P = 0.044) were significantly associated with increased risk of off-label mt-sDNA prescription. Increasing age range was associated with higher test completion (χ2 (5) = 12.085, p = 0.034). Multinomial logistic regression revealed an increasing age range (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54; P = 0.004), predictive of a positive mt-sDNA result for both groups. There was no significant difference between off-label or on-label groups in the mean number of resected polyps or pathology scores on follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions Off-label mt-sDNA use remains a concern in the outpatient setting. Compliance for test completion and follow-up colonoscopy for positive results require further improvement. Our findings shed new light on the factors associated with off-label testing while reiterating its burden. We also describe common reasons for incomplete tests in an attempt to augment future colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiatives.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old

BACKGROUND

Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes.

RESULTS

Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes.

IMPACT

Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.