1
|
Gelhorn H, Ross MM, Kansal AR, Fung ET, Seiden MV, Krucien N, Chung KC. Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests. THE PATIENT 2023; 16:43-56. [PMID: 35844011 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00589-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests. OBJECTIVE To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained. RESULTS Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Gelhorn
- Evidera, Inc., Suite 1400, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
| | - Melissa M Ross
- Evidera, Inc., Suite 1400, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA
| | - Anuraag R Kansal
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| | - Eric T Fung
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Karen C Chung
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mowat C, Digby J, Cleary S, Gray L, Datt P, Goudie DR, Steele RJC, Strachan JA, Humphries A, Fraser CG. Faecal haemoglobin concentration in adenoma, before and after polypectomy, approaches the ideal tumour marker. Ann Clin Biochem 2022; 59:272-276. [PMID: 35235491 PMCID: PMC9280698 DOI: 10.1177/00045632221080897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polypectomy may be performed at colonoscopy and then subsequent surveillance undertaken. It is thought that faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), estimated by quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), might be a useful tumour marker. METHODS Consecutive patients enrolled in colonoscopy surveillance were approached at two hospitals. A specimen for FIT was provided before colonoscopy and, ideally after 3 weeks, a second FIT sample from those who had polypectomy. A single FIT system (OC-Sensor io, Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd) was used to generate f-Hb. RESULTS 1103 Patients were invited; 643 returned a FIT device (uptake: 58.3%). Four patients had known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and were excluded, leaving 639 (57.9%) with an age range of 25-90 years (median 64 years), 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who had a f-Hb result and completed colonoscopy, advanced neoplasia was found in 41 (6.9%); four colorectal cancer (CRC): 0.7% and 37 advanced adenoma (AA): 6.3%, and a further 127 (21.4%) had non-advanced adenoma (NAA). The median f-Hb was significantly greater in AA as compared to NAA; 6.0 versus 1.0 μg Hb/g faeces, p < 0.0001.134/164 (81.7%) of invited patients returned a second FIT device: 28 were patients with AA in whom median pre-polypectomy f-Hb was 19.2, falling to 3.5 μg Hb/g faeces post-polypectomy, p = 0.01, and 106 with NAA had median pre-polypectomy f-Hb 0.8 compared to 1.0 μg Hb/g faeces post-polypectomy, p = 0.96. CONCLUSIONS Quantitative FIT could provide a good tumour marker in post-polypectomy surveillance, reduce colonoscopy requirements and minimise potential risk to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Craig Mowat
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Jayne Digby
- Centre for Research Into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Dundee, UK
| | - Shirley Cleary
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Lynne Gray
- Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Pooja Datt
- Department of Gastroenterology, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, UK
| | - David R Goudie
- Department of Genetics, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Robert JC Steele
- Centre for Research Into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Dundee, UK
| | - Judith A Strachan
- Department of Blood Sciences and Scottish Bowel Screening Laboratory, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Adam Humphries
- Department of Gastroenterology, St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, London, UK
| | - Callum G Fraser
- Centre for Research Into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Dundee, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population? GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/gidisord3040018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.
Collapse
|
4
|
Regueiro C, Almazán R, Portillo I, Besó M, Tourne-Garcia C, Rodríguez-Camacho E, Ono A, Gómez-Amorín Á, Cubiella J. Polyprev: Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Trial Comparing Fecal Immunochemical Test with Endoscopic Surveillance after Advanced Adenoma Resection in Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs: A Study Protocol. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:diagnostics11091520. [PMID: 34573862 PMCID: PMC8465973 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2021] [Revised: 08/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs have been implemented to reduce the burden of the disease. When an advanced colonic lesion is detected, clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance with different intervals between explorations. Endoscopic surveillance is producing a considerable increase in the number of colonoscopies, with a limited effect on the CRC incidence. Instead, participation in CRC screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) could be a non-inferior alternative to endoscopic surveillance to reduce 10-year CRC incidence. Based on this hypothesis, we have designed a multicenter and randomized clinical trial within the Spanish population CRC screening programs to compare FIT surveillance with endoscopic surveillance. We will include individuals aged from 50 to 65 years with complete colonoscopy and advanced lesions resected within the CRC screening programs. Patients will be randomly allocated to perform an annual FIT and colonoscopy if fecal hemoglobin concentration is ≥10 µg/g, or to perform endoscopic surveillance. On the basis of the non-superior CRC incidence, we will recruit 1894 patients in each arm. The main endpoint is 10-year CRC incidence and the secondary endpoints are diagnostic yield, participation, adverse effects, mortality and cost-effectiveness. Our results may modify the clinical practice after advanced colonic resection in CRC screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Regueiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, Hospital Universitario de Ourense, 32005 Ourense, Spain;
- Correspondence:
| | - Raquel Almazán
- Conselleria de Sanidade, Dirección Xeral de Saúde Pública, 15704 Galicia, Spain; (R.A.); (E.R.-C.); (Á.G.-A.)
| | - Isabel Portillo
- Osakidetza Basque Health Service, Basque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme, 48009 Bilbao, Spain;
- Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cancer Biomarker Area, 48903 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - María Besó
- Servicio de Promoción de la Salud y Prevención en el Entorno Sanitario, Dirección General de Salud Pública y Adicciones, 46021 Valencia, Spain;
| | - Carlos Tourne-Garcia
- Colon and Rectal Cancer Prevention Program, Directorate General for Public Health, Autonomous Government for Health, 30008 Mucia, Spain;
| | - Elena Rodríguez-Camacho
- Conselleria de Sanidade, Dirección Xeral de Saúde Pública, 15704 Galicia, Spain; (R.A.); (E.R.-C.); (Á.G.-A.)
| | - Akiko Ono
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, 30120 Murcia, Spain;
| | - Ángel Gómez-Amorín
- Conselleria de Sanidade, Dirección Xeral de Saúde Pública, 15704 Galicia, Spain; (R.A.); (E.R.-C.); (Á.G.-A.)
| | - Joaquín Cubiella
- Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, Hospital Universitario de Ourense, 32005 Ourense, Spain;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
McFerran E, Boeri M, Kee F. Patient Preferences in Surveillance: Findings From a Discrete Choice Experiment in the "My Follow-Up" Study. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 23:1373-1383. [PMID: 33032782 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2019] [Revised: 04/26/2020] [Accepted: 05/26/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Approximately 800 000 people die globally from colorectal cancer (CRC) every year. Prevention programs promote early detection, but for people with precancerous lesions, tailoring surveillance to include lifestyle-change programs could enhance prevention potential and improve outcomes. METHODS Those with intermediate or high-risk polyps removed during CRC screening colonoscopy within the Northern Ireland CRC Screening Programme were invited to complete 8 discrete choice questions about tailored surveillance, analyzed using random-parameters logit and a latent class modeling approach. RESULTS A total of 231 participants (77% male) self-reported comorbid hypertension (53%), high cholesterol (48%), and mean body mass index of 28.7 (overweight). Although 39% of participants were unaware of their CRC risk status, 30.9% indicated they were already making changes to reduce their risk. Although all respondents were significantly risk- and cost-averse, the latent class analysis identified 3 segments (classes): 1. Class 1 (26.8%) significantly favored phone or email support for a lifestyle change, a 17-month testing interval, and noninvasive testing. 2. Class 2 (48.4%) preferred the status quo. 3. Class 3 (24.7%) significantly favored further risk reduction and invasive testing. CONCLUSIONS This is the first documented preference study focusing on postpolypectomy surveillance offering lifestyle interventions. Although current care is strongly preferred, risk and cost aversion are important for participants. Latent class analysis shows that some respondents are willing to change diet and lifestyle behaviors, reflecting a teachable moment, with opportunities to personalize and optimize surveillance. Significant discordance between perceived and known risk of recurrence and limited recall of risk information provided within current practice suggest necessary improvements to surveillance programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethna McFerran
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
| | - Marco Boeri
- RTI Health Solutions, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Frank Kee
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey. BJGP Open 2020; 4:bjgpopen20X101007. [PMID: 32019773 PMCID: PMC7330201 DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20x101007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 09/12/2019] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients. AIM To elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING A cross-sectional online survey in England. METHOD A total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40-59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1-10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT. RESULTS While 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5%). CONCLUSION While the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.
Collapse
|
7
|
Atkin W, Cross AJ, Kralj-Hans I, MacRae E, Piggott C, Pearson S, Wooldrage K, Brown J, Lucas F, Prendergast A, Marchevsky N, Patel B, Pack K, Howe R, Skrobanski H, Kerrison R, Swart N, Snowball J, Duffy SW, Morris S, von Wagner C, Halloran S. Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23:1-84. [PMID: 30618357 PMCID: PMC6340104 DOI: 10.3310/hta23010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications. OBJECTIVES To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs). DESIGN Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation. SETTING Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. PARTICIPANTS Men and women, aged 60-72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included. INTERVENTION We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants' surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants' preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15-30% of CRCs and 40-70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance. FUTURE WORK Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wendy Atkin
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Amanda J Cross
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Ines Kralj-Hans
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Eilidh MacRae
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Carolyn Piggott
- Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Guildford, UK
| | - Sheena Pearson
- Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Guildford, UK
| | - Kate Wooldrage
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Jeremy Brown
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Fiona Lucas
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Aaron Prendergast
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Natalie Marchevsky
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Bhavita Patel
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Kevin Pack
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Rosemary Howe
- Cancer Screening and Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Hanna Skrobanski
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Robert Kerrison
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicholas Swart
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Julia Snowball
- Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Guildford, UK
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Queen Mary University, London, UK
| | - Stephen Morris
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|