Multilevel Approaches to Reducing Diagnostic and Treatment Delay in Colorectal Cancer

Treatment delay significantly increases mortality in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Delaying the initiation of cancer treatment increases the risk of mortality, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), which is among the most common and deadliest malignancies. This study aims to explore the impact of treatment delays on mortality in CRC. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with inverse variance method to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for both overall and cancer-specific survival at 4-, 8-, and 12-week treatment delay intervals, with heterogeneity assessed through I2-statistics and publication bias evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. A total of 20 relevant studies were included in the meta-analysis. The analyses of all patients demonstrated a progressively increasing risk of 12-39% with longer treatment delays (4 weeks, HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16; 8 weeks, HR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.34; 12 weeks, HR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.55). In particular, incrementally higher hazard ratios were observed for all-cause mortality at 4 weeks (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18), 8 weeks (HR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.39), and 12 weeks (HR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.64). In contrast, cancer-specific survival analysis showed a similar trend but did not reach statistical significance (4 weeks, HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18; 8 weeks, HR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39; 12 weeks, HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.93-1.63). Treatment delays in colorectal cancer patients were associated with progressively worsening overall survival, with each 4-week delay increment leading to a substantially higher mortality risk. This study suggests that timely treatment initiation should be prioritized in clinical practice, as these efforts can lead to substantial improvements in survival rates.

Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening decisions among Saudi women: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health challenge and one of the most prevalent cancers in Saudi Arabia. Studies show that young Saudi women are often diagnosed with CRC at more advanced stages, leading to poorer prognoses. Despite the recent launch of the first Saudi national CRC screening program, public awareness and acceptance of CRC screening (CRCS) remain limited.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 women aged 40 or older to explore their awareness, views, and attitudes toward CRC and CRCS. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, and the Social Ecological Model was applied to guide the structuring and organization of the developed themes.

RESULTS

We identified a multifaceted interplay of knowledge, beliefs, and social-cultural factors influencing CRCS decisions among Saudi women. Although there was a general awareness of CRC, understanding of risk factors, signs, and symptoms was limited. Many participants adopted a reactive approach to screening, prompted by symptom manifestation or family history, rather than preventive health measures. Concerns such as fear of a cancer diagnosis and discomfort with the stool sample collection process hindered screening participation. Social support from family and community, and physician recommendations were crucial in encouraging screening uptake. Logistic and digital literacy challenges in accessing health services were noted for older adults. Participants stressed the need for increased CRC awareness, equitable access to screening services, and reminders to improve CRCS participation.

CONCLUSION

Factors influencing CRCS uptake among Saudi women are complex and multifaceted. Comprehensive and tailored health promotion interventions that meet community needs are essential. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in increasing screening uptake.

Strategic use of resources to enhance colorectal cancer screening for patients with diabetes (SURE: CRC4D) in federally qualified health centers: a protocol for hybrid type ii effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed.

METHODS

Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).

Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study

BACKGROUND

This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

Statistical methods for measuring trends in colorectal cancer incidence in registries: A systematic review

Background

Monitoring cancer trends in a population is essential for tracking the disease’s burden, allocating resources, and informing public health policies. This review describes variations in commonly employed methods to estimate colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence trends.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in four databases to identify population-based studies reporting CRC incidence trends, published between January 2010 and May 2020. We extracted and described data on methods to estimate trends and assess model validity, and the software used.

Results

This review included 145 articles based on studies conducted in five continents. The majority (93%) presented visual summaries of trends combined with absolute, relative, or annual change estimates. Fourteen (10%) articles exclusively calculated the relative change in incidence over a given time interval, presented as the percentage of change in rates. Joinpoint regression analysis was the most commonly used method for assessing incidence trends (n= 65, 45%), providing estimates of the annual percentage change (APC) in rates. Nineteen (13%) studies performed Poisson regression and 18 (12%) linear regression analysis. Age-period-cohort modeling- a type of generalized linear models- was conducted in 18 (12%) studies. Thirty-nine (37%) of the studies modeling incidence trends (n=104, 72%) indicated the method used to evaluate model fitness. The joinpoint program (52%) was the statistical software most commonly used.

Conclusion

This review identified variation in the calculation of CRC incidence trends and inadequate reporting of model fit statistics. Our findings highlight the need for increasing clarity and transparency in reporting methods to facilitate interpretation, reproduction, and comparison with findings from previous studies.

A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries

Background

Epidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods.

Methods

We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information.

Results

This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data.

Conclusion

This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01632-7.

A study of cancer occurrence in users of mirabegron and antimuscarinic treatments for overactive bladder

OBJECTIVE

This post-authorization safety study (EU PAS Register Number: EUPAS16088) was designed to compare the incidence of cancer outcomes in patients treated with mirabegron versus antimuscarinic medications.

METHODS

Cohorts of mirabegron initiators during 2012-2018 were propensity-score matched to antimuscarinic medication initiators within real-world data sources (Danish National Registers, Swedish National Registers, Clinical Practice Research Datalink [UK], Optum [US], and Humana [US]). Incident cancer cases were identified during follow-up from direct linkage to cancer registers or validated through medical record review or through physician questionnaires. Comparisons of sex-specific composite cancer outcomes (cancer of the lung/bronchus, colon/rectum, melanoma of skin, urinary bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney/renal pelvis, pancreas, prostate in men and breast and uterus in women) were made overall and for person-time in the first year and after the first year following start of treatment, for all ages and for the subgroup ≥65 years.

RESULTS

Among the 80,637 mirabegron initiators matched to 169,885 antimuscarinic medication initiators, 68% were at least 65 years of age and 66% were women. Over 5000 incident cancer cases were observed overall. Incidence rates were higher for men than women for composite and individual cancer outcomes. The pooled fixed effects hazard ratios for composite cancer outcomes (all ages) were 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.14) for women and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98-1.14) for men. Results were similar in persons ≥65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest no association between mirabegron use and risk of cancer, compared with antimuscarinic medications, in either men or women. Registration: EU PAS Register Number: EUPAS16088.