Strategies to Improve Persistent Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Risk factors, prevention and screening of colorectal cancer: A rising problem

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The leading risk factors for CRC include male gender, age over 50, family history, obesity, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and unhealthy diet. CRC screening methods vary considerably between countries and depend on incidence, economic resources and healthcare structure. Important aspects of screening include adherence, which can vary significantly across ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Basic concepts of CRC screening include pre-stratification of patients by identifying risk factors and then using fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test and/or colonoscopy or radiologic imaging techniques. Technological capabilities for CRC screening are rapidly evolving and include stool DNA test, liquid biopsy, virtual colonography, and the use of artificial intelligence. A CRC prevention strategy should be comprehensive and include active patient education along with targeted implementation of screening.

Combining FITs and HRFQ with colonoscopy improve the cost-effectiveness of a 9-year mass colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has been increasing. Colonoscopy is still a gold standard method for its early diagnosis but using colonoscopy alone as a mass screening method is unrealistic. This study is to investigate whether combining fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and high-risk-factors questionnaire (HRFQ) with colonoscopy improve the cost-effectiveness of a mass CRC screening.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CRC screening protocol combining FITs and HRFQ in the first stage and colonoscopy in the second stage was used in 50 villages/towns in 2007-2015. Residents aged 40-74 years were eligible for this free screening. A total of 160 210 (76.12%) participants completed first-stage screening, and 28 679 (17.90%) participants were defined as positive, among which 21 715 (75.72%) participants completed colonoscopy and were included in the final analysis. Outcomes were followed up until 2020.

RESULTS

The compliance was 76.12% and 75.72% in the first and second screening stage, respectively. A total of 252 CRC, 4033 adenoma, 1234 advanced neoplasm, and 5534 total neoplasm cases were detected in the screening. The positive predictive values of CRC, adenoma, advanced neoplasm, and total neoplasm were higher in FITs+ than those in the HRFQ+ population, respectively. A total of 64.60% and 43.42% total neoplasm cases were found in FITs+ and HRFQ+ (8.02% for both), respectively. The total colorectal neoplasm and CRC cases detected by combining HRFQ and FITs increased by 55.08% and 40.00%, respectively, and their increases were higher compared to HRFQ. The detection cost per any neoplasm by combining HRFQ and FITs was <$5331, while that by FITs and HRFQ alone was <$4570 and $5380, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining FITs and HRFQ with colonoscopy improve the cost-effectiveness of a mass CRC screening program. This protocol can be recommended for most populations, especially those in the countries and areas with high population density and low physician/population ratio.

Colorectal cancer screening program implementation: biennial adherence and participation patterns

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is essential for the effectiveness of screening programs. Even though organized screening programs can improve the quality of the process and adherence, there are still challenges to overcome. The aim of the present study, in which we implemented a biennial organized screening program for CRC, was to describe adherence and participation patterns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal, descriptive study was conducted, in which a team of trained patient navigators carried out interventions, with reminders via cellphone communication, to follow a cohort of 301 subjects eligible for CRC screening, utilizing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). All the follow-up subjects received a FIT kit.

RESULTS

A total of 747 cellphone calls were made and divided into three interventions. From the initial cohort, 126 subjects completed their biennial screening process through the FIT, indicating a consistent adherence rate of 41.8% to our program. The participation patterns were: 126 consistent participants (41.8%), 160 inconsistent participants (53.2%), and 15 participants that were never contacted (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our study underlines the importance of organized screening programs in the early detection of CRC. The implementation of follow-up interventions, through reminders and the training of patient navigators, can improve adherence, but there is a need for examining new strategies, to overcome barriers to communication via cellphone.

Low Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in First-Degree Relatives of Our Patients: Are We Failing Them?

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend screening those with a family history of early-onset colorectal cancer at age 40 years or 10 years before the age of their relative's diagnosis. Currently, there is no literature reporting the screening rate in these individuals, and no protocols are in place to identify and target this population for screening awareness.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess adherence to current screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective and qualitative study involving a telephone survey where patients were asked about relative's screening status and barriers to screening.

SETTINGS

Two community-based institutions between January 2018 and December 2021.

PATIENTS

Individuals diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer who had undergone surgery at our institutions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of screening in first-degree relatives of our patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Other factors measured included demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and screening barriers.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were identified. The survey response rate was 66.6% (n = 24). A total of 88 first-degree relatives who met the screening criteria resulted in 67.1% of patients (n = 59) having a known screening status. Of the 59 patients with known screening status, only 44% (n = 26) had undergone screening. Patients of Black race, having stage III/IV disease, having Medicare/Medicaid insurance, and living within Baltimore City County were more likely to have family members with unknown or no screening. Lack of insurance coverage was the most common barrier, which was noted in 12.5% of patients (n = 3), whereas 54.1% of patients (n = 13) reported no barriers to screening.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Most first-degree relatives of patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer do not undergo colorectal cancer screening. This could be attributed to the lack of protocols that could guarantee these individuals are informed of their elevated risk and the different options available for screening. Furthermore, our study suggests that racial and socioeconomic disparities exist among high-risk patients who should pursue screening. See Video Abstract .

BAJAS TASAS DE DETECCIN DEL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN LOS FAMILIARES DE PRIMER GRADO DE NUESTROS PACIENTES LES ESTAMOS FALLANDO

ANTECEDENTES:Las directrices recomiendan realizar pruebas de detección a las personas con antecedentes familiares de cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana a los 40 años o 10 años antes de la edad del diagnóstico de su familiar. Actualmente, no hay literatura que informe la tasa de detección en estos individuos y no existen protocolos para identificar y dirigirse a esta población para concientizar sobre la detección.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el cumplimiento de las pautas de detección actuales entre los FDR de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo y cualitativo que incluyó una encuesta telefónica en la que se preguntó a los pacientes sobre el estado de detección de sus familiares y las barreras para la detección.AJUSTES:Dos instituciones comunitarias entre enero de 2018 y diciembre de 2021.PACIENTES:Personas diagnosticadas con cáncer colorrectal de inicio temprano que habían sido intervenidas quirúrgicamente en nuestras instituciones.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de detección en familiares de primer grado de nuestros pacientes con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana. Otros factores medidos incluyeron datos demográficos, características clínico-patológicas y barreras de detección.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron treinta y seis pacientes. La tasa de respuesta a la encuesta fue del 66,6% (n = 24). Resultaron un total de 88 familiares de primer grado que cumplieron con los criterios para la detección, y el 67,1% (n = 59) tenía un estado de detección conocido. De los 59 con estado de detección conocido, se informó que solo el 44% (n = 26) se había sometido a pruebas de detección. Los pacientes de raza afroamericana, enfermedad en etapa III/IV, Medicare/Medicaid y que vivían dentro del condado de la ciudad de Baltimore tenían más probabilidades de tener familiares con pruebas de detección desconocidas o sin ellas. La falta de cobertura de seguro fue la barrera más común observada por el 12,5% (n = 3); mientras que el 54,1% (n = 13) no informó ninguna barrera para el cribado.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los familiares de primer grado de pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana no se someten a pruebas de detección de cáncer colorrectal. Esto podría atribuirse a la falta de protocolos que garanticen que estas personas estén informadas sobre su elevado riesgo y las diferentes opciones disponibles para el cribado. Además, nuestro estudio sugiere que existen disparidades raciales y socioeconómicas entre los pacientes de alto riesgo que deberían someterse a pruebas de detección. (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Barriers and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 introduced new barriers to health care including cancer screenings. This study evaluated the role of pandemic- and copay-related barriers to colonoscopy and the extent to which home-based testing methods were utilized.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) attitudes and screening early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Respondents (342; 50.37% female) were 62.32 (SD = 6.87) years old. Roughly half were White/Caucasian (329; 48.45%); 29.75% were Black/African American (202); and 21.80% were another race (148). Roughly two-thirds were up-to-date with CRC screening (459; 67.59%). In an adjusted model, those with a higher agreement that concerns about COVID-19 delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR = .79; 95% CI: .08, .63; P = .045) and concerns about copays delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR = .73; 95% CI: .73, .57; P = .02) were less likely to be up-to-date on screening. In another adjusted model, those screened during the pandemic were significantly more likely to be screened via an at-home test (OR = 10.93; 95% CI: 5.95, 20.27; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, screening copay-related concerns persisted and were significantly higher among those not up-to-date with CRC screening. Increased at-home testing and addressing copay barriers may increase CRC screening adherence now and in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a fundamental tool in the prevention and early detection of one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers. Over the years, screening, particularly in those settings where it is well organized, has succeeded in reducing the incidence of colon and rectal cancer and improving the prognosis related to them. Despite considerable advancements in screening technologies and strategies, the effectiveness of CRC screening programs remains less than optimal. This paper examined the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent lack of effectiveness in CRC screening initiatives. Through a critical analysis of current methodologies, technological limitations, patient-related factors, and systemic challenges, we elucidated the complex interplay that hampers the successful reduction of CRC morbidity and mortality rates. While acknowledging the advancements that have improved aspects of screening, we emphasized the necessity of addressing the identified barriers comprehensively. This study aimed to raise awareness of how important CRC screening is in reducing costs for this disease. Screening and early diagnosis are not only important in improving the prognosis of patients with CRC but can lead to an important reduction in the cost of treating a disease that is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Spending more sooner can mean saving money later.

Engineering tumor-colonizing E. coli Nissle 1917 for detection and treatment of colorectal neoplasia

Bioengineered probiotics enable new opportunities to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, prevention and treatment. Here, first, we demonstrate selective colonization of colorectal adenomas after oral delivery of probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) to a genetically-engineered murine model of CRC predisposition and orthotopic models of CRC. We next undertake an interventional, double-blind, dual-centre, prospective clinical trial, in which CRC patients take either placebo or EcN for two weeks prior to resection of neoplastic and adjacent normal colorectal tissue (ACTRN12619000210178). We detect enrichment of EcN in tumor samples over normal tissue from probiotic-treated patients (primary outcome of the trial). Next, we develop early CRC intervention strategies. To detect lesions, we engineer EcN to produce a small molecule, salicylate. Oral delivery of this strain results in increased levels of salicylate in the urine of adenoma-bearing mice, in comparison to healthy controls. To assess therapeutic potential, we engineer EcN to locally release a cytokine, GM-CSF, and blocking nanobodies against PD-L1 and CTLA-4 at the neoplastic site, and demonstrate that oral delivery of this strain reduces adenoma burden by ~50%. Together, these results support the use of EcN as an orally-deliverable platform to detect disease and treat CRC through the production of screening and therapeutic molecules.

Colorectal cancer detection and treatment with engineered probiotics

Bioengineered probiotics enable new opportunities to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we demonstrate the phenomenon of selective, long-term colonization of colorectal adenomas after oral delivery of probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) to a genetically-engineered murine model of CRC predisposition. We show that, after oral administration, adenomas can be monitored over time by recovering EcN from stool. We also demonstrate specific colonization of EcN to solitary neoplastic lesions in an orthotopic murine model of CRC. We then exploit this neoplasia-homing property of EcN to develop early CRC intervention strategies. To detect lesions, we engineer EcN to produce a small molecule, salicylate, and demonstrate that oral delivery of this strain results in significantly increased levels of salicylate in the urine of adenoma-bearing mice, in comparison to healthy controls. We also assess EcN engineered to locally release immunotherapeutics at the neoplastic site. Oral delivery to mice bearing adenomas, reduced adenoma burden by ∼50%, with notable differences in the spatial distribution of T cell populations within diseased and healthy intestinal tissue, suggesting local induction of robust anti-tumor immunity. Together, these results support the use of EcN as an orally-delivered platform to detect disease and treat CRC through its production of screening and therapeutic molecules.

Chemoresistive Nanosensors Employed to Detect Blood Tumor Markers in Patients Affected by Colorectal Cancer in a One-Year Follow Up

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents 10% of the annual tumor diagnosis and deaths occurring worldwide. Given the lack of specific symptoms, which could determine a late diagnosis, the research for specific CRC biomarkers and for innovative low-invasive methods to detect them is crucial. Therefore, on the basis of previously published results, some volatile organic compounds (VOCs), detectable through gas sensors, resulted in particularly promising CRC biomarkers, making these sensors suitable candidates to be employed in CRC screening devices. A new device was employed here to analyze the exhalations of blood samples collected from CRC-affected patients at different stages of their pre- and post-surgery therapeutic path, in order to assess the sensor’s capability for discriminating among these samples. The stages considered were: the same day of the surgical treatment (T1); before the hospital discharge (T2); after one month and after 10–12 months from surgery (T3 and T4, respectively). This device, equipped with four different sensors based on different metal–oxide mixtures, enabled a distinction between T1 and T4 with a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 82%, respectively, making it suitable for clinical follow-up protocols, patient health status monitoring and to detect possible post-treatment relapses.