Duration of risk reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a complete colonoscopy in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years after a negative procedure. If risk reduction extends past 10 years, the recommended interval could be extended, reducing the burden on the individual and health-care system. We aimed to estimate the duration that patients remain at reduced risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a complete colonoscopy.

METHODS

We did a population-based cohort study of individuals aged 50-65 years between Jan 1, 1994, to Dec 31, 2017. We excluded individuals with previous exposure to colonoscopy or colorectal surgery, those previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer, or a history of hereditary or other bowel disorders. We followed up participants until Dec 31, 2018, and identified all colonoscopies performed in this time period. We used a 9-level time-varying measure of exposure, capturing time since last complete colonoscopy (no complete colonoscopy, ≤5 years, >5-10 years, >10-15 years, and >15 years) and whether an intervention was performed (biopsy or polypectomy). A Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, residential income quintile, and immigration status was used to estimate the association between exposure to a complete colonoscopy and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

FINDINGS

5 298 033 individuals (2 609 060 [49·2%] female and 2 688 973 [50·8%] male; no data on ethnicity were available) were included in the cohort, with a median follow-up of 12·56 years (IQR 6·26-20·13). 90 532 (1·7%) individuals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 44 088 (0·8%) died from colorectal cancer. Compared with those who did not have a colonoscopy, the risk of colorectal cancer in those who had a complete negative colonoscopy was reduced at all timepoints, including when the procedure occurred more than 15 years earlier (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] for female individuals and 0·57 [0·46-0·70] for male individuals. A similar finding was observed for colorectal cancer mortality, with lower risk at all timepoints, including when the procedure occurred more than 15 years earlier (HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·83] for female participants and 0·65 [0·50-0·83] for male participants). Those who had a colonoscopy with intervention had a significantly lower colorectal cancer incidence than those who did not undergo colonoscopy if the procedure occurred within 10 years for females (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·63-0·77]) and up to 15 years for males (0·62 [(0·53-0·72]).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with those who do not receive colonoscopy, individuals who have a negative colonoscopy result remain at lower risk for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more than 15 years after the procedure. The current recommendation of repeat screening at 10 years in these individuals should be reassessed.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity).

METHODS

Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework.

RESULTS

We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents

BACKGROUND

The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews.

METHODS

We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

#NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on the potential exacerbation of screening mammography disparities: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

OBJECTIVE

New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers.

DESIGN

A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles.

RESULTS

Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence.

CONCLUSION

New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC).

METHODS

The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked.

RESULTS

A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

Rationale for organized Colorectal cancer screening programs

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health problem and it is expected that the number of persons diagnosed with CRC and CRC-related deaths will continue to increase. However, recent years have shown reductions in CRC incidence and mortality particularly among individuals aged 50 years and older which can be attributed to screening, improvements in patients' management, closer adherence to treatment guideline recommendations and a higher utilization of curative surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that there has been sufficient evidence that biennially screening using a stool-test or once-only endoscopy screening reduces CRC-related mortality. In Europe, between 2008 and 2018, nine countries have successfully implemented a population-based organized program and another six are in the roll-out phase. Population-based organized programs show higher screening participation rates and lower lack of compliance to follow-up testing after a positive screen test compared to opportunistic screening. Moreover, organized programs aim to provide high quality screening thereby reducing the risk of the harms of screening, including over-screening, and complications of screening, and poor follow-up of those who test positive. We describe how population-based organized CRC screening programs are preferred, since they reflect a more appropriate utilization of available resources, reduce inequities in access, and can integrate interventions addressing barriers to screening at the individual and health system levels.

Guidance for setting international standards on reporting longitudinal adherence to stool-based colorectal cancer screening

Longitudinal adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is reported using different summarizing measures, which hampers international comparison. We provide evidence to guide recommendations on which longitudinal adherence measure to report. Using adherence data over four stool-based CRC screening rounds in three countries, we calculated six summarizing adherence measures; adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, rescreening, full programme adherence (yes/no), regularity (never/inconsistent/consistent screenees) and number of times participated. For each measure, we calculated the accuracy in capturing the observed adherence patterns. Using the ASCCA model, we predicted screening effectiveness when using summarizing measures as model input versus the observed adherence patterns. Adherence over all rounds in the Italian, Spanish and Dutch cohorts was 64.9%, 42.8% and 61.5%, respectively, and the proportion of consistent screenees was 50.9%, 26.3% and 45.7%. Number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as simulating the observed adherence patterns of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands (mortality reductions: 24.4%, 16.9% and 23.5%). Adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were least accurate. Screening effectiveness was overestimated when using adherence over all rounds (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.4% and 25.7%) and adherence per round (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.5% and 25.9%). To conclude, number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as using the observed adherence patterns. However they require longitudinal data. To facilitate international comparison of CRC screening programme performance, consensus on an accurate adherence measure to report should be reached.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Uptake and Short-term Outcomes of High-risk Screening Colonoscopy Billing Codes: A Population-based Study Among Young Adults

Background

Persons suspected or confirmed with familial colorectal cancer syndrome are recommended to have biennial colonoscopy from late adolescence or early adulthood. Persons without a syndrome but with one or more affected first-degree relatives are recommended to begin colonoscopy 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative, and every 5 to 10 years. Ontario introduced colonoscopy billing codes for these two indications in 2011.

Methods

We identified persons in Ontario under 50 years of age, without a prior history of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, with one or more of these billing claims between 2013 and 2017. We described the index colonoscopy, and subsequent colonoscopy up-to-date status. We computed average annual rates of colorectal and other cancer diagnoses, and displayed mean cumulative function plots, stratified by billing code, age and sex.

Results

Billing claims for ‘familial syndrome’ high-risk screening colonoscopy were identified among 14,846 persons; the average annual rate of CRC diagnoses was 38.6 per 100,000 among males and 22.2 among females. Colonoscopy up-to-date status fell to 50% within 7 years. Billing claims for ‘first-degree relative’ screening colonoscopy was identified among 49,505 persons; average annual rates of CRC diagnoses were 16.3 among males and 13.5 per 100,000 among females, respectively.

Conclusion

Colorectal cancer was more frequent following billing claims for high-risk screening colonoscopy for familial syndromes, as were noncolorectal malignancies potentially associated with these syndromes. This billing claim for familial colorectal cancer syndrome colonoscopy appears to identify a group at elevated short-term risk for cancer.

Delivery of Cancer Care in Ontario, Canada, During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted cancer systems worldwide. Quantifying the changes is critical to informing the delivery of care while the pandemic continues, as well as for system recovery and future pandemic planning.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify change in the delivery of cancer services across the continuum of care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based cohort study assessed cancer screening, imaging, diagnostic, treatment, and psychosocial oncological care services delivered in pediatric and adult populations in Ontario, Canada (population 14.7 million), from April 1, 2019, to March 1, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 1 to July 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

COVID-19 pandemic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cancer service volumes from the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, defined as April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, were compared with volumes during a prepandemic period of April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

RESULTS

During the first year of the pandemic, there were a total of 4 476 693 cancer care services, compared with 5 644 105 services in the year prior, a difference of 20.7% fewer services of cancer care, representing a potential backlog of 1 167 412 cancer services. While there were less pronounced changes in systemic treatments, emergency and urgent imaging examinations (eg, 1.9% more parenteral systemic treatments) and surgical procedures (eg, 65% more urgent surgical procedures), major reductions were observed for most services beginning in March 2020. Compared with the year prior, during the first pandemic year, cancer screenings were reduced by 42.4% (-1 016 181 screening tests), cancer treatment surgical procedures by 14.1% (-8020 procedures), and radiation treatment visits by 21.0% (-141 629 visits). Biopsies to confirm cancer decreased by up to 41.2% and surgical cancer resections by up to 27.8% during the first pandemic wave. New consultation volumes also decreased, such as for systemic treatment (-8.2%) and radiation treatment (-9.3%). The use of virtual cancer care increased for systemic treatment and radiation treatment and psychosocial oncological care visits, increasing from 0% to 20% of total new or follow-up visits prior to the pandemic up to 78% of total visits in the first pandemic year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, large reductions in cancer service volumes were observed. While most services recovered to prepandemic levels at the end of the first pandemic year, a substantial care deficit likely accrued. The anticipated downstream morbidity and mortality associated with this deficit underscore the urgent need to address the backlog and recover cancer care and warrant further study.

Two randomized controlled trials for colorectal cancer screening invitations developed using a behavioral science approach

The effectiveness of behaviorally informed, targeted invitations to standard invitations and to no invitation (control arm, primary analysis) were compared in the context of an organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Two multi-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in men (arms: male-specific, unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation) and in women (arms: unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation), were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Eligible persons aged 50-74, due for CRC screening, were randomized. Primary and secondary outcomes were completion of the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and uptake of any colorectal test, respectively, within 5 months of mailing. Impact of invitation type was assessed using logistic regression. Letters were mailed to 75,810 men and women; 38,673 males and 34,453 females were included in the analyses. Men who received the male-specific letter were most likely to screen with gFOBT compared to controls (odds ratio (OR) 7·24, 95% CI: 5·77, 9·09), followed by those receiving the unisex letter (OR 6·75, 95% CI: 5·37, 8·47) and the standard letter (OR 5·99, 95% CI: 4·76, 7·53). Women who received the unisex letter were most likely to be screened with gFOBT compared to controls (OR 7·07, 95% CI: 5·83, 8·59), followed by those receiving the standard letter (OR 6·76, 95% CI: 5·56, 8·21). In both trials, the findings were similar for the secondary outcome. Mailed invitations were effective for both men and women. With greater targeting using the behaviorally informed invitations, the magnitude of benefit relative to no invitation appeared to increase. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364895).

Annual Mammographic Screening Reduces the Risk of Interval or Higher Stage Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program

Purpose: In the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) annual screening improved breast cancer detection for women 50–74 years with a family/personal history compared to biennial, while detection was equivalent for women screened annually for mammographic density ≥75%. This study compares the risk of interval or higher stage invasive cancers among postmenopausal women screened annually vs biennially by age and estrogen use. Methods: A retrospective design identified 4247 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women 50–74 screened in the OBSP with digital mammography between 2011 and 2014, followed until 2016. Polytomous logistic regression estimated the risk of interval or higher stage breast cancers by age and estrogen use between women screened annually because of first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer, or mammographic density ≥75%, and those screened biennially. Results: The risk of interval vs screen-detected cancers was significantly reduced in women screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.64; 95%CI:0.51–.80), particularly those 60–74 years (OR=.59; 95%CI:0.45–.77) or not currently using estrogen (OR=.66; 95%CI:0.52–.83) compared to those screened biennially. The risk of stage II–IV vs stage I tumors was also lower in women 60–74 years screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.79; 95%CI:0.64–.97) and in those screened annually for mammographic density ≥75% currently using estrogen (OR=.51; 95%CI:0.26–1.01) compared to women screened biennially. Conclusion: Postmenopausal women at increased risk screened annually had equivalent or reduced risks of interval or higher stage invasive breast cancers than those screened biennially, further supporting risk-based screening in this population.

Nimble Approach: fast, adapting, calculating and ethically mindful approach to managing colorectal cancer screening programmes during a pandemic

Objective

To describe a conceptual framework that provides understanding of the challenges encountered and the adaptive approaches taken by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

This was a qualitative case study of international CRC screening programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme managers/leaders and programme experts, researchers and clinical leaders of large, population-based screening programmes. Data analysis, using elements of grounded theory, as well as cross-cases analysis was conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers.

Results

19 participants were interviewed from seven programmes in North America, Europe and Australasia. A conceptual framework (‘Nimble Approach’) was the key outcome of the analysis. Four concepts constitute this approach to managing CRC screening programmes during COVID-19: Fast (meeting the need to make decisions and communicate quickly), Adapting (flexibly and creatively managing testing/colonoscopy capacity, access and backlogs), Calculating (modelling and actively monitoring programmes to inform decision-making and support programme quality) and Ethically Mindful (considering ethical conundrums emerging from programme responses). Highly integrated programmes, those with highly integrated communication networks, and that managed greater portions of the screening process seemed best positioned to respond to the crisis.

Conclusions

The Nimble Approach has potentially broad applications; it can be deployed to effectively respond to programme-specific challenges or manage CRC programmes during future pandemics, other health crises or emergencies.

Overall Health Care Cost During the Year Following Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Stratified by History of Colorectal Evaluative Procedures

Background

The cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening has been modeled; however, the cost of health care following the diagnosis of colorectal cancer has not been described stratified by history of colorectal evaluative procedures.

Methods

We identified persons with first diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 from the Ontario Cancer Registry, and categorized them by history of colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1 (the 10 years before the 6-month prediagnostic interval) with or without procedures during Period 2 (the 6 month prediagnostic interval), versus only during Period 2, versus none. We extracted overall health care cost 1 year following diagnosis from population-wide administrative databases.

Results

Among cases diagnosed at 52 to 74 years, overall health care cost among those with no colorectal evaluative procedures on or before the date of diagnosis is $71,039.65 (SD $51,825.18), compared to $48,406.15 (SD $38,843.64) among those who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2. Among the population aged 20 to 74 years at diagnosis, cases with ≥1 screening colonoscopies for hereditary CRC syndrome, the mean overall initial cost was between $32,300.32 (SD) and $33,084.67 (SD $39,905.77), and those with ≥1 screening colonoscopies because of a first-degree relative with CRC, was between $36,344.71 (SD $35,539.85) and $45,456.41 (SD $49,818.59).

Conclusions

Overall health care cost is lower among cases who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2, and among those with screening colonoscopy for hereditary CRC syndromes or affected first-degree relatives.

Adherence to guidance for prioritizing higher risk groups for breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Ontario Breast Screening Program: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, was deferred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a prioritization framework to resume services according to breast cancer risk was developed. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic within the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by comparing total volumes of screening mammographic examinations and volumes of screening mammographic examinations with abnormal results before and during the pandemic, and to assess backlogs on the basis of adherence to the prioritization framework.

METHODS

A descriptive study was conducted among women aged 50 to 74 years at average risk and women aged 30 to 69 years at high risk, who participated in the OBSP. Percentage change was calculated by comparing observed monthly volumes of mammographic examinations from March 2020 to March 2021 with 2019 volumes and proportions by risk group. We plotted estimates of backlog volumes of mammographic examinations by risk group, comparing pandemic with prepandemic screening practices. Volumes of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were plotted by risk group.

RESULTS

Volumes of mammographic examinations in the OBSP showed the largest declines in April and May 2020 (> 99% decrease) and returned to prepandemic levels as of March 2021, with an accumulated backlog of 340 876 examinations. As of March 2021, prioritization had reduced the backlog volumes of screens for participants at high risk for breast cancer by 96.5% (186 v. 5469 expected) and annual rescreens for participants at average risk for breast cancer by 13.5% (62 432 v. 72 202 expected); there was a minimal decline for initial screens. Conversely, the backlog increased by 7.6% for biennial rescreens (221 674 v. 206 079 expected). More than half (59.4%) of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were for participants in the higher risk groups.

INTERPRETATION

Prioritizing screening for those at higher risk for breast cancer may increase diagnostic yield and redirect resources to minimize potential long-term harms caused by the pandemic. This further supports the clinical utility of risk-stratified cancer screening.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up care in Ontario, Canada: A provincial, population-based study

It is essential to quantify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening, including for vulnerable sub-populations, to inform the development of evidence-based, targeted pandemic recovery strategies. We undertook a population-based retrospective observational study in Ontario, Canada to assess the impact of the pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic services, and assess whether patterns of cancer screening service use and diagnostic delay differ across population sub-groups during the pandemic. Provincial health databases were used to identify age-eligible individuals who participated in one or more of Ontario's breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening programs from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. Ontario's screening programs delivered 951,000 (-41%) fewer screening tests in 2020 than in 2019 and volumes for most programs remained more than 20% below historical levels by the end of 2020. A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were older (50-59 and 60-69 years) during the pandemic when compared with 2019. Individuals in the oldest age groups and in lower-income neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening test during the pandemic, and individuals with a high probability of living on a First Nation reserve were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal fecal test. Ongoing monitoring and management of backlogs must continue. Further evaluation is required to identify populations for whom access to cancer screening and diagnostic care has been disproportionately impacted and quantify impacts of these service disruptions on cancer incidence, stage, and mortality. This information is critical to pandemic recovery efforts that are aimed at achieving equitable and timely access to cancer screening-related care.

Interruption of cancer screening services due to COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from previous disasters

PURPOSE

To review the scientific literature seeking lessons for the COVID-19 era that could be learned from previous health services interruptions that affected the delivery of cancer screening services.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to April 17, 2020, with no restrictions on language or dates and resulted in 385 articles. Two researchers independently assessed the list and discussed any disagreements. Once a consensus was achieved for each paper, those selected were included in the review.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included. Three studies were based in Japan, two in the United States, one in South Korea, one in Denmark, and the remaining four offered a global perspective on interruptions in health services due to natural or human-caused disasters. No articles covered an interruption due to a pandemic. The main themes identified in the reviewed studies were coordination, communication, resource availability and patient follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Lessons learned applied to the context of COVID-19 are that coordination involving partners across the health sector is essential to optimize resources and resume services, making them more resilient while preparing for future interruptions. Communication with the general population about how COVID-19 has affected cancer screening, measures taken to mitigate it and safely re-establish screening services is recommended. Use of mobile health systems to reach patients who are not accessing services and the application of resource-stratified guidelines are important considerations. More research is needed to explore best strategies for suspending, resuming and sustaining cancer screening programs, and preparedness for future disruptions, adapted to diverse health care systems.

The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program

PURPOSE

Although some studies have shown increasing radiologists' mammography volumes improves performance, there is a lack of evidence specific to digital mammography and breast screening program performance targets. This study evaluates the relationship between digital screening volume and meeting performance targets.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 493 radiologists in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who interpreted 1,762,173 screening mammograms in participants ages 50-90 between 2014 and 2016. Associations between annual screening volume and meeting performance targets for abnormal call rate, positive predictive value (PPV), invasive cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, and specificity were modeled using mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most radiologists read 500-999 (36.7%) or 1,000-1,999 (31.0%) screens annually, and 18.5% read ≥2,000. Radiologists who read ≥2,000 annually were more likely to meet abnormal call rate (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.17-12.61), PPV (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.53-11.34), invasive CDR (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.50-11.46), and specificity (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.89-8.79) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. Radiologists reading 1,000-1,999 screens annually were more likely to meet PPV (OR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.22-4.40), invasive CDR (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.49-7.59) and specificity (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.04-3.84) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. No significant differences were observed for sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual reading volume requirements of 1,000 in Canada are supported as screening volume above 1,000 was strongly associated with achieving performance targets for nearly all measures. Increasing the minimum volume to 2,000 may further reduce the potential limitations of screening due to false positives, leading to improvements in overall breast screening program quality.

Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial.

METHODS

We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40-64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as "prevention practitioners" held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline.

RESULTS

Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22-1.84]).

CONCLUSION

Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03052959 , registered February 10, 2017.

Health Policy as a Barrier to First Nations Peoples' Access to Cancer Screening

Background:

First Nations peoples in Ontario are facing increasing rates of cancer and have been found to have poorer survival. Cancer screening is an important strategy to improve cancer outcomes; yet, Indigenous people in Canada are less likely to participate in screening. Ontario has established organized breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs; this paper examines the health policy context that informs these programs for First Nations peoples in the province.

Method:

This paper follows an embedded multiple-case study design, drawing upon a document review to outline the existing policy context and on key informant interviews to explore the aforementioned context from the perspective of stakeholders.

Results:

Policies created by agencies operating across federal, regional and provincial levels impact First Nations peoples' access to screening. Interviews identified issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, appropriateness of program design for First Nations persons and lack of cultural competency as barriers to participation in screening.

Conclusion:

Federal, provincial and regional policy makers must work in collaboration with First Nations peoples to overcome barriers to cancer screening created and sustained by existing policies.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for high-risk adenomas at the time of first screening colonoscopy among screening aged Canadians

The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for high risk adenomas (HRAs) detected at screening colonoscopy based on readily available participant information. The cohort consisted of 3035 participants aged 50 to 74 years with no history of cancer who underwent a primary screening colonoscopy at a centralized colon cancer screening centre between 2008 and 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model was created using CRC risk factors identified from prior research. Model covariates were collected from a baseline questionnaire and included participant demographics (age and sex), lifestyle parameters (body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and vitamin D supplement use) and medical history (family history of CRC and diabetes). Mean participant age was 58.8 years, and 54.7% were male. 249 participants with HRAs were identified (8.2%). An adjusted c-statistic of 0.67 was calculated, and a specificity and negative predictive value of 97.2% (95% CI: 96.5-97.8) and 92.5% (95% CI: 92.2-92.8) for the detection of HRAs, respectively, were achieved using 20% predicted probability as a high-risk threshold. However, only a sensitivity of 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-16.8) was achieved. Our model has moderate predictive ability, with strengths in being able to rule out those with an absence of HRAs on screening colonoscopy. Maximizing screening efficiency through improved risk prediction can enhance resource allocation. Ultimately, this model has the potential to improve patient care by reducing unnecessary colonoscopies, limiting this invasive procedure to those most likely to have significant findings.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Ontario Cervical Screening Program, colposcopy and treatment services in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

Objective

To describe the immediate impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on cervical screening, colposcopy and treatment volumes in Ontario, Canada.

Design

Population‐based retrospective observational study.

Setting

Ontario, Canada.

Population

People with a cervix age of 21–69 years who completed at least one cervical screening cytology test, colposcopy or treatment procedure for cervical dysplasia between January 2019 and August 2020.

Methods

Administrative databases were used to compare cervical screening cytology, colposcopy and treatment procedure volumes before (historical comparator) and during the first 6 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic (March–August 2020).

Main outcome measures

Changes in cervical screening cytology, colposcopy and treatment volumes; individuals with high‐grade cytology awaiting colposcopy.

Results

During the first 6 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the monthly average number of cervical screening cytology tests, colposcopies and treatments decreased by 63.8% (range: −92.3 to −41.0%), 39.7% (range: −75.1 to −14.3%) and 31.1% (range: −43.5 to −23.6%), respectively, when compared with the corresponding months in 2019. Between March and August 2020, on average 292 (−51.0%) fewer high‐grade cytological abnormalities were detected through screening each month. As of August 2020, 1159 (29.2%) individuals with high‐grade screening cytology were awaiting follow‐up colposcopy.

Conclusions

The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on key cervical screening and follow‐up services in Ontario. As the pandemic continues, ongoing monitoring of service utilisation to inform system response and recovery is required. Future efforts to understand the impact of COVID‐19‐related disruptions on cervical cancer outcomes will be needed.

Tweetable abstract

COVID‐19 has had a substantial impact on cervical screening and follow‐up services in Ontario, Canada.

COVID‐19 has had a substantial impact on cervical screening and follow‐up services in Ontario, Canada.

Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening based on risk prediction model performance and economic factors - The Ontario experience

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials have shown that screening with computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality but is most effective when applied to high-risk individuals. Accurate lung cancer risk prediction models effectively select individuals for screening. Few pilots or programs have implemented risk models for enrolling individuals for screening in real-world, population-based settings. This report describes implementation of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model in the Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) lung cancer screening Pilot.

METHODS

In the Pilot's Health Technology Assessment, 576 categorical age/pack-years/quit-years scenarios were evaluated using MISCAN microsimulation modeling and cost-effectiveness analyses. A preferred model was selected which provided the most life-years gained per cost. The PLCOm2012 was compared to the preferred MISCAN scenario at a threshold that yielded the same number eligible (risk ≥2.0 %/6-years).

RESULTS

The PLCOm2012 had significantly higher sensitivity and predictive value (68.1 % vs 59.6 %, p < 0.0001; 4.90 % vs 4.29 %, p = 0.044), and an Expert Panel selected it for use in the Pilot. The Pilot cancer detection rate was significantly higher than in the NLST (p = 0.009) or NELSON (p = 0.003) and there was a significant shift to early stage compared to historical Ontario Cancer Registry statistics (p < 0.0001). Pre- and post-Pilot evaluations found that conducting quality risk assessments were not excessively time consuming or difficult, and participants' satisfaction was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The PLCOm2012 was efficiently implemented in the Pilot in a real-world setting and is being used to transition into a provincial program. Compared to categorical age/pack-years/quit-years criteria, risk assessment using the PLCOm2012 can lead to effective and efficient screening.

Perforation and post-polypectomy bleeding complicating colonoscopy in a population-based screening program

Background and study aims We aimed to estimate the rate of hospital admissions for perforation and for post-polypectomy bleeding, after outpatient colonoscopy following a first positive fecal occult blood test screen through the population-based ColonCancerCheck program in Ontario, Canada. Patients and methods We identified all individuals aged 50 to 74 years with a first positive CCC gFOBT screening result from 2008 to 2017 who underwent outpatient colonoscopy ≤ 6 months later and who did not receive a diagnosis of CRC ≤ 24 months later. We identified inpatient hospital admissions for colonic perforation ≤ 7 days after and for post-polypectomy bleeding ≤ 14 days following colonoscopy. Results Among 121,626 individuals who underwent colonoscopy, the rate of perforation was 0.6 per 1000 from 2008 to 2012 and 0.4 per 1000 from 2013 to 2017. The rate was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years; those with comorbidities; when colonoscopy was performed by endoscopists other than gastroenterologists or endoscopists with low prior year volume; and when polypectomy was performed during colonoscopy. The rate of bleeding was 4.3 per 1000 and was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with comorbidity, and with complex polypectomy. Both outcomes were more common among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with a 5-year cumulative Charlson score ≥ 1, those with prior hospitalization for ischemic heart disease, and those with endoscopists whose prior year colonoscopy volume was in the three lower quartiles. Conclusions Colonic perforation and post-polypectomy bleeding, among participants of population-based colorectal screening programs who test positive in the absence of colorectal cancer, are infrequent but serious complications, which increase with participant age and comorbidity, and with endoscopist characteristics.

A63 REFINING THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF GASTROENTEROLOGY GUIDELINE ON SCREENING IN PERSONS WITH A FAMILY HISTORY OF NONHEREDITARY COLORECTAL CANCER OR ADENOMA: A MODIFIED DELPHI PROCESS

Background

In 2018, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) published an extensive systematic review and guideline on screening in persons with a family history (FHx) of nonhereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenoma. While CAG’s recommendations were evidence-based, some recommendations lacked precision (e.g. ranges for some start ages & intervals) and screening cessation age was not addressed, leading to implementation challenges for practitioners and CRC screening programs.

Aims

To review and update the evidence since the 2018 guideline and to formulate implementable recommendations in the Ontario context that are aligned with the CAG guideline.

Methods

ColonCancerCheck (Ontario’s organized CRC screening program) conducted a modified version of the literature search used by CAG (Jan 2017 - Sept 2019). A 19-member expert panel with Canadian and international representatives from endoscopy, primary care, epidemiology, organized CRC screening programs, Ontario’s cancer system and the general public refined the recommendations of the CAG guideline for the purposes of implementation in an organized CRC screening program using a modified Delphi process. This iterative process involved a series of webinars and anonymous survey rounds where the panel reviewed evidence materials and provided online feedback to develop, refine & achieve consensus on screening recommendations in persons with a FHx of CRC/adenoma. Consensus was achieved if ≥75% of members agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Results

Six new systematic reviews and 2 new guidelines were identified. New evidence included data on the absolute risk (10 year & lifetime risk) of CRC by type of FHx, as well as the performance of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and barriers to CRC screening in persons with a FHx of CRC. The expert panel participated in 3 webinars and 4 online surveys to arrive at consensus. Panel recommendations and level of consensus will be reported for the 6 statements (Table).

Conclusions

Building from the CAG guideline, we derived evidence-based and implementable recommendations for screening persons with a FHx of CRC or adenoma.

Funding Agencies

Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)

Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Routine screening for colorectal cancer typically is recommended until age 74 years. Although it has been proposed that a screening stop age could be determined based on sex and comorbidity, less is known about the impact of screening history. We investigated the effects of screening history on the selection of an optimal age to stop screening.

METHODS

We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to estimate the harms and benefits of screening with biennial fecal immunochemical tests by sex, comorbidity status, and screening history. The optimal screening stop age was determined based on the incremental number needed for 1 additional life-year per 1000 screened individuals compared with the threshold provided by stopping screening at 76 years in the average-health population with a perfect screening history (attended all required screening, diagnostic, and follow-up tests) to biennial fecal immunochemical testing from age 50 years.

RESULTS

For persons age 76 years, 157 women and 108 men with a perfect screening history would need to be screened to gain 1 life-year per 1000 screened individuals. Previously unscreened women with no comorbid conditions and no history of screening could undergo an initial screening through 90 years, whereas unscreened men could undergo initial screening through 88 years, before this balance is reached. As screening adherence improved or as comorbidities increased, the optimal age to stop screening decreased to a point that, regardless of sex, individuals with severe comorbidities and a perfect screening history should stop screening at age 66 years or younger.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the harm-benefit balance, the optimal stop age for colorectal cancer screening ranges from 66 years for unhealthy individuals with a perfect screening history to 90 years for healthy individuals without prior screening. These findings can be used to assist patients and clinicians in making decisions about screening participation.

Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample

AIM

Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC.

METHODS

Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32).

CONCLUSION

Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

Cohort profile: The Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre biorepository, Calgary, Alberta

PURPOSE

The Colon Cancer Screening Centre (CCSC) biorepository (Calgary, Canada) supports a wide range of research topics related to colorectal cancer (CRC) by collecting, and storing biospecimens (blood, urine, normal colon tissue) from consenting patient participants. Housing unique biospecimens along with detailed participant lifestyle and health history questionnaire data, the CCSC biorepository can support a variety of research related to CRC risk factors, biomarkers, genetic causes and more.

PARTICIPANTS

Currently, 2292 average risk CRC patients have consented to participate in the CCSC cohort and have provided stored biospecimens. The collected samples and data provide important high-quality materials for research, discovery and evaluation related to CRC screening and carcinogenesis and is available for access by outside researchers. In addition to biological samples, the CCSC collects detailed patient information on their lifestyle, physical activity and dietary patterns through questionnaires at the time of their enrolment.

FINDINGS TO DATE

The majority of participants (75%) are between 50 and 64 years of age. Women make up 46% (1055) of the cohort. Additional characteristics of the cohort included 44% reporting a body mass index of 25-30 kg/m² (overweight), 53% having never smoked tobacco and 13% having a family member with CRC.

FUTURE PLANS

The CCSC cohort plans to include the recruitment of high risk CRC cohorts. High-risk participants would comprise patients with a positive faecal immunochemical test and family history of CRC.

Morbidity and mortality after major large bowel resection of non-malignant polyp among participants in a population-based screening program

Background and aims

Colonoscopy following positive fecal occult blood screening may detect non-malignant polyps deemed to require major large bowel resection. We aimed to estimate the major inpatient morbidity and mortality associated with major resection of non-malignant polyps detected at colonoscopy following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening in Ontario's population-based colorectal screening program.

Methods

We identified those without a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the Ontario Cancer Registry ≤24 months following the date of colonoscopy prompted by positive fecal occult blood screening between 2008 and 2017, who underwent a major large bowel resection ≤24 months after the colonoscopy, with a diagnosis code for non-malignant polyp, in the absence of a code for any other large bowel diagnosis. We extracted records of major inpatient complications and readmissions ≤30 days following resection. We computed mortality within 90 days following resection.

Results

For those undergoing colonoscopy ≤6 months following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening, 420/127,872 (0.03%) underwent major large bowel resection for a non-malignant polyp. In 50/420 (11.9%), the resection included one or more rectosigmoid or rectal polyps, with or without a colonic polyp. There were one or more major inpatient complications or readmissions within 30 days in 117/420 (27.9%). Death occurred within 90 days in 6/420 (1.4%).

Conclusions

Serious inpatient complications and readmissions following major large bowel resection for non-malignant colorectal polyps are common, but mortality ≤90 days following resection is low. These outcomes should be considered as unintended adverse consequences of population-based colorectal screening programs.

Cost-effectiveness of Active Identification and Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance of Lynch Syndrome Cases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome).

RESULTS

Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.

Decreased Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Incidence-Based Mortality in the Screening-Age Population of Ontario

Background and Aims

We aimed to evaluate trends in Ontario, Canada, 2002 to 2016, in uptake of colorectal evaluative procedures, colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incidence-based mortality in the colorectal screening-age population.

Methods

We defined the screening age-eligible population as persons 51 to 74 years of age with ≥1 year eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, excluding those with a diagnosis of CRC in the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) prior to age 50 or January 1, 2002. We computed annual up-to-date status with colorectal evaluative procedures from billing claims, and CRC incidence from the OCR. In order to compute incidence-based CRC mortality, we included persons with a first diagnosis of CRC between the ages of 51 and 74, diagnosed between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2001, still alive and <75 years of age on January 1, 2002, based on cause of death from the OCR. Overall, age-stratified and sex-stratified trends were evaluated by Cochran–Armitage trend tests.

Results

Persons up to date with colorectal evaluative procedures increased from 628,214/2,782,061 (22.6%) in 2002 to 2,584,570/4,179,789 (62.2%) in 2016. CRC incidence fell from 129.3/100,000 in 2002 to 94.54/100,000 in 2016, and incidence-based CRC mortality fell from 40.8/100,000 to 24.1/100,000. Decreasing trends in overall and stratified incidence and mortality were all significant, except among persons 51 to 54 years old.

Conclusions

There was continued increase in persons up-to-date with colorectal evaluative procedures, and significant decrease in CRC incidence and incidence-based CRC mortality from 2002 through 2016.

Organized Lung Cancer Screening Pilot: Informing a Province-Wide Program in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Ontario. The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality.

METHODS

In June 2017, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) initiated a pilot for lung cancer screening to inform implementation of a province-wide initiative. The screening pathway includes targeted recruitment strategies, the Tammemägi risk prediction model (PLCOm2012) to determine eligibility, opt-out smoking cessation services for all current smokers, use of the Lung-RADS scoring system to guide abnormal results management, and screening navigators providing end-to-end support. Referral criteria include being 55 years of age to 74 years of age and a current or former daily cigarette smoker for greater than or equal to 20 years, while the screening eligibility criterion is a PLCOm2012 risk greater than or equal to 2% in 6 years. Selected results of the interim pilot evaluation are presented. Four hospitals contributed data in the first year of the pilot.

RESULTS

During 2017 to 2018, 4205 Ontarians were recruited, 3234 risk assessments were conducted, and 2151 (66.5%) individuals were eligible for screening. Baseline LDCT scans were performed in 1624 (50.2%) individuals. Diagnostic evaluation in 120 (7.4%) individuals identified 28 (1.7%) with lung cancer, and proportions of stage I to II and stage III to IV were 71% and 29%, respectively. Of those recruited, 1443 (34.3%) individuals were smokers and 1326 (91.9%) accepted smoking cessation services.

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot is the largest in Canada and aligns with International Agency for Research on Cancer standards for population-based, organized cancer screening. Recruitment of high-risk individuals, high rates of smoking cessation program acceptance, and detection of early-stage cancers are demonstrated.

Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program

BACKGROUND

The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50-74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography.

METHODS

A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50-74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided.

RESULTS

For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50-59 years.

CONCLUSION

Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

Morbidity and mortality following major large bowel resection for colorectal cancer detected by a population-based screening program

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In 2008, Ontario initiated a population-based colorectal screening program using guaiac fecal occult blood testing. This work was undertaken to fill a major gap in knowledge by estimating serious post-operative complications and mortality following major large bowel resection of colorectal cancer detected by a population-based screening program.

METHODS

We identified persons with a first positive fecal occult blood result between 2008 and 2016, at the age of 50-74 years, who underwent a colonoscopy within 6 months, and proceeded to major large bowel resection for colon cancer within 6 months or rectosigmoid/rectal cancer within 12 months, and identified an unscreened cohort of resected cases diagnosed during the same years at the age of 50-74 years. We identified serious postoperative complications and readmissions ≤30 days following resection, and postoperative mortality ≤30 days, and between 31 and 90 days among the screen-detected and the unscreened cohorts.

RESULTS

Serious post-operative complications or readmissions within 30 days were observed among 1476/4999 (29.5%) cases in the screen-detected cohort, and among 3060/8848 (34.6%) unscreened cases. Mortality within 30 days was 43/4999 (0.9%) among the screen-detected cohort, and 208/8848 (2.4%) among the unscreened cohort. Among 30 day survivors, mortality between 31 and 90 days was 28/4956 (0.6%) and 111/8640 (1.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Serious post-operative complications, readmissions, and mortality may be more common following major large bowel resection for colorectal cancer between the ages of 50 and 74 among unscreened compared to screen-detected cases.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program

BACKGROUND

The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided.

RESULTS

Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Physicians Is Associated With Greater Uptake by Their Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Physicians' own screening practices might affect screening in their patients. We conducted a population-based study to evaluate whether family physicians who underwent colorectal cancer testing were more likely to have patients who underwent colorectal cancer testing.

METHODS

We collected demographic and health care information on residents of Ontario, Canada from administrative databases; the sample was restricted to individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer who were 52-74 years old as of April 21, 2016. We obtained a list of all registered physicians in the province; physicians (n = 11,434) were matched with nonphysicians (n = 45,736) on age, sex, and residential location. Uptake of colorectal tests was defined by a record of a fecal occult blood test in the past 2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, or colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Patients were assigned to family physicians based on billing claim frequency, and then the association between colorectal testing in family physicians and their patients was examined using a modified Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

Uptake of colorectal tests by physicians and nonphysicians (median age 60 years; 71% men) was 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.0%-68.7%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 66.2%-67.1%), respectively. Physicians were less likely than nonphysicians to undergo fecal occult blood testing and were more likely to undergo colonoscopy; prevalence ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.42-0.47) and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.22-1.26), respectively. Uptake of colorectal tests by family physicians was associated with greater uptake by their patients (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of physicians and nonphysicians are overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients are more likely to be tested if their family physician has been tested. There is an opportunity for physicians to increase their participation in colorectal cancer screening, which could, in turn, motivate their patients to undergo screening.

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Objective

Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

Design

We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

Results

Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Directly Mailing gFOBT Kits to Previous Responders Being Recalled for Colorectal Cancer Screening Increases Participation

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces CRC-related death. Average risk individuals should be recalled for screening with gFOBT every 2 years in order to maximize effectiveness. However, adherence with repeated testing is often suboptimal. Our aim was to evaluate whether adding a gFOBT kit to a mailed recall letter improves participation compared with a mailed recall letter alone, among previous responders to a mailed invitation.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the primary care provider as the unit of randomization. Eligible patients had completed a gFOBT and tested negative in an earlier pilot study and were now due for recall. The intervention group received a mailed CRC screening recall letter from their primary care provider plus a gFOBT kit (n = 431) while the control group received a mailed CRC screening mailed recall letter alone (n = 452). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months.

Results

gFOBT uptake was higher in the intervention group (61.3%, n = 264) compared with the control group (50.4%, n = 228) with an absolute difference between the two groups of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 20.2%, P = <0.01). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to complete the gFOBT compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.9).

Conclusion

Our findings show that adding gFOBT kits to the mailed recall letter increased participation among persons recalled for screening. Nine gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen one additional person.