Colorectal cancer screening uptake and adherence by modality at a large tertiary care center in the United States: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Real-world data is crucial to inform existing opportunistic colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention programs. This study aimed to assess CRC screening adherence and utilization of various screening modalities within a Primary Care network over a three-year period (2017-2019).

METHODS

A retrospective review of individuals aged 50-75 years at average CRC risk, with at least one clinic visit in the previous 24 months. The primary outcome, CRC screening adherence (overall and by modality) was examined among the entire eligible population and newly adherent individuals each calendar year. The final sample included 107,366 patients and 218,878 records.

RESULTS

Overall CRC screening adherence increased from 71% in 2017 to 78% in 2019. For "up-to-date" individuals, colonoscopy was the predominant modality (accounting for approximately 74%, versus 4% of adherence for non-invasive options). However, modality utilization trends changed over time in these individuals: mt-sDNA increased 10.2-fold, followed by FIT (1.6-fold) and colonoscopy (1.1-fold). Among newly adherent individuals, the proportion screened by colonoscopy and FOBT decreased over time (89% to 80% and 2.4% to 1.2%, respectively), while uptake of FIT and mt-sDNA increased (7.7% to 11.5% and 0.9% to 6.8%, respectively). Notably, FIT and mt-sDNA increases were most evident in age and race-ethnicity groups with the lowest screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In an opportunistic CRC screening program, adherence increased but remained below the national 80% goal. While colonoscopy remained the most utilized modality, new colonoscopy uptake declined, compared with rising mt-sDNA and FIT utilization. Among minority populations, new uptake increased most with mt-sDNA and FIT.

What do 'false-positive' stool tests really mean? Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry

We utilized the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to calculate false discovery rates (FDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) using three 'positive' colonoscopy definitions. Understanding the frequency of meaningful 'true positive' mt-sDNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) results can optimize the use of these colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests. We calculated FDR (positive stool test followed by negative colonoscopy divided by all positive stool tests) and PPV for mt-sDNA and FIT cohorts using the following definitions: 1) DeeP-C Study (CRC, adenomas/serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm, villous/High Grade Dysplasia); 2) < 10 year US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) follow-up: DeeP-C findings & ≥1 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) < 1 cm (with/without dysplasia) or ≥ 1 tubular adenomas < 1 cm. 3) Clinically Significant: DeeP-C + USMSTF + clinically significant serrated polyps: traditional serrated adenomas, SSPs, hyperplastic polyps (HPs) > 1 cm, and 5-9 mm proximal HPs. The sample included 549 mt-sDNA + and 410 FIT + and patients (mean age 66.4, 43.0% male). Using the most limited definition of positive colonoscopy, DeeP-C, FDR was 71.9% for mt-sDNA + and 81.7% for FIT +. Using the USMSTF definition, FDR decreased substantially: mt-sDNA+:33.2% and FIT+:47.6%. Adding all CSSPs resulted in the lowest FDR: mt-sDNA+:32.2% and FIT+:47.1%. Decreasing FDRs corresponded to increasing PPVs: mt-sDNA+:28.1% and FIT+:18.3% (DeeP-C definition) and mt-sDNA+:67.8% and FIT+:52.9% (DeeP-C + USMSTF + CSSP) (Table 1). FDRs decreased substantially when the definition of positive exams included all significant precancerous findings. These data present a comprehensive understanding of false positive outcomes at colonoscopies following positive stool tests, which to our knowledge is the first such analysis.

Barriers to utilization of three colorectal cancer screening options - Data from a national survey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the United States. A better understanding of existing barriers is critical for improving uptake of, and adherence to, CRC screening. Using data from a population-based panel survey, we examined barriers to utilization of three commonly used screening options (FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, and screening colonoscopy) and assessed differences by socio-demographic characteristics, healthcare access, and health status. Data were obtained from a questionnaire developed by the authors and implemented through a U.S. national panel survey conducted in November 2019. Among 5,097 invited panelists, 1,595 completed the survey (31.3%). Analyses were focused on individuals ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC. Results showed that among respondents who reported no prior CRC screening with FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, or colonoscopy, the top barriers were lack of knowledge (FIT/gFOBT: 42.1%, mt-sDNA: 44.9%, colonoscopy: 34.7%), lack of provider recommendation (FIT/gFOBT: 32.1%, mt-sDNA: 27.3%, colonoscopy: 18.6%), and suboptimal access (FIT/gFOBT: 20.8%, mt-sDNA: 17.8%, colonoscopy: 26%). Among participants who had used one or two of the screening options, the top barriers to FIT/gFOBT and mt-sDNA were lack of provider recommendation (31.6% & 37.5%) and lack of knowledge (24.6% & 25.6%), while for colonoscopy top barriers were psychosocial barriers (31%) and lack of provider recommendation (22.7%). Differences by sex, race/ethnicity, income level, and health status were observed. Our research identified primary barriers to the utilization of three endorsed CRC screening options and differences by patient characteristics, highlighting the importance of improving CRC screening education and considering patient preferences in screening recommendations.

The health economic impact of varying levels of adherence to colorectal screening on providers and payers

AIMS

To examine the impact of increasing multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA [Cologuard]) utilization for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in cohorts aged 50-75 and 45-75 years old with varying levels of adherence from the perspectives of integrated delivery networks (IDNs) and payers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a budget impact model that simulates CRC screening with colonoscopy over a 10-year time horizon, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and mt-sDNA according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society guidelines for average risk adults. We evaluated varying levels of screening adherence for a status quo scenario and for an increased mt-sDNA utilization scenario, from the IDN and payer perspectives. The IDN perspective included CRC screening program costs, whereas the payer perspective did not. Conversely, stool-based screening test and bowel preparation costs were unique to the payer perspective.

RESULTS

The increased mt-sDNA scenarios yielded cost savings relative to the status quo under all adherence scenarios due to a decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies. For ages 50-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, savings were $19.8 M ($0.16 per-person-per-month (PPPM)) and $33.3 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective. From the payer perspective, savings were $4.2 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.7 M ($0.06 PPPM). For ages 45-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, cost savings were $19.3 M ($0.16 PPPM) and $33.0 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective and $3.9 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.2 M ($0.05 PPPM) from the payer perspective. In all imperfect adherence scenarios, the degree of cost-savings with increased mt-sDNA utilization correlated with the aggregate decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates of real-world adherence levels were based on cross-sectional screening data from the literature, and assumptions were applied to individual screening modalities and screening scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all adherence scenarios, perspectives, and age ranges, increased mt-sDNA utilization yielded cost-savings.

Projecting total costs and health consequences of increasing mt-sDNA utilization for colorectal cancer screening from the payer and integrated delivery network perspectives

Aims: To evaluate total costs and health consequences of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and expanded use of multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) from the perspectives of Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) and payers in the United States.Materials and methods: We developed a budget impact and cost-consequence model that simulates CRC screening for eligible 50- to 75-year-old adults. A status quo scenario and an increased mt-sDNA scenario were modeled. The status quo includes the current screening mix of colonoscopy (83%), FIT (11%), and mt-sDNA (6%) modalities. The increased mt-sDNA scenario increases mt-sDNA utilization to 28% over 10 years. Costs for both the IDN and the payer perspectives incorporated diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, adverse events (AEs), and CRC treatment. The IDN perspective included screening program costs, composed of direct nonmedical (e.g. patient navigation) and indirect (e.g. administration) costs. It was assumed that IDNs do not incur the costs for stool-based screening tests or bowel preparation for colonoscopies.Results: In a population of one million covered lives, the 10-year incremental cost savings incurred by increasing mt-sDNA utilization was $16.2 M for the IDN and $3.3 M for the payer. The incremental savings per-person-per-month were $0.14 and $0.03 for the IDN and payer, respectively. For both perspectives, increased diagnostic colonoscopy costs were offset by reductions in screening colonoscopies, surveillance colonoscopies, and AEs. Extending screening eligibility to 45- to 75-year-olds slightly decreased the overall cost savings.Limitations: The natural history of CRC was not simulated; however, many of the utilized parameters were extracted from highly vetted natural history models or published literature. Direct nonmedical and indirect costs for CRC screening programs are applied on a per-person-per modality basis, whereas in reality some of these costs may be fixed.Conclusions: Increased mt-sDNA utilization leads to fewer colonoscopies, less AEs, and lower overall costs for both IDNs and payers, reducing overall screening program costs and increasing the number of cancers detected while maintaining screening adherence rates over 10 years.