Re-Educating Residents About Non-Invasive Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Approach to Improving Colon Cancer Screening Compliance.
ABSTRACT: Background:Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death; therefore early detection by screening is beneficial. Residents at a clinic in NJ, USA were not offering other forms of colon cancer screening when patients refused colonoscopy, which lead to the creation of the quality improvement project. Methods:Residents practicing at the clinic were given an anonymous survey determining which method of colon cancer screening they used and which alternative method they offered when patients refused the original method. The residents were educated about all methods of colon cancer screening and the residents were resurveyed. Results:A total of 64% of residents offered less invasive testing when colonoscopy was refused. Six months after education, 95% of residents offered less invasive testing when colonoscopy was refused. Conclusions:Early detection and removal of polyps by colonoscopy reduce the risk of cancer development. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening; however other less invasive modalities are approved. This quality improvement project lead to offering the fecal immunochemical test or fecal occult blood test once patients refused colonoscopy at the clinic, increasing the number of patients receiving colorectal cancer screening, and thus providing better medical care.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite strong recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates are low. Understanding factors that affect screening choices is essential to developing future screening strategies. Therefore, this study assessed patient willingness to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy. METHODS: Participants were recruited during regular consultations. Demographic, health, psychological and socioeconomic factors were recorded. All subjects were advised to undergo screening by colonoscopy. Subjects who refused colonoscopy were offered a choice of non-invasive tests. Subjects who selected stool testing received a collection kit and instructions; subjects who selected plasma testing had a blood draw during the office visit. Stool samples were tested with the Hb/Hp Complex Elisa test, and blood samples were tested with the Epi proColon® 2.0 test. Patients who were positive for either were advised to have a diagnostic colonoscopy. RESULTS: 63 of 172 subjects were compliant to screening colonoscopy (37%). 106 of the 109 subjects who refused colonoscopy accepted an alternative non-invasive method (97%). 90 selected the Septin9 blood test (83%), 16 selected a stool test (15%) and 3 refused any test (3%). Reasons for blood test preference included convenience of an office draw, overall convenience and less time consuming procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 97% of subjects refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test. The observation that participation can be increased by offering non-invasive tests, and that a blood test is the preferred option should be validated in a prospective trial in the screening setting.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite colonoscopy being offered for CRC screening in Germany, the uptake of this offer has been very limited. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess the potential for increasing use of endoscopic CRC screening and the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms by offering the choice between use of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. METHODS:The DARIO study includes a cross-sectional study (part I), followed by a prospective 2-arm randomized controlled intervention trial (part II) with an associated biobank study (part III). Participation is possible in part I of the DARIO study only, parts I and II, or all 3 study parts. After obtaining informed consent from the municipalities, 12,000 people, aged 50-54 years, from the Rhine-Neckar region in Germany were randomly selected from residential lists of the responsible population registries and invited to complete a standardized questionnaire to investigate the nature, frequency, timing, and results of previous CRC screening and eventual diagnostic colonoscopies. In study part II participants from study part I with no colonoscopy in the preceding 5 years are randomized into 2 arms: arm A offering screening colonoscopy only, and arm B offering both options, either screening colonoscopy or screening sigmoidoscopy. The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants in whom colorectal neoplasms >0.5 cm are detected and removed at screening endoscopy. The secondary endpoints are the detection rate of any neoplasm and use of any endoscopic screening. Part III of the study will use samples from participants in study part II to construct a liquid and tissue biobank for the evaluation of less invasive methods of early detection of colon cancer and for the more detailed characterization of the detected neoplasms. Blood, urine, stool, and saliva samples are taken before the endoscopy. Tissue samples are obtained from the neoplasms removed during endoscopy. RESULTS:A total of 10,568 from 12,000 randomly selected women and men aged 50-54 years living in the Rhine-Neckar-Region of Germany have been invited for participation. The remaining 1432 (11.93%) could not be invited because they reached the age of 55 at the time of contact. Of those invited, 2785/10,568 (26.35%) participated in study part I; 53.60% (1493/2785) of these participants were female. Study parts II and III are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS:This study will answer the question if alternative offers of either screening sigmoidoscopy or screening colonoscopy will increase utilization and effectiveness of endoscopic CRC screening compared with an exclusive offer of screening colonoscopy. In addition, alternative noninvasive screening tests will be developed and validated. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00018932; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00018932. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/17516.
Project description:Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) in the United States is inadequate in minority communities and particularly among those who lack insurance. Finding ways to increase screenings in these minorities presents a healthcare challenge. The authors sought to determine whether offering CRCS at the time of mammography is an effective way to increase CRCS among minority women.This study was offered to women attending the Breast Examination Center of Harlem (BECH), a community outreach program of Memorial Sloan-Kettering serving the primarily black and Hispanic Harlem Community. Screening was explained, medical fitness was determined, and colonoscopies were performed. Barriers to screening and ways to overcome them were ascertained. Participants had to be at least 50 years of age without a history of colorectal cancer or screening within the last 10 years.There were 2616 women eligible for CRCS, of these women 2005 (77%) refused to participate in the study, and 611 (23%) women were enrolled. There was a high interest in CRCS including among those who declined to participate in the study. The major barrier was lack of medical insurance, which was partially overcome by alternative funding. Of the 611 women enrolled, 337 (55%) went on to have screening colonoscopy. Forty-nine (15%) women had adenomatous polyps.Offering CRCS to minority women at the time of mammography and without a physician's referral is an effective way to expand screening. Screening colonoscopy findings are similar to those in the general population. Alternatives to traditional medical insurance are needed for the uninsured.
Project description:Colon cancer is a common preventable cancer. With the adoption of widespread colon cancer screening in the developed countries, the incidence and mortality of colon cancer have decreased in the targeted population. But unfortunately, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have been increasing over the last 25 years in the young adults below the age of 50. There is disparity in benefit, i.e. reduction in risk of death between right-sided and left-sided colon cancer by screening colonoscopy. The reason could be multifactorial and various measures have been taken to decrease this disparity. Although most of the screened populations are average risk individuals, a minority of the population have various risk factors for developing colon cancer and need to follow specific colon cancer screening guidelines. Gene mutations (adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), deleted in colon cancer (DCC), K-ras, p53, B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF), mismatch repair genes) and microsatellite instability lead to the development of colon cancer. Although various non-invasive methods of colon cancer screening are now available, colonoscopy remains the gold standard of colon cancer screening and adenoma detection rate is now being used as the quality metrics in screening colonoscopy. Although Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) and American College of Physicians (ACP) recommend initiating screening colonoscopy at age 50 years in all individuals except African Americans who should begin screening colonoscopy at age 45 years, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends initiating screening colonoscopy at age 45 years in all individuals irrespective of race and ethnicity. Low-volume split-dose prep has been found to be as effective as high-volume split-dose prep and more tolerable to patients with increased compliance. Boston bowel preparation scale is recommended to measure the quality of colon cleansing. CRC is curative if it is diagnosed at an early stage but various palliative treatment options (endoscopic, oncologic and surgical) are available in advanced stages of this cancer. Adequate number of lymph node assessment during surgery is essential in accurate staging of CRC. Checkpoint inhibitors have been found to have dramatic response and durable clinical benefit in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC. Different genetic and immune-oncologic research trials are ongoing for early detection and better management of CRC.
Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Colonoscopy is widely recommended for colorectal (CRC) screening in the United States, but evidence of effectiveness is limited. We examined whether exposure to colonoscopy decreases the odds of incident CRC and death from CRC in Utah. METHODS:We performed a case-control study of Utah residents, 54 to 90 years old, who received a CRC diagnosis from 2000 through 2010 (cases). Age- and sex-matched controls with no history of CRC (controls) were selected for each case. We determined receipt of colonoscopy 6 months to 10 years before the reference date for each case and control through administrative claims data. Colonoscopy exposure was compared by using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS:We identified 5128 cases and 20,512 controls; 741 cases (14%) and 5715 controls (28%) received a colonoscopy. Exposure to colonoscopy reduced the odds for a diagnosis of CRC; the odds ratios (ORs) were 0.41 for any CRC (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.44), 0.58 for proximal colon cancer (95% CI, 0.51-0.65), and 0.29 for distal colon or rectal cancer (95% CI, 0.25-0.33). This finding was consistent among sexes, age groups, and cancer stages. Similarly, in a subgroup analysis, colonoscopy was associated with decreased odds of death from CRC (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.39) in both the proximal colon (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55) and distal colon or rectum (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18-0.30). CONCLUSIONS:In the population of Utah, colonoscopy is associated with a large reduction in risk of new-onset CRC and death from CRC. This reduction in risk for CRC was greatest for the distal colon and rectum, with a more modest reduction for proximal colon cancer.
Project description:Introduction. Frequent colonoscopy screenings are critical for early diagnosis of colon cancer in patients with acromegaly. Case Presentations. We performed a retrospective analysis of the incidental diagnoses of colon cancer from the ACCESS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01995734). Colon cancer was identified in 2 patients (4.5%). Case??1 patient was a 36-year-old male with acromegaly who underwent transsphenoidal surgery to remove the pituitary adenoma. After surgery, the patient underwent routine colonoscopy screening, which revealed a 40?mm tubular adenoma in the descending colon. A T1N1a carcinoma was surgically removed, and 1 of 22 lymph nodes was positive for metastatic disease, leading to a diagnosis of stage 3 colon cancer. Case??2 patient was a 50-year-old male with acromegaly who underwent transsphenoidal surgery to remove a 2?cm pituitary adenoma. The patient reported severe cramping and lower abdominal pain, and an invasive 8.1?cm3 grade 2 adenocarcinoma with signet rings was identified in the ascending colon and removed. Of the 37 lymph nodes, 34 were positive for the presence of tumor cells, and stage 3c colon cancer was confirmed. Conclusion. Current guidelines for colonoscopy screening at the time of diagnosis of acromegaly and at appropriate follow-up intervals should be followed.
Project description:Mucus-invasive bacterial biofilms are identified on the colon mucosa of approximately 50% of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and approximately 13% of healthy subjects. Here, we test the hypothesis that human colon biofilms comprise microbial communities that are carcinogenic in CRC mouse models. Homogenates of human biofilm-positive colon mucosa were prepared from tumor patients (tumor and paired normal tissues from surgical resections) or biofilm-positive biopsies from healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy; homogenates of biofilm-negative colon biopsies from healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy served as controls. After 12 weeks, biofilm-positive, but not biofilm-negative, human colon mucosal homogenates induced colon tumor formation in 3 mouse colon tumor models (germ-free ApcMin?850/+;Il10-/- or ApcMin?850/+ and specific pathogen-free ApcMin?716/+ mice). Remarkably, biofilm-positive communities from healthy colonoscopy biopsies induced colon inflammation and tumors similarly to biofilm-positive tumor tissues. By 1 week, biofilm-positive human tumor homogenates, but not healthy biopsies, displayed consistent bacterial mucus invasion and biofilm formation in mouse colons. 16S rRNA gene sequencing and RNA-Seq analyses identified compositional and functional microbiota differences between mice colonized with biofilm-positive and biofilm-negative communities. These results suggest human colon mucosal biofilms, whether from tumor hosts or healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, are carcinogenic in murine models of CRC.
Project description:The costs of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are not yet established for screening use. In our study, we estimated the threshold costs for which CTC screening would be a cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the general population. We used the MISCAN-colon microsimulation model to estimate the costs and life-years gained of screening persons aged 50-80 years for 4 screening strategies: (i) optical colonoscopy; and CTC with referral to optical colonoscopy of (ii) any suspected polyp; (iii) a suspected polyp >or=6 mm and (iv) a suspected polyp >or=10 mm. For each of the 4 strategies, screen intervals of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years were considered. Subsequently, for each CTC strategy and interval, the threshold costs of CTC were calculated. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertain model parameters on the threshold costs. With equal costs ($662), optical colonoscopy dominated CTC screening. For CTC to gain similar life-years as colonoscopy screening every 10 years, it should be offered every 5 years with referral of polyps >or=6 mm. For this strategy to be as cost-effective as colonoscopy screening, the costs must not exceed $285 or 43% of colonoscopy costs (range in sensitivity analysis: 39-47%). With 25% higher adherence than colonoscopy, CTC threshold costs could be 71% of colonoscopy costs. Our estimate of 43% is considerably lower than previous estimates in literature, because previous studies only compared CTC screening to 10-yearly colonoscopy, where we compared to different intervals of colonoscopy screening.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland offers citizens the choice of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy via a visit with a family physician (FP). Given the central role of FPs in the program, this study aimed to compare their self-reported preventive practices with the objectives of the program, namely to inform patients about CRC screening and present the choice of colonoscopy and FIT, and to identify factors associated with presenting a choice of tests. METHODS:Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Participants were FPs from the canton of Vaud who had included ?1 patient in the screening program. We used multivariate logistic regression to compare FPs offering only colonoscopy to those who offered a choice of tests or FIT. RESULTS:The participation rate was 40% (177 respondents / 443 eligible). Most FPs (68%) reported informing more than 75% of eligible patients about the program. Lack of time (n?=?86, 33%) was the principal reason cited for not informing patients. Regarding the screening methods, 20% (n?=?36) of FPs prescribed only colonoscopy, 13% (n?=?23) only FIT and 65% (n?=?115) both screening methods. Predictors of offering only colonoscopy rather than a choice of screening tests included: first, FP reporting that they chose/would choose colonoscopy for themselves (OR 8.54 [95% CI 1.83-39.79, P?<?0.01]); second, being >?20?years in practice (OR 4.8 [95% CI 1.3-0.17.66, P?=?0.02]); and third, seeing 300 or more patients per month (OR 3.05 [95% CI 1.23-7.57, P?=?0.02]). When asked what could improve the program, 17% (n?=?31) wrote that patients should be informed in advance about the program by postal mail and a large-scale communication campaign. CONCLUSION:The majority of FPs reported CRC screening practices consistent with the objectives of the program. However, to ensure that patients are well informed and to save time, all patients need to be systematically informed about the program. Further, FPs should be encouraged to offer a choice of tests.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening. METHODS:Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both. RESULTS:At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ?$48. CONCLUSIONS:Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk. IMPACT:Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.