Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionOrganized outreach to increase CRC screening using mailed FIT tests has been shown to be effective, but durable changes to screening behavior after cessation of screening is not known.MethodsIn this study, after cessation of funding for an organized cancer screening outreach program, we evaluated whether adherence to screening remained elevated. Patients aged 50–75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight safety net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention vs usual care alone in 2016 to 2018; the primary outcome analyzed was the difference in the cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between study assignments 1 year after study cessation.ResultsDespite higher rates of FIT screening for patients who were randomly assigned to the outreach intervention, FIT completion was not significantly different between the group that received the outreach services versus the usual care group (28.3% vs 29.8%, p = 0.158).ConclusionOutreach campaigns and their activities must be sustained to maintain improved rates of screening participation.

Objective The sensitivity and specificity of a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are limited. The performance of FIT screening can be improved by increasing the screening frequency or by providing more than one sample in each screening round. This study aimed to evaluate if two-sample FIT screening is cost-effective compared with one-sample FIT. Design The MISCAN–colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and benefits of strategies with either one or two-sample FIT screening. The FIT cut-off level varied between 50 and 200 ng haemoglobin/ml, and the screening schedule was varied with respect to age range and interval. In addition, different definitions for positivity of the two-sample FIT were considered: at least one positive sample, two positive samples, or the mean of both samples being positive. Results Within an exemplary screening strategy, biennial FIT from the age of 55–75 years, one-sample FIT provided 76.0–97.0 life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals, at a cost of €259 000–264 000 (range reflects different FIT cut-off levels). Two-sample FIT screening with at least one sample being positive provided 7.3–12.4 additional LYG compared with one-sample FIT at an extra cost of €50 000–59 000. However, when all screening intervals and age ranges were considered, intensifying screening with one-sample FIT provided equal or more LYG at lower costs compared with two-sample FIT. Conclusion If attendance to screening does not differ between strategies it is recommended to increase the number of screening rounds with one-sample FIT screening, before considering increasing the number of FIT samples provided per screening round.

The present explosive interest in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the most prevalent and preventable cancers, had its beginnings at a hospital in London and an Internist’s office in Ohio. Demonstrated there were the concepts that CRC did not occur de-novo but arose from a premalignant polyp, that detection of the resultant cancer at an earlier stage was associated with better survival and that cancer could be detected at an early presymptomatic stage by screening. Many years later, the introduction of colonoscopy and colonoscopic polypectomy provided the opportunity for randomized trials to prove that these concepts were true. The sequence of rigorous science followed by guidelines consensus and then multilevel national efforts of screening implementation has resulted in a decline in the CRC incidence and mortality worldwide, most significantly in the USA. Campaigns have been initiated to maximize population screening and further investigate its optimal approach. Some historical details of this success story and many of the key participants are presented in this paper.

Purpose Investigating CRC screening rates and rurality at the county‐level may explain disparities in CRC survival in Georgia. Although a few studies examined the relationship of CRC screening rates, rurality, and/or CRC outcomes, they either used an ecological study design or focused on the larger population. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis utilizing data from the 2004–2010 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. The 2013 United States Department of Agriculture rural–urban continuum codes and 2004–2010 National Cancer Institute small‐area estimates for screening behaviors were used to identify county‐level rurality and CRC screening rates. Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression were performed. Results Among 22,160 CRC patients, 5‐year CRC survival rates were lower among CRC patients living in low screening areas in comparison with intermediate/high areas (69.1% vs. 71.6% /71.3%; p‐value = 0.030). Patients living in rural high‐screening areas also had lower survival rates compared to non‐rural areas (68.2% vs. 71.8%; p‐value = 0.009). Our multivariable analysis demonstrated that patients living in intermediate (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.98) and high‐screening (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–0.99) areas were at 8%–9% reduced risk of CRC death. Further, non‐rural CRC patients living in intermediate and high CRC screening areas were 9% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83–0.99) and 10% (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99) less likely to die from CRC. Conclusions Lower 5‐year survival rates were observed in low screening and rural high‐screening areas. Living in intermediate/high CRC screening areas was negatively associated with the risk of CRC death. Particularly, non‐rural patients living in intermediate/high‐screening areas were 8%–9% less likely to die from CRC. Targeted CRC screening resources should be prioritized for low screening and rural communities.

Background Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) and offer actionable recommendations to improve future implementation efforts. Methods We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe diverse stakeholders’ implementation experience. The interviews were conducted in the participant’s clinic, audio-taped, and professionally transcribed for analysis. Results We used the five CFIR domains and 39 constructs and subconstructs as a coding template to conduct a template analysis. Based on experiences with the implementation of three EBIs, stakeholders described barriers and facilitators related to the intervention characteristics, outer setting, and inner setting. Implementation barriers included (1) perceived burden and provider fatigue with EHR (Electronic Health Record) provider reminders, (2) unreliable and ineffectual EHR provider reminders, (3) challenges to providing health care services to diverse patient populations, (4) lack of awareness about CRC screening among patients, (5) absence of CRC screening goals, (6) poor communication on goals and performance, and (7) absence of printed materials for frontline implementers to educate patients. Implementation facilitators included (1) quarterly provider assessment and feedback reports provided real-time data to motivate change, (2) integration with workflow processes, (3) pressure from funding requirement to report quality measures, (4) peer pressure to achieve high performance, and (5) a culture of teamwork and patient-centered mentality. Conclusions The CFIR can be used to conduct a post-implementation formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation. Furthermore, the CFIR can provide a template to organize research data and synthesize findings. With its clear terminology and meta-theoretical framework, the CFIR has the potential to promote knowledge-building for implementation. By identifying the contextual determinants, we can then determine implementation strategies to facilitate adoption and move EBIs to daily practice.

Problem: Evidence supports earlier preventive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for high-risk individuals. Awareness of high-risk factors and application to screening guidelines can enable nurse practitioners (NPs) to positively impact screening rates. Application of this knowledge can transform high-risk CRC screenings from tertiary CRC diagnosis to primary and secondary prevention to improve health outcomes. Purpose: To survey NP knowledge, perceived barriers, and current practice patterns in referring high-risk individuals for CRC screenings. Methods: A 16-question Qualtrics Internet survey designed, tested, and emailed to 2,155 primary care NPs in North Carolina. Results: One hundred eighty respondents (8.3%) completed the survey, with 57.5% (n = 104) rating themselves knowledgeable of high-risk CRC screening guidelines. Screening barriers included uninsured status, patient refusal, and lack of access. Aggregate practice screening pattern questions were related to self-perceived knowledge of high-risk CRC guidelines (χ2 = 4.1918, df = 1, p = .04). Conclusion: Over half (57.8%) of the respondents reporting knowledge of high-risk CRC guidelines had statistically significant relationship in aggregate practice patterns. Reduction of screening barriers using targeted interventions may improve health outcomes.

Background American Indians (AI) experience major colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities with commensurate inequity in CRC mortality and other outcomes. The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and early results of adapting a previously successful intervention for the AI community. Methods The educational content and delivery strategy of the parent intervention were adapted for AIs guided by an adaptation framework and cultural consultations with the community and clinicians. As part of the environmental scanning, we identified the need to substantively revise our data entry, collection, and tracking system and develop a REDCap database for this purpose. In this study, we staggered the implementation of the intervention in each facility to inform the process from one clinic to the next, and assess both the clinical outcomes of the tailored intervention and the implementation processes across two clinic settings, Facilities A and B. Results The REDCap database is an indispensable asset, and without it we would not have been able to obtain reliable aggregate screening data while improvements to facility electronic health records are in progress. Approximately 8% ( n  = 678) of screening-eligible patients have been exposed to the navigator intervention. Of those exposed to the navigator intervention, 37% completed screening. Conclusions With the small numbers of patients exposed so far to the intervention, it would be premature to draw any broad conclusions yet about intervention effects. However, early screening completion rates are substantial advances on existing rates, and we have demonstrated that a tailored navigator intervention for facilitating CRC screening was readily adapted with provider and community input for application to AIs. A REDCap database for tracking of CRC screening by navigators using tablets or laptops on- or offline is easy to use and allows for generation of aggregate, anonymized screening data. Trial registration. There was no health intervention meeting the criteria of a clinical trial. The University of Arizona Institutional Review Board granted exemption from obtaining informed consent from patients undergoing CRC screening after administration of the tailored navigation intervention as usual care.

Background: Adjustment for stage at diagnosis markedly reduces USA versus European colorectal cancer survival differences and a screening bias was therefore suspected. Moreover, little is known about colorectal cancer screening habits in European primary care and the history of guidelines implementation. The purpose of the study was to index the overall colorectal cancer screening attitudes of European physicians involved in primary care activities. Methods: A systematic literature-search was performed in three major medical libraries: PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI web of science, and COCHRANE. Results: We found only five eligible studies, but valuable data were presented only in four. Colorectal cancer screening was recommended by 65–95% of physicians, but the major part of them implemented it only among high-risk individuals; stool occult blood testing was advised by 42–83% and prescription of screening endoscopic modalities was inconsistent. Most European reports found were not eligible and were mainly focused on diagnostic delay in symptomatic subjects rather than on screening procedures among asymptomatic individuals. Conclusion: In comparison with European practice, colorectal cancer screening habits of American physicians are to a greater extent rational, evidence-based and well monitored and have a longer tradition in medical care thus allowing better prevention services for asymptomatic individuals.

Background As screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited by uptake and adherence, further options are sought. A blood test might increase both, but none has yet been tested in a screening setting. Objective We prospectively assessed the accuracy of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) for detecting CRC in a screening population. Design Asymptomatic individuals ≥50 years old scheduled for screening colonoscopy at 32 US and German clinics voluntarily gave blood plasma samples before colon preparation. Using a commercially available assay, three independent blinded laboratories assayed plasma DNA of all CRC cases and a stratified random sample of other subjects in duplicate real time PCRs. The primary outcomes measures were standardised for overall sensitivity and specificity estimates. Results 7941 men (45%) and women (55%), mean age 60 years, enrolled. Results from 53 CRC cases and from 1457 subjects without CRC yielded a standardised sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI 32.4% to 63.6%; crude rate 50.9%); for CRC stages I–IV, values were 35.0%, 63.0%, 46.0% and 77.4%, respectively. Specificity was 91.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 93.1%; crude rate 91.4%). Sensitivity for advanced adenomas was low (11.2%). Conclusions Our study using the blood based mSEPT9 test showed that CRC signal in blood can be detected in asymptomatic average risk individuals undergoing screening. However, the utility of the test for population screening for CRC will require improved sensitivity for detection of early cancers and advanced adenomas. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00855348