Dataset Information

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care.Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization.Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy.Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process.

SUBMITTER: Singal AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4724227 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

Singal Amit G AG Gupta Samir S Tiro Jasmin A JA Skinner Celette Sugg CS McCallister Katharine K Sanders Joanne M JM Bishop Wendy Pechero WP Agrawal Deepak D Mayorga Christian A CA Ahn Chul C Loewen Adam C AC Santini Noel O NO Halm Ethan A EA

Cancer 20151104 3

<h4>Background</h4>The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening b ...[more]

PMID: 26535565

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results.ObjectiveCompare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years.Design, setting, and participantsPragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings.InterventionsRandom assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation).ResultsAll 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Project description:Chinese translationBlack persons are more likely than white persons to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and to die from it. The extent to which genetic or biological factors versus disparities in screening rates explain this variance remains controversial.To define the prevalence and location of presymptomatic advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among white and black persons undergoing screening colonoscopy, controlling for other epidemiologic risk factors.Cross-sectional survey between 22 March 2005 and 31 January 2012.Urban, open-access, academic, safety-net hospital in Massachusetts.Asymptomatic, average-risk white (n = 1172) and black (n = 1681) persons aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening colonoscopy.Adjusted prevalence and location of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma 10 mm or more in size, any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, any dysplastic serrated lesion, or invasive cancer.The prevalence of ACN was higher among white patients than black patients (6.8% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.039) but varied by sex (white vs. black men, 9.3% vs. 5.7%; white vs. black women, 3.5% vs. 4.3%; interaction P = 0.034). After controlling for many risk factors, black men were 41% less likely than white men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89]) to have ACN. No statistically significant difference was seen for women (AOR, 1.32 [CI, 0.73 to 2.40]). Black patients with ACN had a higher percentage of proximal disease (52% vs. 39%) after adjustment for age and sex (P = 0.055).Single-institution study with inadequate statistical power for subgroup analyses and recall bias.Black men are less likely than white men to have ACN at screening colonoscopy in a safety-net health care setting. Disparities in access to screening and differential exposure to modifiable risk factors rather than genetic or biological factors may be largely responsible for the higher incidence of CRC among black men. Genetic or biological factors may explain the predilection for proximal disease.

Project description:Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n?=?185) or usual care (n?=?181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p?=?0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p?=?0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer (CRC) screening saves lives, but participation rates are low among underserved populations. Knowledge on effective approaches for screening the underserved, including best test type to offer, is limited.ObjectiveTo determine (1) if organized mailed outreach boosts CRC screening compared with usual care and (2) if FIT is superior to colonoscopy outreach for CRC screening participation in an underserved population.Design, setting, and participantsWe identified uninsured patients, not up to date with CRC screening, age 54 to 64 years, served by the John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth and Tarrant County, Texas, a safety net health system.InterventionsPatients were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 groups. One group was assigned to fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach, consisting of mailed invitation to use and return an enclosed no-cost FIT (n = 1593). A second was assigned to colonoscopy outreach, consisting of mailed invitation to schedule a no-cost colonoscopy (n = 479). The third group was assigned to usual care, consisting of opportunistic primary care visit–based screening (n = 3898). In addition, FIT and colonoscopy outreach groups received telephone follow-up to promote test completion.Main outcome measuresScreening participation in any CRC test within 1 year after randomization.ResultsMean patient age was 59 years; 64% of patients were women. The sample was 41% white, 24% black, 29% Hispanic, and 7% other race/ethnicity. Screening participation was significantly higher for both FIT (40.7%) and colonoscopy outreach (24.6%) than for usual care (12.1%) (P < .001 for both comparisons with usual care). Screening was significantly higher for FIT than for colonoscopy outreach (P < .001). In stratified analyses, screening was higher for FIT and colonoscopy outreach than for usual care, and higher for FIT than for colonoscopy outreach among whites, blacks, and Hispanics (P < .005 for all comparisons). Rates of CRC identification and advanced adenoma detection were 0.4% and 0.8% for FIT outreach, 0.4% and 1.3% for colonoscopy outreach, and 0.2% and 0.4% for usual care, respectively (P < .05 for colonoscopy vs usual care advanced adenoma comparison; P > .05 for all other comparisons). Eleven of 60 patients with abnormal FIT results did not complete colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS AND REVELANCE: Among underserved patients whose CRC screening was not up to date, mailed outreach invitations resulted in markedly higher CRC screening compared with usual care. Outreach was more effective with FIT than with colonoscopy invitation.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191411.

Project description:BackgroundMailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings.MethodsSMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up.DiscussionFindings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Project description:ContextLow-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups.BackgroundThe study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAdults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited.InterventionThe intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy).Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013).ResultsThe study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.ObjectiveTo estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.InterventionInvitation to endoscopic screening.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.ResultsThis analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Dataset Information

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

Publications

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets