Dataset Information

Utilization of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Among Individuals With Average Risk.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. It is important to examine screening patterns over time, including after the introduction of new screening modalities.

Objective

To compare use of CRC screening tests before and after the availability of the multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, given that endorsed options have changed.

Design, setting, and participants

This longitudinal cohort study used administrative claims data to examine CRC screening use in 2 discrete periods: before (August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2014) and after (August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2019) the mt-sDNA test became available. The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases were queried for individuals aged 45 to 75 years between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2019, with average risk of CRC and with continuous enrollment in the databases from August 1, 2001, to July 31, 2019.

Main outcomes and measures

The proportion of individuals up to date or not due for CRC screening during each measurement year and the type of screening test used among individuals due for screening. Data were reported overall and among individuals aged 45 to 49 or 50 years and older on August 1, 2011.

Results

A total of 97 776 individuals with average risk were identified. Individuals had a mean (SD) age of 50.8 (3.5) years, and 54 227 (55.5%) were women. The proportion of individuals with average risk aged 50 to 75 years with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance who were up to date with CRC screening increased from 50.4% in 2011 (30 605 of 60 770) to 69.7% in 2019 (42 367 of 60 770). Among individuals due for screening and screened, the use of high-sensitivity fecal occult blood test (FOBT) decreased between 2011 (1088 of 6241 eligible individuals [17.7%]) and 2019 (195 of 2943 eligible individuals [6.6%]), and the use of mt-sDNA increased between 2016 (58 of 3014 eligible individuals [1.9%]) and 2019 (418 of 2943 eligible individuals [14.2%]). No consistent trends were observed with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or screening colonoscopy. Computed tomography colonography, double-contrast barium enema, and flexible sigmoidoscopy were rarely performed.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, the proportion of individuals with average risk who were up to date with CRC screening increased between 2011 and 2019 but remained suboptimal. There were no substantial changes in the use of the colonoscopy or FIT; however, there was an increase in the adoption of mt-sDNA and a decrease in the use of FOBT during the study period.

SUBMITTER: Fisher DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414191 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown.To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons.2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360).4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices.783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry.Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC.The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry.Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42]).Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed.In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior.National Institutes of Health.

Project description:The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer.To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC).Nested case-control study.Four U.S. health plans.1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration.Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures.In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer.The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates.Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant.

Project description:Background and aimsCurrent guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.MethodsEight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.ResultsCompared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.ConclusionAt 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.Plain language summaryCost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.