Early Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Individuals with Affected First-degree Relatives

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 40 for individuals with affected first-degree relatives, yet little evidence exists describing how often these individuals receive screening procedures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of individuals in whom early initiation of colorectal cancer screening might be indicated and whether screening disparities exist. DESIGN: Population-based Supplemental Cancer Control Module to the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents, 5,564, aged 40 to 49 years were included within the analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Patient self-report of sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood test. RESULTS: Overall, 279 respondents (5.4%: 95% C.I., 4.7, 6.2) reported having a first-degree relative affected with colorectal cancer. For individuals with a positive family history, 67 whites (27.9%: 95% C.I., 21.1, 34.5) and 3 African American (9.3%: 95% C.I., 1.7, 37.9) had undergone an endoscopic procedure within the previous 10 years (P-value = .03). After adjusting for age, family history, gender, educational level, insurance status, and usual source of care, whites were more likely to be current with early initiation endoscopic screening recommendations than African Americans (OR = 1.38: 95% C.I., 1.01, 1.87). Having an affected first-degree relative with colorectal cancer appeared to have a stronger impact on endoscopic screening for whites (OR = 3.21: 95% C.I., 2.31, 4.46) than for African Americans (OR = 1.05: 95% C.I., 0.15, 7.21). CONCLUSIONS: White participants with a family history are more likely to have endoscopic procedures beginning before age 50 than African Americans

Early Detection of and Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia

There are approximately one million new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) per year worldwide, with substantial associated morbidity and mortality. The long natural history of colorectal neoplasia affords the opportunity to use preventive measures to improve survival in this disease. Currently screening for adenomatous polyps and early-stage cancers is the best methodology for improving survival. The increasing knowledge of CRC pathogenesis and its natural history is allowing the development of new tools to identify patients who will benefit most from colon cancer screening and the defining of appropriate surveillance intervals. The guidelines for screening for colorectal neoplasia have recently been substantially revised by several organizations based on developing technologies and a growing body of data on the efficacy of CRC screening

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 3-D computerized tomography colonography versus optical colonoscopy for imaging symptomatic gastroenterology patients.

BACKGROUND: When symptomatic gastroenterology patients have an indication for colonic imaging, clinicians have a choice between optical colonoscopy (OC) and computerized tomography colonography with three-dimensional reconstruction (3-D CTC). 3-D CTC provides a minimally invasive and rapid evaluation of the entire colon, and it can be an efficient modality for diagnosing symptoms. It allows for a more targeted use of OC, which is associated with a higher risk of major adverse events and higher procedural costs. A case can be made for 3-D CTC as a primary test for colonic imaging followed if necessary by targeted therapeutic OC; however, the relative long-term costs and benefits of introducing 3-D CTC as a first-line investigation are unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of 3-D CTC versus OC for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients in the UK NHS. METHODS: We used a Markov model to follow a cohort of 100,000 symptomatic gastroenterology patients, aged 50 years or older, and estimate the expected lifetime outcomes, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (£, 2010-2011) associated with 3-D CTC and OC. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the base-case cost-effectiveness results to variation in input parameters and methodological assumptions. RESULTS: 3D-CTC provided a similar number of LYs (7.737 vs 7.739) and QALYs (7.013 vs 7.018) per individual compared with OC, and it was associated with substantially lower mean costs per patient (£467 vs £583), leading to a positive incremental net benefit. After accounting for the overall uncertainty, the probability of 3-D CTC being cost effective was around 60 %, at typical willingness-to-pay values of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: 3-D CTC is a cost-saving and cost-effective option for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients compared with OC

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.Fil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: von Karsa, Lawrence. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Patrick, J.. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes Sheffield; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Segnan, N.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Atkin, W.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Halloran, S.. University of Surrey; Reino UnidoFil: Saito, H.. National Cancer Centre; JapónFil: Sauvaget, C.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Scharpantgen, A.. Ministry of Health; LuxemburgoFil: Schmiegel, W.. Ruhr-Universität Bochum; AlemaniaFil: Senore, C.. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Siddiqi, M.. Cancer Foundation of India; IndiaFil: Sighoko, D.. University of Chicago; Estados Unidos. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Smith, R.. American Cancer Society; Estados UnidosFil: Smith S.. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Suchanek, S.. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Suonio, E.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Tong, W.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Törnberg, S.. Stockholm Gotland Regional Cancer Centre. Department of Cancer Screening; SueciaFil: Van Cutsem, E.. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Vignatelli, L.. Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale; ItaliaFil: Villain, P.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Voti, L.. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Watanabe, H.. Niigata University; JapónFil: Watson, J.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Winawer, S.. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Young, G.. Flinders University. Gastrointestinal Services; AustraliaFil: Zaksas, V.. State Patient Fund; LituaniaFil: Zappa, M.. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute; ItaliaFil: Valori, R.. NHS Endoscopy; Reino Unid

Persistent demographic differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization despite Medicare reimbursement

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is widely recommended, but often under-utilized. In addition, significant demographic differences in screening utilization exist. Insurance coverage may be one factor influencing utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of claims for outpatient services for Washington state Medicare beneficiaries in calendar year 2000. We determined the proportion of beneficiaries utilizing screening fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or double contrast barium enema in the overall population and various demographic subgroups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative odds of screening in different demographic groups. RESULTS: Approximately 9.2% of beneficiaries had fecal occult blood tests, 7.2% had any colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or barium enema (invasive) colon tests, and 3.5% had invasive tests for screening indications. Colonoscopy accounted for 41% of all invasive tests for screening indications. Women were more likely to receive fecal occult blood test screening (OR 1.18; 95%CI 1.15, 1.21) and less likely to receive invasive tests for screening indications than men (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.77, 0.83). Whites were more likely than other racial groups to receive any type of screening. Rural residents were more likely than urban residents to have fecal occult blood tests (OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.17, 1.23) but less likely to receive invasive tests for screening indications (OR 0.89; 95%CI 0.85, 0.93). CONCLUSION: Reported use of fecal occult blood testing remains modest. Overall use of the more invasive tests for screening indications remains essentially unchanged, but there has been a shift toward increased use of screening colonoscopy. Significant demographic differences in screening utilization persist despite consistent insurance coverage

Screening Patients with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES: To compare screening practices and beliefs in patients with and without a clinically important family history. DESIGN: We mailed a brief questionnaire asking about family history and a second, longer survey asking about knowledge of and beliefs about colorectal cancer to all respondents with a family history and a random sample of respondents without a family history of colorectal cancer. We reviewed electronic medical records for screening examinations and recording of family history. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred seventy of 6,807 randomly selected patients ages 35–55 years who had been continuously enrolled in a large multispecialty group practice for at least 5 years. MEASUREMENTS: Recognition of increased risk, screening practices, and beliefs—all according to strength of family history and patient’s age. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of respondents reported a family history of colorectal cancer. In 11%, this history was strong enough to warrant screening before age 50 years. However, only 39% (95% CI 36, 42) of respondents under the age of 50 years said they had been asked about family history and only 45% of those with a strong family history of colorectal cancer had been screened appropriately. Forty-six percent of patients with a strong family history did not know that they should be screened at a younger age than average risk people. Medical records mentioned family history of colorectal cancer in 59% of patients reporting a family history. CONCLUSIONS: More efforts are needed to translate information about family history of colorectal cancer into the care of patients