Amit G Singal1,2,3,4, Samir Gupta5,6, Jasmin A Tiro3,4, Celette Sugg Skinner3,4, Katharine McCallister3, Joanne M Sanders3, Wendy Pechero Bishop3,4, Deepak Agrawal1, Christian A Mayorga1, Chul Ahn3,4, Adam C Loewen3, Noel O Santini2, Ethan A Halm1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 5. Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, California. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Moores Cancer Center, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Monika Janda; Karen L Hughes; Josephine F Auster; Barbara A Leggett; Beth M Newman Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Jennifer Murillo; Sandra Lisboa; A Naomie Casimir; Lisa Valley-Shah; Karen M Emmons; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-05-23
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Jackilen Shannon; Melissa R Partin; Jean O'Malley; Zunqiu Chen; Mark Helfand Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells; Luis Bujanda; Joaquín Cubiella; Dolores Salas; Ángel Lanas; Montserrat Andreu; Fernando Carballo; Juan Diego Morillas; Cristina Hernández; Rodrigo Jover; Isabel Montalvo; Juan Arenas; Eva Laredo; Vicent Hernández; Felipe Iglesias; Estela Cid; Raquel Zubizarreta; Teresa Sala; Marta Ponce; Mercedes Andrés; Gloria Teruel; Antonio Peris; María-Pilar Roncales; Mónica Polo-Tomás; Xavier Bessa; Olga Ferrer-Armengou; Jaume Grau; Anna Serradesanferm; Akiko Ono; José Cruzado; Francisco Pérez-Riquelme; Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu; Mariola de la Vega-Prieto; Juana Maria Reyes-Melian; Guillermo Cacho; José Díaz-Tasende; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Carmen Poves; Cecilio Santander; Andrés González-Navarro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Ronald E Myers; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Richard W Grant; Alexander R Green; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Gloria Gamba; Sarah Oo; James M Richter; Steven J Atlas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Chul Ahn; Sandi L Pruitt; Amy E Hughes; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Noel O Santini; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Amit G Singal; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Rachel B Issaka; Maneesh H Singh; Sachiko M Oshima; Victoria J Laleau; Carly D Rachocki; Ellen H Chen; Lukejohn W Day; Urmimala Sarkar; Ma Somsouk Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nirupa R Ghai; Christopher D Jensen; Sophie A Merchant; Joanne E Schottinger; Jeffrey K Lee; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jennifer S Haas; Beverly B Green; Nancy T Cannizzaro; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-07-15
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Katherine Ni; Kelli O'Connell; Sanya Anand; Stephanie C Yakoubovitch; Simona C Kwon; Rabia Ali de Latour; Andrew B Wallach; Scott E Sherman; Mengmeng Du; Peter S Liang Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Briton Lee; Shreya Patel; Carly Rachocki; Rachel Issaka; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum; Ma Somsouk Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128