Literature DB >> 26843520

Time to Colonoscopy after Positive Fecal Blood Test in Four U.S. Health Care Systems.

Jessica Chubak1, Michael P Garcia2, Andrea N Burnett-Hartman3, Yingye Zheng2, Douglas A Corley4, Ethan A Halm5, Amit G Singal5, Carrie N Klabunde6, Chyke A Doubeni7, Aruna Kamineni8, Theodore R Levin9, Joanne E Schottinger10, Beverly B Green8, Virginia P Quinn10, Carolyn M Rutter11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To reduce colorectal cancer mortality, positive fecal blood tests must be followed by colonoscopy.
METHODS: We identified 62,384 individuals ages 50 to 89 years with a positive fecal blood test between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012 in four health care systems within the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We estimated the probability of follow-up colonoscopy and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall differences in cumulative incidence of follow-up across health care systems were assessed with the log-rank test. HRs and 95% CIs were estimated from multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Most patients who received a colonoscopy did so within 6 months of their positive fecal blood test, although follow-up rates varied across health care systems (P <0.001). Median days to colonoscopy ranged from 41 (95% CI, 40-41) to 174 (95% CI, 123-343); percent followed-up by 12 months ranged from 58.1% (95% CI, 51.6%-63.7%) to 83.8% (95% CI, 83.4%-84.3%) and differences across health care systems were also observed at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. Increasing age and comorbidity score were associated with lower follow-up rates.
CONCLUSION: Individual characteristics and health care system were associated with colonoscopy after positive fecal blood tests. Patterns were consistent across health care systems, but proportions of patients receiving follow-up varied. These findings suggest that there is room to improve follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests. IMPACT: Understanding the timing of colonoscopy after positive fecal blood tests and characteristics associated with lack of follow-up may inform future efforts to improve follow-up. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26843520      PMCID: PMC4767632          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  31 in total

1.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Timely follow-up of positive fecal occult blood tests strategies associated with improvement.

Authors:  Adam A Powell; Amy A Gravely; Diana L Ordin; James E Schlosser; Melissa R Partin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Colorectal cancer screening, comorbidity, and follow-up in elderly patients.

Authors:  Katherine S Garman; Amy Jeffreys; Cynthia Coffman; Deborah A Fisher
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.378

4.  Effect of gender, age and deprivation on key performance indicators in a FOBT-based colorectal screening programme.

Authors:  R J C Steele; I Kostourou; P McClements; C Watling; G Libby; D Weller; D H Brewster; R Black; F A Carey; C Fraser
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Endoscopic follow-up of positive fecal occult blood testing in the Ontario FOBT Project.

Authors:  Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Lori Kiefer; Verna Mai; Paul Ritvo; Terry Sullivan
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Himabindu Kadiyala; Gayathri Bhagwath; Anila Shethia; Hashem El-Serag; Annette Walder; Maria E Velez; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Time from positive screening fecal occult blood test to colonoscopy and risk of neoplasia.

Authors:  Ziad F Gellad; Daniel Almirall; Dawn Provenzale; Deborah A Fisher
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-12-18       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation.

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

9.  Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests.

Authors:  Sandhya K Rao; Thad F Schilling; Thomas D Sequist
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  58 in total

1.  Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

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

2.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

Authors:  Ethan A Halm; Elisabeth F Beaber; Dale McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Carolyn M Rutter; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Bijal A Balasubramanian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Leveraging Implementation Science to Improve Cancer Care Delivery and Patient Outcomes.

Authors:  Sandra A Mitchell; David A Chambers
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Optimizing the Quality of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Continuum: A Call to Action.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; Jesse Nodora
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Reducing Variation in the "Standard of Care" for Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Sarah Kobrin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Among Patients With Cirrhosis in a Population-based Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Jasmin Tiro; Xilong Li; Beverley Adams-Huet; Jessica Chubak
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.062

Review 9.  Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Influence of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Yingye Zheng; Virginia P Quinn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Carolyn M Rutter; Ethan A Halm; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Aruna Kamineni; Marilyn M Schapira; Pamela M Vacek; Michael P Garcia; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.