Amit G Singal1, Jasmin A Tiro2, Jorge A Marrero3, Katharine McCallister4, Caroline Mejias4, Brian Adamson4, Wendy Pechero Bishop2, Noel O Santini5, Ethan A Halm6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas; Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: amit.singal@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 5. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas; Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Surveillance of patients with cirrhosis increasesearly detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and prolongs survival. However, its effectiveness is limited by underuse, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach strategies, with and without patient navigation, in increasing the numbers of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surveillance for HCC in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients with documented or suspected cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 through March 2016. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to groups that received mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination (n = 600), mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination and patient navigation (barrier assessment and motivational education for patients who declined screening; n = 600), or usual care (visit-based screening; n = 600). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received up to 3 reminder telephone calls. The primary outcome was completion of abdominal imaging within 6 months of randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Cirrhosis was documented, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes, for 79.6% of patients, and suspected, based on noninvasive markers of fibrosis, for 20.4%. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proportions of patients who received the mailed invitation and navigation (47.2%) or the mailed invitation alone (44.5%) underwent HCC screening than patients who received usual care (24.3%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). However, screening rates did not differ significantly between outreach the outreach groups (P = .25). The effects of the outreach program were consistent in all subgroups, including Caucasian vs non-Caucasian race, documented vs suspected cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A vs B cirrhosis, and receipt of gastroenterology care. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found outreach strategies to double the percentage of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound screening for HCC. However, adding patient navigation to telephone reminders provided no significant additional benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02312817.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Surveillance of patients with cirrhosis increases early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and prolongs survival. However, its effectiveness is limited by underuse, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach strategies, with and without patient navigation, in increasing the numbers of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surveillance for HCC in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients with documented or suspected cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 through March 2016. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to groups that received mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination (n = 600), mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination and patient navigation (barrier assessment and motivational education for patients who declined screening; n = 600), or usual care (visit-based screening; n = 600). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received up to 3 reminder telephone calls. The primary outcome was completion of abdominal imaging within 6 months of randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Cirrhosis was documented, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes, for 79.6% of patients, and suspected, based on noninvasive markers of fibrosis, for 20.4%. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proportions of patients who received the mailed invitation and navigation (47.2%) or the mailed invitation alone (44.5%) underwent HCC screening than patients who received usual care (24.3%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). However, screening rates did not differ significantly between outreach the outreach groups (P = .25). The effects of the outreach program were consistent in all subgroups, including Caucasian vs non-Caucasian race, documented vs suspected cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A vs B cirrhosis, and receipt of gastroenterology care. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found outreach strategies to double the percentage of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound screening for HCC. However, adding patient navigation to telephone reminders provided no significant additional benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02312817.
Authors: Fatma M Shebl; David E Capo-Ramos; Barry I Graubard; Katherine A McGlynn; Sean F Altekruse Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Adrian H Zai; Yuchiao Chang; Sarah A Oo; Erica Guimaraes; Steven J Atlas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Paul J Clark; Katherine A Stuart; Barbara A Leggett; Darrell H Crawford; Peter Boyd; Jonathan Fawcett; David C Whiteman; Peter D Baade Journal: Liver Int Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Lola Rahib; Benjamin D Smith; Rhonda Aizenberg; Allison B Rosenzweig; Julie M Fleshman; Lynn M Matrisian Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Amit G Singal; Adam C Yopp; Samir Gupta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Eucharia Okolo; Mahendra Nehra; William M Lee; Jorge A Marrero; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-07-30
Authors: Nicole E Rich; Caitlin Hester; Mobolaji Odewole; Caitlin C Murphy; Neehar D Parikh; Jorge A Marrero; Adam C Yopp; Amit G Singal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Monica A Konerman; Aashesh Verma; Betty Zhao; Amit G Singal; Anna S Lok; Neehar D Parikh Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Amit G Singal; Jasmin A Tiro; Caitlin C Murphy; Jorge A Marrero; Katharine McCallister; Hannah Fullington; Caroline Mejias; Akbar K Waljee; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Noel O Santini; Ethan A Halm Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 17.425