Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results:All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.
Authors: Gregory S Cooper; Tzuyung D Kou; Jill S Barnholtz Sloan; Siran M Koroukian; Mark D Schluchter Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Joann G Elmore; Diana S M Buist; Robert J Reid; Daniel J Tancredi; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
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: I Stegeman; S C van Doorn; M W Mundt; R C Mallant-Hent; E Bongers; M A G Elferink; P Fockens; A K Stroobants; P M Bossuyt; E Dekker Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Yingye Zheng; Joanne S Schottinger; Carolyn M Rutter; Douglas A Corley; Celette S Skinner; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Karen J Wernli; Carrie Klabunde Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jennifer K Coury; Jennifer L Schneider; Beverly B Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Amanda F Petrik; Jennifer S Rivelli; Malaika R Schwartz; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Tanya Khan; Carmen Guerra; Catherine Reitz; Timothy McAuliffe; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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
Authors: Kathryn E Kemper; Becky L Glaze; Casey L Eastman; Roxane C Waldron; Sonja Hoover; T'Ronda Flagg; Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John S Luque; Kristin Wallace; Bridgette F Blankenship; Lydia G Roos; Franklin G Berger; Nancy R LaPelle; Cathy L Melvin Journal: J Community Health Date: 2018-12