Literature DB >> 28873161

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Amit G Singal1,2,3,4, Samir Gupta5,6, Celette Sugg Skinner3,4, Chul Ahn3,4, Noel O Santini2, Deepak Agrawal1, Christian A Mayorga1, Caitlin Murphy3, Jasmin A Tiro3,4, Katharine McCallister3, Joanne M Sanders3, Wendy Pechero Bishop3,4, Adam C Loewen3, Ethan A Halm1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28873161      PMCID: PMC5648645          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.11389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  37 in total

1.  How can we boost colorectal and hepatocellular cancer screening among underserved populations?

Authors:  Melissa Goebel; Amit G Singal; Jesse Nodora; Sheila F Castañeda; Elena Martinez; Chyke Doubeni; Adeyinka Laiyemo; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-06

2.  Use of colonoscopy for polyp surveillance in Medicare beneficiaries.

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

3.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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

4.  Longitudinal adherence with fecal occult blood test screening in community practice.

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

5.  Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening.

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

6.  Participation, yield, and interval carcinomas in three rounds of biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

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

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a colonoscopy screening navigator program designed for Hispanic men.

Authors:  Fernando A Wilson; Roberto Villarreal; Jim P Stimpson; José A Pagán
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  The colorectal cancer screening process in community settings: a conceptual model for the population-based research optimizing screening through personalized regimens consortium.

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

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

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

10.  Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening.

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

View more
  41 in total

1.  Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

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

2.  Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018.

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

3.  Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates.

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

4.  Does mistrust still linger? A bioethical perspective on colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Daryl Ramai; Denzil Etienne; Madhavi Reddy
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

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

6.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach.

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

7.  Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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

8.  Mailed Outreach Invitations Significantly Improve HCC Surveillance Rates in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

9.  Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State.

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

10.  Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.