Kevin Selby1, Christine Baumgartner1, Theodore R Levin1, Chyke A Doubeni1, Ann G Zauber1, Joanne Schottinger1, Christopher D Jensen1, Jeffrey K Lee1, Douglas A Corley1. 1. From Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California; University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Walnut Creek, California; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Kaiser Permanente, Pasadena, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical testing is the most commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening worldwide. However, its effectiveness is frequently undermined by failure to obtain follow-up colonoscopy after positive test results. PURPOSE: To evaluate interventions to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy for adults after a positive result on a fecal test (guaiac or immunochemical). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from database inception through June 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting an intervention for colonoscopy follow-up of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal test results. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and ranked study quality; 2 rated overall strength of evidence for each category of study type. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies were eligible for analysis, including 7 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies. Three were at low risk of bias. Eleven studies described patient-level interventions (changes to invitation, provision of results or follow-up appointments, and patient navigators), 5 provider-level interventions (reminders or performance data), and 7 system-level interventions (automated referral, precolonoscopy telephone calls, patient registries, and quality improvement efforts). Moderate evidence supported patient navigators and provider reminders or performance data. Evidence for system-level interventions was low. Seventeen studies reported the proportion of test-positive patients who completed colonoscopy compared with a control population, with absolute differences of -7.4 percentage points (95% CI, -19 to 4.3 percentage points) to 25 percentage points (CI, 14 to 35 percentage points). LIMITATION: More than half of studies were at high or very high risk of bias; heterogeneous study designs and characteristics precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Patient navigators and giving providers reminders or performance data may help improve colonoscopy rates of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal blood test results. Current evidence about useful system-level interventions is scant and insufficient. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42016048286).
BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical testing is the most commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening worldwide. However, its effectiveness is frequently undermined by failure to obtain follow-up colonoscopy after positive test results. PURPOSE: To evaluate interventions to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy for adults after a positive result on a fecal test (guaiac or immunochemical). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from database inception through June 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting an intervention for colonoscopy follow-up of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal test results. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and ranked study quality; 2 rated overall strength of evidence for each category of study type. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies were eligible for analysis, including 7 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies. Three were at low risk of bias. Eleven studies described patient-level interventions (changes to invitation, provision of results or follow-up appointments, and patient navigators), 5 provider-level interventions (reminders or performance data), and 7 system-level interventions (automated referral, precolonoscopy telephone calls, patient registries, and quality improvement efforts). Moderate evidence supported patient navigators and provider reminders or performance data. Evidence for system-level interventions was low. Seventeen studies reported the proportion of test-positive patients who completed colonoscopy compared with a control population, with absolute differences of -7.4 percentage points (95% CI, -19 to 4.3 percentage points) to 25 percentage points (CI, 14 to 35 percentage points). LIMITATION: More than half of studies were at high or very high risk of bias; heterogeneous study designs and characteristics precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Patient navigators and giving providers reminders or performance data may help improve colonoscopy rates of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal blood test results. Current evidence about useful system-level interventions is scant and insufficient. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42016048286).
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: William G Paterson; William T Depew; Pierre Paré; Denis Petrunia; Connie Switzer; Sander J Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Sandra Daniels Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.522
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: Charlotte M Carlson; Katharine A Kirby; Michele A Casadei; Melissa R Partin; Christine E Kistler; Louise C Walter Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-10-11
Authors: Peter C Raich; Elizabeth M Whitley; William Thorland; Patricia Valverde; Diane Fairclough Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 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: Stephanie B Wheeler; Jennifer Leeman; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Florence K L Tangka; Melinda M Davis; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer J Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Martine Ruggli; Daniela Stebler; Markus Gasteiger; Maria Trottmann; Philip Hochuli; Harry Telser; Fabian Vaucher Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2019-09-28
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: Balambal Bharti; Folasade Fola Popoola May; Jesse Nodora; María Elena Martínez; Karina Moyano; Shauntay L Davis; Christian B Ramers; Felipe Garcia-Bigley; Shawne O'Connell; Kevin Ronan; Melissa Barajas; Sheree Gordon; Giselle Diaz; Evelyn Ceja; Meghan Powers; Elva M Arredondo; Samir Gupta Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 6.860