Andrew Wang1, Carly Rachocki2, Jean A Shapiro3, Rachel B Issaka4, Ma Somsouk5. 1. Graduate Division, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Clinical Research and Public Health Science Divisions, Fred Hutchinson, Seattle, Washington; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: ma.somsouk@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an alternative to colonoscopy and can increase overall screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, little is known about the frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples. METHODS: We performed a prospective study, nested within a randomized controlled trial of patients, recruited from December 2015 through August 2017, who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening (50-75 years old). The patients were randomly assigned to usual care or outreach groups that received a mailed FIT with low literacy level instructions or a reminder call, or both. We examined frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples, including absence of collection date; time from collection to laboratory receipt of more than 14 days; or mishandling of stool, buffer, or cap. The outcomes were the frequency of mishandled FIT samples, effects of outreach on mishandling, and positive results from the FIT among proper and mishandled samples. RESULTS: FIT samples were returned from 1871 patients assigned to usual care and 3045 who received thelow literacy level instructions and a reminder call. In total, 19.8% of samples were mishandled; most of these (93.7%) had not labeled the date of stool collection but were still processed. Of the received samples, 1.2% of were not processed because the time from patient collection to laboratory receipt was more than 14 days. Outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples (16.5% vs 25.0% for usual care; P < .0001). The proportion of mishandled samples was lowest among patients who received the low literacy level instruction and a reminder call (12.8%, P < .0001). There was no significant difference in proportions of positive results between properly processed samples (7.5%) and improperly processed samples (6.2%) (P = .14). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening, we found that almost 20% of FIT samples were mishandled, with most patients missing the stool collection date. Patient outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples, but there was no difference in proportions of positive results between properly and improperly handled samples. Our findings indicate that routine processing of undated FIT samples is associated with similar rates of positive results. There are limited data on test characteristics for FIT samples beyond the 14 days of stool acquisition. The inclusion of low literacy level instructions with reminder calls was associated with improved patient handling of the FIT sample. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT02613260.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an alternative to colonoscopy and can increase overall screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, little is known about the frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples. METHODS: We performed a prospective study, nested within a randomized controlled trial of patients, recruited from December 2015 through August 2017, who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening (50-75 years old). The patients were randomly assigned to usual care or outreach groups that received a mailed FIT with low literacy level instructions or a reminder call, or both. We examined frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples, including absence of collection date; time from collection to laboratory receipt of more than 14 days; or mishandling of stool, buffer, or cap. The outcomes were the frequency of mishandled FIT samples, effects of outreach on mishandling, and positive results from the FIT among proper and mishandled samples. RESULTS: FIT samples were returned from 1871 patients assigned to usual care and 3045 who received the low literacy level instructions and a reminder call. In total, 19.8% of samples were mishandled; most of these (93.7%) had not labeled the date of stool collection but were still processed. Of the received samples, 1.2% of were not processed because the time from patient collection to laboratory receipt was more than 14 days. Outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples (16.5% vs 25.0% for usual care; P < .0001). The proportion of mishandled samples was lowest among patients who received the low literacy level instruction and a reminder call (12.8%, P < .0001). There was no significant difference in proportions of positive results between properly processed samples (7.5%) and improperly processed samples (6.2%) (P = .14). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening, we found that almost 20% of FIT samples were mishandled, with most patients missing the stool collection date. Patient outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples, but there was no difference in proportions of positive results between properly and improperly handled samples. Our findings indicate that routine processing of undated FIT samples is associated with similar rates of positive results. There are limited data on test characteristics for FIT samples beyond the 14 days of stool acquisition. The inclusion of low literacy level instructions with reminder calls was associated with improved patient handling of the FIT sample. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT02613260.
Authors: Aafke H C van Roon; Lieke Hol; Anneke J van Vuuren; Jan Francke; Martine Ouwendijk; Angela Heijens; Nicole Nagtzaam; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink; Alexandra C M van der Togt; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jen Sanchez; Amanda Petrik; Tanya Kapka; Jen DeVoe; Beverly Green Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sunita B Bapuji; Michelle M Lobchuk; Susan E McClement; Jeffrey J Sisler; Alan Katz; Patricia Martens Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: John M Inadomi; Sandeep Vijan; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Jennifer P Thomas; Yunghui V Lin; Roxana Muñoz; Chim Lau; Ma Somsouk; Najwa El-Nachef; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-04-09
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: Ma Somsouk; Carly Rachocki; Ajitha Mannalithara; Dianne Garcia; Victoria Laleau; Barbara Grimes; Rachel B Issaka; Ellen Chen; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanette M Daly; Yinghui Xu; Seth D Crockett; Megan E Schmidt; Peter Kim; Barcey T Levy Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Samir Gupta; Gloria D Coronado; Keith Argenbright; Alison T Brenner; Sheila F Castañeda; Jason A Dominitz; Beverly Green; Rachel B Issaka; Theodore R Levin; Daniel S Reuland; Lisa C Richardson; Douglas J Robertson; Amit G Singal; Michael Pignone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 286.130
Authors: Kevin Selby; Christopher D Jensen; Theodore R Levin; Jeffrey K Lee; Joanne E Schottinger; Wei K Zhao; Douglas A Corley; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 13.576