Ma Somsouk1,2, Carly Rachocki1, Ajitha Mannalithara3, Dianne Garcia1, Victoria Laleau1, Barbara Grimes4, Rachel B Issaka5,6, Ellen Chen7, Eric Vittinghoff4, Jean A Shapiro8, Uri Ladabaum3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Clinical Research and Public Health Sciences Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 7. Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA. 8. CDC, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care. METHODS:Patients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:A total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care. CONCLUSION: Population-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care. METHODS:Patients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care. CONCLUSION: Population-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.
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: Andrew Wang; Carly Rachocki; Jean A Shapiro; Rachel B Issaka; Ma Somsouk Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Rachel B Issaka; Maneesh H Singh; Sachiko M Oshima; Victoria J Laleau; Carly D Rachocki; Ellen H Chen; Lukejohn W Day; Urmimala Sarkar; Ma Somsouk Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jason Martin; Ethan A Halm; Jasmin A Tiro; Zahra Merchant; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Chul Ahn; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Amit G Singal Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 4.965
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: Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Thomas Wolf; Jocelyn Andrel; Richard Wender Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martin C S Wong; Jessica Y L Ching; Thomas Y T Lam; Arthur K C Luk; Hoyee W Hirai; Sian M Griffiths; Francis K L Chan; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Siu Hing Lo; Stephen Halloran; Julia Snowball; Helen Seaman; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Gut Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 23.059
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: Rachel H Joung; Heidi Nelson; Timothy W Mullett; Scott H Kurtzman; Sarah Shafir; James B Harris; Katharine A Yao; Brian C Brajcich; Karl Y Bilimoria; William G Cance Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Briton Lee; Shreya Patel; Carly Rachocki; Rachel Issaka; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum; Ma Somsouk Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael Pignone; Brennan Lanier; Nicole Kluz; Victoria Valencia; Patrick Chang; Todd Olmstead Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Ashwini V Soman; Zahava Berkowitz; Stacey A Fedewa; Susan A Sabatino; Janet S de Moor; Tainya C Clarke; V Paul Doria-Rose; Erica S Breslau; Ahmedin Jemal; Marion R Nadel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.090
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: Rachel B Issaka; Nkem O Akinsoto; Erica Strait; Van Chaudhari; David R Flum; John M Inadomi Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 4.409