Balambal Bharti1,2, Folasade Fola Popoola May3,4, Jesse Nodora1,2,5, María Elena Martínez1,2,5, Karina Moyano6, Shauntay L Davis7, Christian B Ramers1,8, Felipe Garcia-Bigley8, Shawne O'Connell9, Kevin Ronan10, Melissa Barajas11, Sheree Gordon12, Giselle Diaz13, Evelyn Ceja14, Meghan Powers15, Elva M Arredondo16, Samir Gupta1,2,17. 1. University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 6. American Cancer Society, San Diego, California. 7. California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, California. 8. Family Health Centers of San Diego, San Diego, California. 9. San Ysidro Health, San Diego, California. 10. Vista Community Clinic, Vista, California. 11. Neighborhood Health Care, Escondido, California. 12. To Help Everyone Health and Wellness Centers, Los Angeles, California. 13. Northeast Valley Health Center, Los Angeles, California. 14. South Central Family Health Center, Los Angeles, California. 15. Venice Family Clinic, Venice, California. 16. San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 17. VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) of stool blood depends on high rates of colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal FITs and the use of high-quality tests. This study characterized colonoscopy referral and completion among patients with abnormal FITs and the types of FITs implemented in a sample of Southern California Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). METHODS: FQHCs in San Diego, Imperial, and Los Angeles Counties were invited to define a cohort of ≥150 consecutive patients with abnormal FITs in 2015-2016 and to provide data on sex, insurance status, diagnostic colonoscopy referrals and completion within 6 months of abnormal FITs, and the types (brands) of FITs implemented. The primary outcomes were the proportions with colonoscopy referrals and completion for all patients at each FQHC and in aggregate. RESULTS: Eight FQHCs provided data for 1229 patients with abnormal FITs; 46% were male, and 20% were uninsured. Among patients with abnormal FITs, 89% (1091 of 1229; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.91) had a colonoscopy referral, and 44% (539 of 1229; 95% CI, 0.41-0.47) had colonoscopy completion. Across FQHCs, the range for colonoscopy referral was 73% to 96%, and the range for completion was 18% to 57%. Six of the 8 FQHCs (75%) reported FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of Southern California FQHCs, diagnostic colonoscopy completion after abnormal FITs was substantially below the nationally recommended benchmark to achieve 80% completion, and the use of FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness was high. These findings suggest a need for policies and multilevel interventions to promote diagnostic colonoscopy among individuals with abnormal FITs and the use of higher quality FITs.
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) of stool blood depends on high rates of colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal FITs and the use of high-quality tests. This study characterized colonoscopy referral and completion among patients with abnormal FITs and the types of FITs implemented in a sample of Southern California Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). METHODS: FQHCs in San Diego, Imperial, and Los Angeles Counties were invited to define a cohort of ≥150 consecutive patients with abnormal FITs in 2015-2016 and to provide data on sex, insurance status, diagnostic colonoscopy referrals and completion within 6 months of abnormal FITs, and the types (brands) of FITs implemented. The primary outcomes were the proportions with colonoscopy referrals and completion for all patients at each FQHC and in aggregate. RESULTS: Eight FQHCs provided data for 1229 patients with abnormal FITs; 46% were male, and 20% were uninsured. Among patients with abnormal FITs, 89% (1091 of 1229; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.91) had a colonoscopy referral, and 44% (539 of 1229; 95% CI, 0.41-0.47) had colonoscopy completion. Across FQHCs, the range for colonoscopy referral was 73% to 96%, and the range for completion was 18% to 57%. Six of the 8 FQHCs (75%) reported FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of Southern California FQHCs, diagnostic colonoscopy completion after abnormal FITs was substantially below the nationally recommended benchmark to achieve 80% completion, and the use of FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness was high. These findings suggest a need for policies and multilevel interventions to promote diagnostic colonoscopy among individuals with abnormal FITs and the use of higher quality FITs.
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Amanda Petrik; Jennifer Rivelli; Stephen Taplin; Beverly B Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
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: 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: 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: Kevin Selby; Christine Baumgartner; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Joanne Schottinger; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Shahnaz Sultan; Melissa R Partin; Phalgoon Shah; Jennifer LeLaurin; Ivette Magaly Freytes; Chandylen L Nightingale; Susan F Fesperman; Barbara A Curbow; Rebecca J Beyth Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Eric S Johnson; Michael C Leo; Jennifer L Schneider; David Smith; Raj Mummadi; Amanda F Petrik; Jamie H Thompson; Ricardo Jimenez Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 2.226
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: Jesse N Nodora; Samir Gupta; Nicole Howard; Kelly Motadel; Tobe Propst; Javier Rodriguez; James Schultz; Sharon Velasquez; Sheila F Castañeda; Borsika Rabin; María Elena Martínez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506