Literature DB >> 32128688

Making FIT Count: Maximizing Appropriate Use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

Vivy T Cusumano1, Folasade P May2,3,4,5.   

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains one of the most common and deadly malignancies despite advancements in screening, diagnostic capabilities, and treatment. The ability to detect and remove precancerous and cancerous lesions via screening has altered the epidemiology of the disease, decreasing incidence, mortality, and late-stage disease presentation. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a screening test that aims to detect human hemoglobin in the stool. FIT is the most common CRC screening modality worldwide and second most common in the United States. Its use in screening programs has been shown to increase screening uptake and improve CRC outcomes. However, FIT-based screening programs vary widely in quality and effectiveness. In health systems with high-quality FIT screening programs, only superior FIT formats are used, providers order FIT appropriately, annual patient participation is high, and diagnostic follow-up after an abnormal result is achieved in a timely manner. Proper utilization of FIT involves multiple steps beyond provider recommendation of the test. In this commentary, we aim to highlight ongoing challenges in FIT screening and suggest interventions to maximize FIT effectiveness. Through active engagement of patients and providers, health systems can use FIT to help optimize CRC screening rates and improve CRC outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer detection; colorectal cancer; fecal immunochemical test; screening; stool-based test

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32128688      PMCID: PMC7280423          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-05728-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  58 in total

1.  State disparities in colorectal cancer mortality patterns in the United States.

Authors:  Deepa Naishadham; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Rebecca Siegel; Vilma Cokkinides; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-11       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.  The FLU-FIT program: an effective colorectal cancer screening program for high volume flu shot clinics.

Authors:  Michael B Potter; Carol P Somkin; Lynn M Ackerson; Vicky Gomez; Teresa Dao; Michael A Horberg; M E Walsh J
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.229

5.  Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Aasma Shaukat; Steven J Mongin; Mindy S Geisser; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond; Jack S Mandel; Timothy R Church
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Outcomes and cost evaluation of the first two rounds of a colorectal cancer screening program based on immunochemical fecal occult blood test in northern Italy.

Authors:  F Parente; C Boemo; A Ardizzoia; M Costa; P Carzaniga; A Ilardo; R Moretti; M Cremaschini; E M Parente; M E Pirola
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests.

Authors:  Sandhya K Rao; Thad F Schilling; Thomas D Sequist
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  System Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Jeanette M Daly; Barcey T Levy; Carol A Moss; Camden P Bay
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Ann G Zauber; Chyke A Doubeni; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Mark Helfand; Jason A Dominitz; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  7 in total

1.  Challenges and Approaches to Measuring Repeat Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Patient Navigation After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Results Increases Diagnostic Colonoscopy and Highlights Multilevel Barriers to Follow-Up.

Authors:  Vivy T Cusumano; Anthony Myint; Edgar Corona; Liu Yang; Jennifer Bocek; Antonio G Lopez; Marcela Zhou Huang; Naveen Raja; Anna Dermenchyan; Lily Roh; Maria Han; Daniel Croymans; Folasade P May
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Engaging the Community on Colorectal Cancer Screening Education: Focus Group Discussions Among African Americans.

Authors:  John S Luque; Matthew Vargas; Kristin Wallace; Olayemi O Matthew; Rima Tawk; Askal A Ali; Gebre-Egziabher Kiros; Cynthia M Harris; Clement K Gwede
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 1.771

4.  Spatial Insights for Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening in Disproportionately Affected Populations, Central Texas, 2019.

Authors:  F Benjamin Zhan; Niaz Morshed; Nicole Kluz; Bretta Candelaria; Eda Baykal-Caglar; Anjum Khurshid; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Assessing the effectiveness of a community health advisor plus screen to save educational intervention on stool-based testing adherence in an African American safety net clinic population: study protocol for a randomized pragmatic trial.

Authors:  John S Luque; Olayemi O Matthew; Deloria R Jackson; Matthew A Vargas; Tifini Austin; Askal Ali; Gebre E Kiros; Cynthia M Harris; Rima Tawk; Clement K Gwede; Kristin Wallace; Pascal Jean-Pierre
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Disparities in outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer in proximity to an emergency department visit.

Authors:  Nicholas Pettit; Elisa Sarmiento; Jeffrey Kline
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies.

Authors:  Mathias M Petersen; Linnea Ferm; Jakob Kleif; Thomas B Piper; Eva Rømer; Ib J Christensen; Hans J Nielsen
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 6.639

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.