Matthew A Goldshore1, Shivan J Mehta2, Woodrow Fletcher3, George Tzanis3, Chyke A Doubeni4, E Carter Paulson5. 1. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: matthew.goldshore@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of screening can prevent death from colorectal cancer, yet people without regular healthcare visits may not realize the benefits of this preventive intervention. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a mailed screening invitation or mailed fecal immunochemical test in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in veterans without recent primary care encounters. STUDY DESIGN: Three-arm pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were screening-eligible veterans aged 50-75 years, without a recent primary care visit who accessed medical services at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017. All data were analyzed from March 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to (1) usual opportunistic screening during a healthcare visit (n=260), (2) mailed invitation to screen and reminder phone calls (n=261), or (3) mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach plus reminder calls (n=61). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome under investigation was the completion of colorectal cancer screening within 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: Of 782 participants in the trial, 53.9% were aged 60-75 years and 59.7% were African American. The screening rate was higher in the mailed fecal immunochemical test group (26.1%) compared with usual care (5.8%) (rate difference=20.3%, 95% CI=14.3%, 26.3%; RR=4.52, 95% CI=2.7, 7.7) or screening invitation (7.7%) (rate difference=18.4%, 95% CI=12.2%, 24.6%; RR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1, 5.4). Screening completion rates were similar between invitation and usual care (rate difference=1.9%, 95% CI= -2.4%, 6.2%; RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.7, 2.5). CONCLUSIONS:Mailed fecal immunochemical test screening promotes colorectal cancer screening participation among veterans without a recent primary care encounter. Despite the addition of reminder calls, an invitation letter was no more effective in screening participation than screening during outpatient appointments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02584998.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The use of screening can prevent death from colorectal cancer, yet people without regular healthcare visits may not realize the benefits of this preventive intervention. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a mailed screening invitation or mailed fecal immunochemical test in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in veterans without recent primary care encounters. STUDY DESIGN: Three-arm pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were screening-eligible veterans aged 50-75 years, without a recent primary care visit who accessed medical services at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017. All data were analyzed from March 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to (1) usual opportunistic screening during a healthcare visit (n=260), (2) mailed invitation to screen and reminder phone calls (n=261), or (3) mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach plus reminder calls (n=61). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome under investigation was the completion of colorectal cancer screening within 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: Of 782 participants in the trial, 53.9% were aged 60-75 years and 59.7% were African American. The screening rate was higher in the mailed fecal immunochemical test group (26.1%) compared with usual care (5.8%) (rate difference=20.3%, 95% CI=14.3%, 26.3%; RR=4.52, 95% CI=2.7, 7.7) or screening invitation (7.7%) (rate difference=18.4%, 95% CI=12.2%, 24.6%; RR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1, 5.4). Screening completion rates were similar between invitation and usual care (rate difference=1.9%, 95% CI= -2.4%, 6.2%; RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.7, 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Mailed fecal immunochemical test screening promotes colorectal cancer screening participation among veterans without a recent primary care encounter. Despite the addition of reminder calls, an invitation letter was no more effective in screening participation than screening during outpatient appointments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02584998.
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Angela C Young; Carrie N Klabunde; George Reed; Terry S Field; Robert H Fletcher Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Folasade P May; Elizabeth M Yano; Dawn Provenzale; W Neil Steers; Donna L Washington Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2017-05-20 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Leah L Zullig; Valerie A Smith; George L Jackson; Susanne Danus; Merritt Schnell; Jennifer Lindquist; Dawn Provenzale; Morris Weinberger; Michael J Kelley; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 4.481
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: 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: George L Jackson; L Douglas Melton; David H Abbott; Leah L Zullig; Diana L Ordin; Steven C Grambow; Natia S Hamilton; S Yousuf Zafar; Ziad F Gellad; Michael J Kelley; Dawn Provenzale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Akeem O Adebogun; Chyke A Doubeni; Luisel Ricks-Santi; Shelly McDonald-Pinkett; Patrick E Young; Brooks D Cash; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Stacey A Fedewa; Theodore R Levin; Christopher D Jensen; Chelsea Saia; Alexis M Zebrowski; Virginia P Quinn; Katharine A Rendle; Ann G Zauber; Tracy A Becerra-Culqui; Shivan J Mehta; Robert H Fletcher; Joanne Schottinger; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Caitlin C Murphy; Scott T Walters; Robert H Friedman; Lori A Bastian; Deborah A Fisher; David R Lairson; Ronald E Myers Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 2.261