Chyke A. Doubeni

Screening Colonoscopy and Risk for Incident Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis in Average-Risk Adults: A Nested Case–Control Study

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN Nested case-control study. SETTING Four U.S. health plans. PATIENTS 1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration. MEASUREMENTS Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures. RESULTS In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer. LIMITATION The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates. CONCLUSION Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant.

Socioeconomic and Racial Patterns of Colorectal Cancer Screening among Medicare Enrollees in 2000 to 2005

Background: Lower rates of screening among minorities and low-income populations contribute to colorectal cancer health disparities. Therefore, we examined patterns of colorectal cancer screening and associations with race-ethnicity, education, and income over time. Methods: Repeated cross-sectional data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey of noninstitutionalized colorectal cancer–free Medicare enrollees ages 65 to 80 years interviewed in 2000 (n = 8,355), 2003 (n = 7,922), and 2005 (n = 7,646). We examined rates of colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use within 5 years (recent endoscopy), colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use >5 years previously, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years. Results: Among those included in the analyses, there was a steady increase in recent endoscopy rates and decrease in FOBT use over the 6-year period among all racial, educational, and income groups. During each of the survey years, those less educated or in lower-income groups were less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening in a dose-response fashion. In multinomial regression analyses that adjusted for factors including health insurance, there were no significant differences in recent endoscopy or FOBT rates between Blacks or Hispanics and Whites, but differences by education and income remained. Compared with those in higher-income group, lower-income enrollees had lower rates of screening, and differences by income were larger for enrollees residing in metropolitan areas. Conclusion: Among Medicare beneficiaries, there are persistent colorectal cancer screening disparities due to a complex combination of socioeconomic disadvantages from lower education and income, place of residence, and inadequate insurance. However, insurance alone does not eliminate socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer screening. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(8):2170–5)

Screening for Obesity in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Importance Based on year 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts, approximately 17% of children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years in the United States have obesity, and almost 32% of children and adolescents are overweight or have obesity. Obesity in children and adolescents is associated with morbidity such as mental health and psychological issues, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, orthopedic problems, and adverse cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes (eg, high blood pressure, abnormal lipid levels, and insulin resistance). Children and adolescents may also experience teasing and bullying behaviors based on their weight. Obesity in childhood and adolescence may continue into adulthood and lead to adverse cardiovascular outcomes or other obesity-related morbidity, such as type 2 diabetes. Subpopulation Considerations Although the overall rate of child and adolescent obesity has stabilized over the last decade after increasing steadily for 3 decades, obesity rates continue to increase in certain populations, such as African American girls and Hispanic boys. These racial/ethnic differences in obesity prevalence are likely a result of both genetic and nongenetic factors (eg, socioeconomic status, intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food, and having a television in the bedroom). Objective To update the 2010 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for obesity in children 6 years and older. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for obesity in children and adolescents and the benefits and harms of weight management interventions. Findings Comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions (≥26 contact hours) in children and adolescents 6 years and older who have obesity can result in improvements in weight status for up to 12 months; there is inadequate evidence regarding the effectiveness of less intensive interventions. The harms of behavioral interventions can be bounded as small to none, and the harms of screening are minimal. Therefore, the USPSTF concluded with moderate certainty that screening for obesity in children and adolescents 6 years and older is of moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation The USPSTF recommends that clinicians screen for obesity in children and adolescents 6 years and older and offer or refer them to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions to promote improvements in weight status. (B recommendation)

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal.

Socioeconomic status and the risk of colorectal cancer: an analysis of more than a half million adults in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study.

No previous prospective US study has examined whether the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is disproportionately high in low socioeconomic status (SES) populations of both men and women. This study examined the relationship between both individual and area‐level SES and CRC incidence, overall and by tumor location.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Program Performance Over 4 Rounds of Annual Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Context The fecal immunochemical test is an effective way to screen for colorectal cancer, but we know more about how well it does the first time it is used and less about how well it does in later years with repeated testing. Contribution The researchers show that, after 4 years of repeated testing, patients continued to use the test and it continued to identify colorectal cancer. Caution This study did not measure whether identification of cancer changed outcomes. Implication The fecal immunochemical test is acceptable and effective for repeated testing. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States (13), and screening with fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) reduces CRC incidence and mortality (46). In randomized trials (711), annual or biennial guaiac-based FOBTs reduced CRC incidence by 17% to 20% and CRC mortality by 15% to 33%. Thus, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (4) and U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (12) recommend annual FOBT as an option for CRC screening for average-risk patients, defined as those aged 50 to 75 years with no history of CRC or adenoma, with no first-degree relatives with CRC, and who are not up to date with CRC screening according to other methods (that is, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years or colonoscopy within 10 years). Annual highly sensitive FOBTs are believed to be as effective as screening colonoscopy performed every 10 years if levels of adherence are high (13), although colonoscopy is recommended for those with a family history of CRC. Fecal blood tests are noninvasive and can be delivered by mail (14). In contrast to guaiac-based stool tests, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening can be done without dietary or medication restrictions, which allows it to achieve higher patient acceptance in organized CRC screening programs (15). This test also has higher detection rates for CRC and advanced adenomas than guaiac-based stool tests (1517). In a recent meta-analysis (18), the sensitivity of a single FIT application was 79% for CRC diagnosed within 2 years of testing; however, little is known about performance characteristics over several rounds of annual screening, particularly in community practice. The present study was conducted to evaluate FIT sensitivity for CRC and other performance characteristics over 4 rounds of annual testing in a U.S. community-based CRC screening program. Methods Study Population This retrospective longitudinal study was performed in a fixed cohort of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) and Southern California (KPSC) health plan members. These integrated health care delivery organizations serve approximately 7 million persons in urban, suburban, and semirural regions throughout California. Kaiser Permanente health plan membership in California is diverse and similar in socioeconomic characteristics to the regions census demographics (1921). Study Oversight The study was approved by the institutional review boards of KPNC and KPSC, both of which waived the requirement for informed consent. The listed authors had sole responsibility for the study design, data collection, decision to submit the manuscript for publication, and drafting of the manuscript. This study was conducted within the National Cancer Institutefunded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, which conducts multisite, coordinated, transdisciplinary research to evaluate and improve cancer-screening processes. Organized CRC Screening Program The KPNC and KPSC initiated similar organized FIT screening programs between 2006 and 2008; the KPNC program has been described previously (14). Briefly, each year, the programs mail a FIT kit to eligible health plan members aged 50 to 75 years without a record of a colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or fecal blood test within the prior year. The kit includes the FIT (OC FIT-CHEK; Polymedco), a standardized letter from the patients primary care provider, directions for completing and mailing the test, and a preprinted laboratory requisition order form. Outreach includes in-person, mail, secure e-mail, and telephone reminders as needed. The kits are returned by mail to regional laboratories and analyzed on or shortly after the return date using an OC-Sensor Diana automated system (Polymedco) with a cutoff level of 20 g of hemoglobin/g of buffer for a positive result. Patients with a positive FIT result are referred for follow-up colonoscopy. Study Eligibility Criteria and Participant Tracking The study cohort included CRC screening program participants aged 50 to 70 years on the date an initial kit was mailed to them in 2007 or 2008. Patients were excluded if they had been enrolled in the health plan for less than 1 year before the round 1 FIT mail date (to allow for the recording of prior out-of-system endoscopy procedures). They were also excluded if they were mailed a kit but subsequently had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, were diagnosed with CRC, died, or terminated membership in the health plan before returning the initial FIT or within 1 year after their round 1 mail date if no FIT was returned. A total of 670841 health plan members was mailed the initial kit in 2007 or 2008 and met the study eligibility criteria; 323349 (48.2%) returned a FIT within 1 year after the mail date (Figure). The analytic cohort comprised these round 1 participants who were tracked from their baseline mail date (cohort entry) through up to 4 rounds of testing for mail dates; result dates; results (positive or negative); whether follow-up colonoscopy was performed within 1 year after a positive FIT result; and diagnoses of adenoma, adenoma with advanced histology, and CRC. Cohort members were followed for CRC through the follow-up screening rounds, even if they subsequently became ineligible for screening because of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Patients were censored at the time of CRC diagnosis, death, or termination of membership in the health plan if they did not rejoin. Figure. Study flow diagram.* The figure includes 1192 patients with CRC who were screened by FIT the year before diagnosis. Further, there were 118 additional patients with CRC diagnosed more than 1 y beyond the FIT screening date and 101 additional patients diagnosed with CRC who either crossed over to endoscopy in subsequent rounds or terminated health plan membership but then rejoined. CRC = colorectal cancer; FIT = fecal immunochemical test. * Shading indicates where patients were censored or became ineligible for subsequent FIT screening. Patients were eligible for the initial FIT mailing if they were aged 50 to 70 y and had 1 y of membership. See Methods section for exclusions. Number censored because of CRC and includes patients with CRC diagnosed within 1 y after their FIT result. Defining Annual Screening Episodes For each patient, the initial kit mail date in 2007 or 2008 was the anchor date for round 1 and for each subsequent round of testing. However, because subsequent mailing dates varied each round, mail dates within 3 months before to 12 months after each subsequent rounds anchor date were counted as having been distributed during that specific round. For example, a patient with a round 1 mail date of 15 March 2007 had subsequent anchor dates of 15 March for rounds 2 through 4 (2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively). If their next FIT was mailed on 15 January 2008, the test was considered to be distributed in round 2 because the second mail date occurred within 3 months of the round 2 anchor date. The FIT results recorded within 1 year of each mail date, and colonoscopies performed and adenomas or CRC diagnosed within 1 year after FIT results, were considered part of a single screening episode for the round when the FIT was distributed. Among round 1 participants, FITs with no recorded mail dates returned in rounds 2 through 4 were assumed to be distributed through in-reach methods (such as a clinic visit) and were counted in the follow-up round returned. In general, the first result per patient was counted in any given round. The earliest possible date of cohort entry (first mail date) was 1 January 2007, and the last possible date of follow-up was 31 December 2013 (12 months after the last possible FIT result date of 31 December 2012). Data Sources The FIT-related dates and results were obtained from the CRC screening program and laboratory databases for each region, respectively. Endoscopy procedures were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes (22). Adenoma diagnoses used Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine codes. Prior validation studies have confirmed high levels of sensitivity and accuracy for capture of colonoscopy examinations and assignment of adenoma status (23). Colorectal adenocarcinomas and disease stage were obtained from the KPNC and KPSC cancer registries, which report to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry. Cancer databases capture more than 98% of cancer diagnoses within the KPNC and KPSC populations. Advanced-stage cancer was defined as stage III (regional disease with spread to regional lymph nodes only) or stage IV (distant metastasis) according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system; for patients who did not have such staging, advanced-stage cancer was defined as code 3 (disease in the regional lymph nodes), code 4 (regional disease with direct extension and spread to regional lymph nodes), or code 7 (distant metastasis) according to the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2013 (24). Data Analysis The following performance characteristics were calculated for each round of screening and overall: 1) participation (percentage of eligible patients who were distributed and completed a FIT within 1 year of their mailing date), 2) FIT positivity (percentage of participants who completed FITs and had positive results), 3) follow-up colonoscopy (per

Health status, neighborhood socioeconomic context, and premature mortality in the United States: The National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study.

OBJECTIVES We examined whether the risk of premature mortality associated with living in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods varies according to the health status of individuals. METHODS Community-dwelling adults (n = 566,402; age = 50-71 years) in 6 US states and 2 metropolitan areas participated in the ongoing prospective National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study, which began in 1995. We used baseline data for 565,679 participants on health behaviors, self-rated health status, and medical history, collected by mailed questionnaires. Participants were linked to 2000 census data for an index of census tract socioeconomic deprivation. The main outcome was all-cause mortality ascertained through 2006. RESULTS In adjusted survival analyses of persons in good-to-excellent health at baseline, risk of mortality increased with increasing levels of census tract socioeconomic deprivation. Neighborhood socioeconomic mortality disparities among persons in fair-to-poor health were not statistically significant after adjustment for demographic characteristics, educational achievement, lifestyle, and medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS Neighborhood socioeconomic inequalities lead to large disparities in risk of premature mortality among healthy US adults but not among those in poor health.

Geographic Variation in Colorectal Cancer Survival and the Role of Small-Area Socioeconomic Deprivation: A Multilevel Survival Analysis of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study Cohort

Adverse socioeconomic conditions, at both the individual and the neighborhood level, increase the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) death, but little is known regarding whether CRC survival varies geographically and the extent to which area-level socioeconomic deprivation affects this geographic variation. Using data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study, the authors examined geographic variation and the role of area-level socioeconomic deprivation in CRC survival. CRC cases (n = 7,024), identified during 1995-2003, were followed for their CRC-specific vital status through 2005 and overall vital status through 2006. Bayesian multilevel survival models showed that there was significant geographic variation in overall (variance = 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1, 0.2) and CRC-specific (variance = 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1, 0.4) risk of death. More socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods had a higher overall risk of death (most deprived quartile vs. least deprived: hazard ratio = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.4) and a higher CRC-specific risk of death (most deprived quartile vs. least deprived: hazard ratio = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5). However, neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation did not account for the geographic variation in overall and CRC-specific risks of death. In future studies, investigators should evaluate other neighborhood characteristics to help explain geographic heterogeneity in CRC survival. Such research could facilitate interventions for reducing geographic disparity in CRC survival.

Primary care, economic barriers to health care, and use of colorectal cancer screening tests among Medicare enrollees over time

PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of primary care and economic barriers to health care on CRC testing relative to the 2001 Medicare expansion of screening coverage. METHODS Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data were use to study community-dwelling enrollees aged 65 to 80 years, free of renal disease and CRC, and who participated in the survey in 2000 (n = 8,330), 2003 (n = 7,889), or 2005 (n = 7,614). Three outcomes were examined: colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy within 5 years (recent endoscopy), endoscopy more than 5 years previously, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years. RESULTS Endoscopy use increased and FOBT use decreased during the 6-year period, with no significant independent differences between those receiving care from primary care physicians and those receiving care from other physicians. Beneficiaries without a usual place of health care were the least likely to undergo CRC testing, and that gap widened with time: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.39) for FOBT, and AOR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.27–0.46) for endoscopy in 2000 compared with AOR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11–0.30) for FOBT and AOR = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17–0.30) for endoscopy in 2005. Disparities in use of recent endoscopy by type of health insurance coverage in both 2000 and 2005 were greater for enrollees with a high school education or higher than they were for less-educated enrollees. There were no statistically significant differences by delayed care due to cost after adjustment for health insurance. CONCLUSION Despite expanding coverage for screening, complex CRC screening disparities persisted based on differences in the usual place and cost of health care, type of health insurance coverage, and level of education.

Elimination of cost-sharing and receipt of screening for colorectal and breast cancer

The aim of the cost‐sharing provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was to reduce financial barriers for preventive services, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) among privately and Medicare‐insured individuals. Whether the provision has affected CRC and BC screening prevalence is unknown. The current study investigated whether CRC and BC screening prevalence among privately and Medicare‐insured adults by socioeconomic status (SES) changed before and after the ACA.