Average-risk Individuals Research Articles

S278 Assessing Adherence to Recommending 10-Year Intervals After Normal Screening Colonoscopy in Average-Risk Individuals Based on Specialty and Practice Status

Introduction: After a normal average-risk CRC screening colonoscopy, endoscopists should recommend repeat screening in 10 years. Target is 90% adherence per guidelines, and this has been a priority quality indicator for CMS Medical Incentive Payment System and the ACPs Choosing Wisely Program. Our 2017 quality improvement (QI) project showed poor adherence (less than 40%) among private gastroenterologists and academic surgeons. Prior to commencing a new QI initiative, this project assessed frequency of adherence in 2021 at a single site. Methods: Inclusion criteria: To minimize confounders, patients were limited to: (a) average-risk, 50-82 year old; (b) colonoscopy performed in 2021; (c) sole indication of CRC screening; (d) no biopsy, polypectomy, or reference to abnormal findings on procedure report. Study Setting: Hospital-based “open” endoscopy suite (i.e., utilized by academic/private gastroenterologists and academic surgeons) at an academic tertiary care center. Primary Outcome: Adherence to guideline intervals defined as repeat colonoscopy in 10 years, discontinuation of CRC screening due to patient’s age when bowel preparation is adequate or repeat colonoscopy within 1 year if bowel preparation is poor/inadequate. Adherence rates stratified by specialty and type of practice: academic gastroenterologist (n = 7), academic surgeon (n = 3), or private gastroenterologist (n = 6). Differences in adherence between groups assessed using chi-square analysis. Results: Among 465 eligible patients, mean age was 60.1 +/- 8.2 years, 38.5% male, and 76.8% African American. Adherence surpassed target of 90% adherence for academic gastroenterologists (total=96.0%) with (96.9%) or without GI fellows (88.9%) and was superior to adherence by private gastroenterologists or academic general surgeons (p < 0.001). The latter two groups were adherent in 32.4% and 42.3%, respectively (Figure). Adherence was significantly better with good/excellent bowel preps (71.8%) compared to other bowel prep categories (p< 0.001), and patients with poor, fair, or no documentation of prep were adherent in 42.1% (Table). Conclusion: In this project, adherence among academic gastroenterologist met guideline-specified target of 90% when a gastroenterology fellow participated in the procedure. In all other groups, adherence did not meet the recommended threshold. These data are similar to our 2017 QI project and identify an excellent opportunity for a quality intervention educational and monitoring project to improve performance.Figure 1.: Adherence to Guidelines per Endoscopic Specialty Table 1. - Adherence to Recommended Intervals stratified by Bowel Preparation Bowel Preparation Adherence to Recommended Intervals* P-value No Documentation 42.9% (9/21) < 0.001 Poor/Inadequate 62.2% (28/45) Fair 19.5% (8/41) Good/Excellent 71.8% (257/358) *Adherence to recommended intervals by guidelines defined as a 10-year repeat colonoscopy recommendation if colonoscopy was normal in an average-risk individual, < 1 year was recommended if the bowel preparation was inadequate, or repeat colonoscopy not recommended if patient was ≥66 years at time of normal colonoscopy.

S337 Colonoscopy Quality Metrics After a Multi-Target Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for approximately 50,000 deaths or 14 deaths per 100,000 people yearly in the United States. Multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are validated CRC screening strategies in average-risk asymptomatic individuals. This study aims to evaluate the colonoscopy quality metrics following a positive mt-sDNA test, FIT. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 2022. Meta-analysis was performed by standard methodology using the random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2% statistics. Outcomes of interest were adenoma detection rate (ADR), colorectal cancer detection rate (CRCDR), withdrawal time (WT), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results: 27 high-quality studies (97825 patients) were included in the analysis. 94161 had a positive FIT test in 23 studies and 3664 had positive mt-sDNA in 4 studies. The pooled WT after positive mt-sDNA was 16.1 minutes (95% CI 9.4-22.8, I2=99%), whereas after positive FIT was 11.6 minutes (10.9-12.3, 99%). The corresponding WT in the negative tests was 13.2 minutes (12.7-13.7) for mt-sDNA and 10.2 minutes (9.3-11.2) for FIT. The pooled ADR was 73% (69.9-75.8) and CRCDR was 1.9% (0.9-4.2) in mt-sDNA positive. The pooled ADR was 54.2% (49.8-58.4) and pooled CRCDR was 4% (3.2-4.9) in FIT positive. Pooled CIR were excellent: 99% (98.6-99.3) in mt-sDNA positive, and 96.8% (95.8-97.6) in FIT positive. Pooled rates are summarized in Table. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that positive mt-sDNA or FIT patients had a higher WT and CIR when compared to negative or unknown tests. ADR and CRCDR were high, however, it is not known if it is secondary to positive stool test or to longer WT. Future studies are needed to validate our findings and determine the cost-effectiveness of these screening tests. Table 1. - Colonoscopy quality metrics including withdrawal time, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and colorectal cancer detection rate after positive and negative multi-target stool DNA and fecal immunochemical test testing Outcomes Multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Withdrawal time (WT), mean (95%CI) Positive: 16.1 (9.4-22.8) (SE: 3.4);4 studiesNegative: 13.2 (12.7-13.7) (SE: 0.2)1 study Positive: 11.6 (10.9-12.3) (SE: 0.3);22 studiesNegative: 10.2 (9.3-11.2) (SE: 0.5)6 studies Cecal intubation Rate (CIR), pooled rate (95%CI) Positive: 99% (98.6-99.3)2 studies Positive: 96.8% (95.8-97.6, 94%)12 studies Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), pooled rate (95%CI) Positive: 73% (69.9-75.8)1 studyNegative: NR Positive: 54.2% (49.8-58.4, 97%)20 studiesNegative: 35.1% (30.5-39.9, 95%)6 studies Colorectal Cancer Detection Rate (CRCDR), pooled rate (95%CI) Positive: 1.9% (0.9-4.2, 81%)3 studiesNegative: 7.9% (2.6-21.8)1 study Positive: 4% (3.2-4.9, 88%)17 studiesNegative: 0.5% (0.2-1.6, 85%)5 studies Abbreviations: NR: not reported, SE: standard error, CI: confidence interval.

Interpretation of updated guidelines for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals in the United States

In recent years, due to changes in the epidemiology of colorectal cancer in the United States, the update of evidence-based medical evidence for screening, and the emergence of various new screening methods, various organizations in the United States, such as American College of Gastroenterology、Preventive Services Task Force, have updated guidelines for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals. These guidelines have different recommendation levels in terms of starting and ending age, screening methods and frequency for colorectal cancer screening. A comprehensive understanding of the key points of these guideline updates and the similarities and differences recommended by different guidelines has important reference value for the colorectal cancer screening in China.

Predictors of colorectal cancer screening intention based on the integrated theory of planned behavior among the average-risk individuals

BackgroundThis study aimed to determine the predictors of colorectal cancer screening intention based on the integrated theory of planned behavior among average -risk individuals in Urmia. Identifying these predictors will help design and implement various interventions, including educational interventions, according to the needs of this group, thereby taking a step towards improving the colorectal cancer screening index.MethodsThe present cross-sectional study was performed on 410 individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer referring to the comprehensive health services centers of Urmia in Iran. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire consisting of two parts. The first part captured the demographic information and medical history of the participants. The second part involved questions designed based on constructs of motivational phase of health action process approach, and theory of planned behavior, as well as behavioral intent to perform colorectal cancer screening. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software.ResultsOutcome expectancies, risk perception, action self-efficacy, and normative beliefs, respectively had the largest impact and were significant and positive predictors of colorectal cancer screening intention. The study’s conceptual framework explained about 36% of the variance of behavioral intention among the average-risk individuals in Urmia.ConclusionsConstructs of motivational phase of health action process approach, and theory of planned behavior are valuable and appropriate to identify the factors affecting the intention to undergo colorectal cancer screening as well as to design and implement educational interventions in this field. The four constructs of outcome expectancies, risk perception, action self-efficacy, and normative beliefs are suggested to be integrated into all educational interventions designed and implemented to improve the colorectal cancer screening index.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region.MethodsA 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed.ResultsAnnual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD).ConclusionsIt is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.

Breast Cancer Screening: An Overview of Risk-specific Screening and Risk Assessment.

Breast cancer screening decreases stage at diagnosis, treatment morbidity, and disease mortality. A comprehensive risk assessment is critical to determine an individual's most appropriate screening regimen. Multiple guidelines exist for screening mammography in average-risk individuals, which differ on age and frequency of screening. Annual mammography starting at age 40 is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and greatest number of life-years saved. A formal risk calculator is helpful to assess one's lifetime risk of breast cancer and assess eligibility for high-risk screening. Screening guidelines exist for genetic mutations that increase breast cancer risk.

Colorectal cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa

Colorectal cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing: a community-based, cross-sectional study in average-risk individuals in Nigeria

The estimated incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in Nigeria, where most patients present with advanced disease. Earlier detection of colorectal cancer is a goal of the Nigerian National Cancer Control Plan, but the utility of fecal-based screening is unclear. This study aimed to assess the fecal immunochemical test as a colorectal cancer screening modality in average-risk individualS in Nigeria. A population-based, cross-sectional study of qualitative fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening was done in asymptomatic, average-risk participants aged 45-75 years in three states in Nigeria (Osun, Kwara, and Lagos). Participants were invited to enrol using age-stratified and sex-stratified convenience sampling following community outreach. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of colorectal cancer or rectal bleeding in the previous 6 months, a first-degree relative with a known diagnosis of colorectal cancer, or a comorbidity that would preclude conscious sedation or general anesthesia. Participants with positive fecal immunochemical test results underwent colonoscopy, and the positive predictive value of fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm, tubulovillous or villous or high-grade dysplasia) was calculated. Data on demographics and acceptability of fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy were collected. Between January and April 2021, 2330 participants were enrolled in the study and received a fecal immunochemical test, which was returned by 2109 participants. 1677 participants tested negative and 432 tested positive. Of these 432 participants, 285 underwent a colonoscopy (235 showed no polyps or cancer, 47 had polyps identified, and three had colorectal cancer identified). Of the 47 participants who had polyps identified, 20 had advanced adenomas diagnosed. The median age was 57 years (IQR 50-63), 958 (41%) were male and 1372 (59%) were female, and 68% had at least a secondary-level education. Participants were evenly spread across wealth quintiles. The positivity rate of the fecal immunochemical test was 21% overall (432 of 2109; 95% CI 20-21%), 11% (51 of 455; 95% CI 10-12) in Lagos, 20% (215 of 1052; 95% CI 20-21) in Osun, and 28% (166 of 597; 95% CI 27-29) in Kwara. Among the patients with a positive fecal immunochemical test who completed colonoscopy, the positive predictive value for invasive colorectal cancer was 1·1% (95% CI 0·3-3·3), and 7·0% (4·5-10·8) for advanced adenoma. The acceptability of fecal immunochemical screening among participants was very high. Colorectal cancer screening with qualitative fecal immunochemical tests in Nigeria is feasible and acceptable to average-risk asymptomatic participants. However, the low positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia and high endoscopy burden investigating false positives suggests it might not be an appropriate screening tool in this setting. Thompson Family Foundation, Prevent Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Program Cancer Center.

Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.

Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.

Estimating the impact of reducing the age of colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence, mortality, and costs in Canada using OncoSim.

3526 Background: Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs currently cover Canadians aged ≥50 at average-risk of developing CRC and have contributed to declining CRC incidence. Rising incidence of early-onset CRC in individuals &lt; 50 has led to lowering of the recommended screening start age to 45 rather than 50 in some jurisdictions. We used OncoSim, a publicly-available simulation tool, to model the effects of earlier screening initiation on Canadian CRC incidence, mortality and healthcare costs. Methods: OncoSim uses Canadian population and cancer registry data to simulate a representative sample of individuals from birth to death. We modeled four scenarios: no screening in average-risk individuals, screening initiation at age 50, initiation age lowered to 45 in 2022, and initiation age lowered to 40 in 2022. Each includes 32 million simulated participants. In the model, average-risk screening involves biennial FIT, available to all simulated participants regardless of family history with participation of 60% at the first recruitment attempt and 80% for repeat screening. Participants with a family history in all 4 scenarios were eligible for additional screening by colonoscopy every 5 years. Results: In our model, earlier screening yields reduced CRC incidence and mortality with increasing benefit over time. By 2051, screening initiation at age 45 or 40 reduces age-standardized incidence by 3.4% and 4.8% respectively, and age-standardized mortality by 3.3% and 4.6% respectively, compared to initiation at age 50. Screening initiation at age 45 yields 3,848 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in 2051 at a cost of $9,350 per QALY gained and a 5% increase in colonoscopies performed. Initiation at age 40 yields 6,255 additional QALYs at $16,350 per QALY gained and a 9% increase in colonoscopies. The difference in screening costs compared to screening from age 50 is consistent year-to-year after 2024. In 2051 screening costs increase by $75mil and $155mil per year with initiation at ages 45 and 40 respectively, while costs of cancer management (including diagnosis, treatment, recurrence, palliative and end of life care) decrease by $42mil and $57mil respectively. Conclusions: Our model predicts that lowering the CRC screening initiation age for average-risk Canadians to 45 or 40 could reduce CRC incidence and mortality. Costs per QALY gained are high in the first few decades but decrease over time. Costs are modest after 30 years of screening compared to other life-preserving interventions such as dialysis. Our results suggest that lowering the screening age in Canada may be warranted, but further investigation is needed to assess capacity for increased colonoscopy demand.

Benefits, harms, and burden of colorectal cancer screening among childhood cancer survivors previously treated with abdominal-pelvic radiation.

10015 Background: Survivors of childhood cancer treated with abdominal-pelvic radiation are at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). The Children’s Oncology Group recommends early initiation of CRC screening at age 30, yet the benefits and burden are unknown. Methods: We used incidence and mortality data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study to modify the SimCRC model from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to reflect high CRC and competing mortality risks among survivors, assuming the elevated cancer risk arises from higher adenoma onset. Strategies evaluated varied by modality (no screening, colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA [mtsDNA] testing, fecal immunochemical testing [FIT]), screening start age (25, 30, 35, 40, 45) and screening interval (every 3, 5 or 10 yrs for colonoscopy; every 1, 2 or 3 yrs for mtsDNA and FIT). Abnormal stool test results were followed up with colonoscopy. Screening performance and complication rates were based on published studies. Analyses assumed full uptake and adherence to all screening and follow-up procedures. To identify the optimal strategy for each modality, we estimated the number of colonoscopies required per additional life-year gained and compared it to benchmarks for screening strategies recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for average-risk individuals. Results: Among a simulated cohort of 20-yr-old 5-yr survivors with a history of abdominal-pelvic radiation, the cumulative CRC risk at age 50 was 0.8%, approximately twice that predicted among general population average-risk individuals (0.4%). In the absence of screening, 73 per 1000 survivors would be diagnosed with CRC in their lifetime and 29 would die from the disease. All screening strategies evaluated were estimated to yield substantial reductions in the lifetime number of CRC cases (45-71 cases averted per 1000) and deaths (23-28 deaths averted per 1000). The estimated lifetime number of colonoscopies ranged from 1781 to 14,625 per 1000. The lifetime number of colonoscopy complications was relatively low at 9 to 20 per 1000. Based on the burden-to-benefit ratios, colonoscopy every 10 yrs starting at age 30, mtsDNA every 3 yrs starting at age 30, or FIT every 3 yrs starting at age 25 were the optimal screening strategies identified (Table). Conclusions: Early initiation of screening may substantially reduce CRC mortality among high-risk childhood cancer survivors. These estimates of the balance of screening benefits and burden can inform follow-up care guidelines. [Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of mt-sDNA versus mailed FIT outreach for Medicare Advantage enrollees using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model.

e18827 Background: Despite proven effectiveness in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, screening for CRC remains underutilized, including those enrolled in Medicare Advantage. A mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program may increase CRC screening adherence. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of stool-based tests (FIT and multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA]), with FIT offered via a mailed outreach program, in a Medicare Advantage population. Methods: The validated CRC-AIM microsimulation model was used to simulate the costs and clinical outcomes of 2 million average-risk individuals, free of diagnosed CRC at age 40, who initiated CRC screening at age 65. Annual mailed FIT outreach and triennial mt-sDNA were assessed. Test sensitivity and specificity inputs were based on the 2021 United States Preventative Services Task Force modeling study. FIT outreach program cost ($25.92) and direct costs for screening tests, colonoscopies (COLs), complications, and CRC care were included. The model employed a lifetime horizon, 3% discount rates, and a Medicare Advantage perspective. The primary analysis used published real-world adherence rates for stool-based tests and follow-up COLs (FIT/COL: 29%/53%; mt-sDNA/COL: 69.8%/71.5%). Secondary analyses assumed 100% adherence for stool-based tests and/or follow-up COLs and 20% higher than primary analysis for FIT and the corresponding follow-up COLs. Results: In the primary analysis, mt-sDNA had the greatest life-years gained (LYG), incidence reduction (IR), and mortality reduction (MR) and was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY compared to mailed FIT outreach (Table). This was true when 100% adherence was assumed for follow-up COL and when FIT had 20% higher adherence than the primary analysis. mt-sDNA had 64-129% greater LYG, 79-150% greater IR, and 68-146% greater MR than mailed FIT outreach. When assuming 100% adherence for both screening test and follow-up COL, mt-sDNA was dominated by mailed FIT outreach. Conclusions: Adherence to CRC screening modality and follow-up COL greatly impacts clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Future analysis should consider evidence-based, health plan-specific data to accurately reflect outcomes that aid in payer decision making.[Table: see text]

Comparison of simulated outcomes between stool- and blood-based colorectal cancer screening tests.

10529 Background: The Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) recommends covering blood-based biomarker tests with proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test every 3 years for average-risk, asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries ages 50–85 years. A blood-based test is a non-invasive screening method to detect CRC but is limited by low sensitivity to detect adenomas. Using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model, predicted life-years gained (LYG) and CRC incidence and mortality reduction were compared between a blood-based test meeting the CMS minimum thresholds and stool-based screening tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT], fecal occult blood test [FOBT], and multitarget stool DNA [mt-sDNA]). Methods: Outcomes of blood- and stool-based tests were simulated for average-risk individuals free of diagnosed CRC at age 40 and screened between ages 45–75 years per USPSTF recommendations. Per CMS proposed criteria, CRC sensitivity and specificity for a blood-based test were set at 74% and 90%, respectively, and adenoma sensitivity was set at 10%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for each stool test. For the primary analysis, adherence was assumed to be 100%. For secondary analysis, adherence was set at 30–70%, in 10% increments. Outcomes were per 1000 individuals. Results: At 100% adherence, LYG was 229 for a blood test and ≥305 for stool tests, corresponding to at least 25% lower LYG for a blood test relative to all stool tests (Table). Absolute CRC incidence and mortality reductions were at least 19% and 18% lower, respectively, for a blood test vs all stool tests. Secondary analysis indicates that at identical adherence rates that are less than 100%, a blood test had lower LYG vs all stool tests (Table). When the adherence of any test was 50%–70%, a blood test resulted in at least 20% lower LYG vs any stool test, and absolute reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were at least 9% and 10% lower, respectively, vs any stool test. Conclusions: This model suggests that if blood-based CRC screening tests do not sufficiently detect advanced adenomas, clinical outcomes will be inferior to stool-based testing due to lack of cancer prevention. Further discovery efforts to identify blood-based markers associated with both invasive and preinvasive neoplasia are needed to address this deficiency. [Table: see text]

Age-Stratified Prevalence and Predictors of Neoplasia Among U.S. Adults Undergoing Screening Colonoscopy in a National Endoscopy Registry

Background & AimsSeveral U.S. organizations now recommend starting average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years, but the prevalence of colonic neoplasia in individuals younger than 50 years has not been well characterized. We used a national endoscopic registry to calculate age-stratified prevalence and predictors of colorectal neoplasia. MethodsOutpatient screening colonoscopies performed during 2010–2020 in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry were analyzed. We measured the prevalence of advanced neoplasia and adenomas by age, sex, and race/ethnicity, as well as the prevalence ratio of neoplasia compared with the reference group of 50- to 54-year-olds. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of neoplasia. ResultsWe identified 3,928,727 screening colonoscopies, of which 129,736 (3.3%) were performed on average-risk individuals younger than 50 years. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 6.2% for 50- to 54-year-olds and 5.0% (prevalence ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.83) for average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds. Men had higher prevalence of neoplasia than women for all age groups. White individuals had higher prevalence of advanced neoplasia than persons of other racial/ethnic groups in most age groups, which was partially driven by serrated lesions. On multivariable regression, White individuals had higher odds of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals in both younger and older age groups. ConclusionsIn a large U.S. endoscopy registry, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in 45- to 49-year-olds was substantial and supports beginning screening at age 45 years. White individuals had higher risk of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals across the age spectrum. These findings may inform adenoma detection benchmarks and risk-based screening strategies.

Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.

Regardless of the high global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), the uptake of CRC screening varies across countries. This systematic review aimed to provide a picture of the disparities in recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals using an ecobiosocial approach. It was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was conducted through Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and EBSCOHost. Full-text guidelines which were published between 2011 and 2021, along with guidelines which provided recommendations on CRC screening in average-risk individuals, were included in the review. However, guidelines focusing only on a single screening modality were excluded. Fourteen guidelines fulfilling the eligibility criteria were retained for the final review and analysis. Quality assessment of each guideline was performed using the AGREE II instrument. Disparities in guidelines identified in this review were classified into ecological (screening modalities and strategies), biological (recommended age, gender and ethnicities), and social (smoking history, socioeconomic status, and behavior) factors. In general, unstandardized practices in CRC screening for average-risk individuals are likely attributable to the inconsistent and non-specific recommendations in the literature. This review calls on stakeholders and policymakers to review the existing colorectal cancer screening practices and pursue standardization.

Awareness and Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medical Students at the University of Aleppo: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of malignancy in Syria. The aim of our study was to assess the awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo. Methods A cross-sectional study of medical students at the University of Aleppo was conducted using a self-administered 12-element questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of demographics, awareness of CRC, knowledge of CRC and its screening methods. Awareness of CRC included three questions asking students if they ever heard of CRC and its screening methods. Knowledge of CRC was evaluated through three sets of questions about CRC risk factors, signs and symptoms, and preventative methods. The students were selected randomly during academic lectures. A χ 2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables were used for statistical analysis, as appropriate. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We stratified students based on pre-clinical versus clinical years and average academic score. Results A total of 824 students completed the questionnaire. The majority of students were aware of CRC (98.9%) and CRC screening methods (79.8%). Students had poor knowledge of CRC risk factors (16.5% for non-modifiable factors and 11.7% for modifiable factors), signs and symptoms (52.6%), and protective factors (9.9%). Only 31.7% of students were able to identify the appropriate age to initiate screening for average-risk individuals. Clinical students had better awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods. Clinical students with higher academic score showed better awareness and knowledge in some elements. Conclusion Our study reported high awareness and poor knowledge rates of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo. Although clinical students had higher awareness and knowledge of CRC compared to pre-clinical students, the impact of academic score revealed variable results.

A Practical Overview of the Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

The multitarget stool DNA test with fecal immunochemical test (sDNA-FIT) is recommended by all major US guidelines as an option for colorectal cancer screening. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older. The sDNA-FIT tests for 11 biomarkers, including point mutations in KRAS, aberrant methylation in NDRG4 and BMP3, and human hemoglobin. Patients collect a stool sample at home, send it to the manufacturer's laboratory within 1 day, and the result is reported in approximately 2 weeks. Compared with FIT, sDNA-FIT has higher sensitivity but lower specificity for colorectal cancer, which translates to a higher false-positive rate. A unique feature of sDNA-FIT is the manufacturer's comprehensive patient navigation system, which operates 24 hours a day and provides active outreach for patient education and reminders in the first month after a test is ordered. Retesting is recommended every 1–3 years, although the optimal testing interval has not yet been determined empirically. The cost of sDNA-FIT is $681 without insurance, but Medicare and most private insurers cover it with no copay or deductible.

Role of demographics in noninvasive testing for colorectal cancer screening: do targeted cut-off values improve detection?

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a yearly alternative colorectal screening modality for average risk individuals unwilling or unable to undergo invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening due to cost and accessibility. This study aimed to determine whether FIT should be interpreted within the context of patient demographics and medical history. Patients >50 years old who had a FIT followed by colonoscopy within 1 year were analyzed based on age, race, BMI, social and medical comorbidities. False positive (FP) and false negative (FN) FIT results within each patient demographic and medical history variable were determined by comparing with the gold standard of colonoscopy using χ2 analysis. One thousand twenty-five patients were reviewed. 21.8% of FIT results were positive. Factors which differed in positive FIT rates were age (P=0.003), smoking (P<0.001), alcohol (P=0.001), and hypertension (P<0.001). The difference in rates of FP and FN FIT outcomes among each variable underwent further subanalysis. The FP was 66.8% and the FN rate was 12.8%. Higher FN outcomes were noted in those above 70, males and smokers, though the result was only statistically significant for males (P=0.009). Females were observed to have higher FP rates (P=0.019). Females had higher FP FIT rates compared to males, indicating that sex may influence FIT outcomes and should be accounted for when interpreting FIT results. This information can be utilized to identify populations at higher risk of FP or FN FIT results to target CRC screening. Additionally, recalculating the FP and FN rates for each variable may help determine new FIT targets.

The American College of Gastroenterology's 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: A Summary for Gastroenterology Nurses & Associates.

Colorectal cancer ranks third for both men and women as the most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening allows for removal of polyps before they turn to cancer or by identifying early-stage colorectal cancers, which are most treatable. The American College of Gastroenterology recently released an update of their 2009 recommendations, which includes average risk individuals between ages 45 and 49 years due to the increased incidence of early-onset colorectal cancers. They consider screening two types of screening options: (1) one-step colonoscopy, which is both diagnostic and therapeutic and (2) two-step options, all of which require a follow-up colonoscopy when the first step is positive. They added the recommendation of daily aspirin for some people aged 50 to 69 years. However, the recommendations for screening remain the same when people do take aspirin. They recommend endoscopists measure cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and withdrawal times to reduce postcolonoscopy cancers due to missed lesions. They also propose strategies to promote screening adherence and suggest health systems adopt them. These are important updates of which the gastroenterology nurse should be aware and assist with their implementation.

Incidence and Prevalence of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in Individuals With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant.

The natural history of branch-duct intraductal papillary neoplasm (BD-IPMN) in BRCA1/2 patients is unknown. Our goal was to estimate the incidence and prevalence of BD-IPMN and other pancreatic lesions in BRCA1/2 patients and compare it to that for average-risk individuals. We identified a cohort of BRCA1/2 patients followed at our institution between 1995 and 2020. Medical records and imaging results were reviewed to determine prevalence of pancreatic lesions. We then identified those who had undergone follow-up imaging and determined the incidence of new pancreatic lesions. We categorized pancreatic lesions as low, intermediate, or high-risk based on their malignant potential. During the study period, 359 eligible BRCA1/2 patients were identified. Average patient age was 56.8 years, 88.3% were women, and 51.5% had BRCA1 . The prevalence of low-risk pancreatic lesions was 14.4%, intermediate-risk 13.9%, and high-risk 3.3%. The prevalence of BD-IPMN was 13.6% with mean cyst size 7.7 mm (range: 2 to 34 mm). The prevalence of pancreatic cancer was 3.1%. Subsequent imaging was performed in 169 patents with mean follow-up interval of 5.3 years (range: 0 to 19.7 y). The incidence of BD-IPMN was 20.1%, with median cyst size 5.5 mm (range: 2 to 30 mm). The incidence of pancreatic cancer was 2.9%. BRCA2 patients were almost 4-times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than BRCA1 patients, however, there was no difference in incidence or prevalence of BD-IPMN. Incidence and prevalence of BD-IPMNs in BRCA1/2 patients was similar to that reported for average-risk individuals. BRCA2 patients were more likely than BRCA1 patients to develop pancreatic cancer but had similar rates of BD-IPMN.