Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences Research Articles

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Detection With Blood-Based Tests: Qualitative Study and Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Population Preferences.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly form of cancer, inducing an estimated 1.9 million incidence cases and 0.9 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite the availability of screening tests, their uptake remains suboptimal. However, blood-based tests that look for signs of cancer-specific markers in the body are increasingly available as an alternative for more invasive tests for cancer. Compared with existing tests, the benefits of blood-based tests for CRC include not needing pretest preparation, stool handling, and dietary or medication restrictions. This study aims to explore the population's preferences for CRC screening tests, with a focus on blood-based tests, and investigate the factors influencing test uptake. We used a mixed methods approach, combining semistructured interviews and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify salient attributes for CRC screening tests. These attributes informed the design of the DCE survey. The DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit and mixed-mixed multinomial logit models. Qualitative findings from 30 participants revealed that participants preferred blood-based tests due to their perceived low risk, minimal pain, and ease of sample collection. However, concerns about the test's lower accuracy were also expressed. The DCE survey was completed by 1189 participants. In the mixed logit model, participants demonstrated a stronger preference for blood-based tests over a 2-day stool-based test. The mixed-mixed multinomial logit model identified 2 classes, strong supporters and weak supporters, for CRC screening. Weak supporters, but not strong supporters, had a higher preference for blood-based tests. Women, ethnic Chinese, and people aged 40 to 60 years were more likely to be weak supporters. Both models highlighted the high influence of cost and test sensitivity on participants' preferences. Transitioning from a 2-day stool-based test to a blood-based test, assuming a national screening program at a base price of Singapore $5 (US $3.75), was estimated to have the potential to increase the relative uptake by 5.9% (95% CI 3.6%-8.2%). These findings contribute to our understanding of CRC screening preferences and provide insights into the factors driving test uptake. This study highlights the perceived advantages of blood-based tests and identifies areas of concern regarding their accuracy. Further research is needed to determine the actual increase in uptake rate when blood-based tests are made available.

Developing Faith-Based Messaging and Materials for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Application of Boot Camp Translation Within the African Methodist Episcopal Church

Purpose of the study: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 2nd leading cause of cancer-related death in Black and African American people in the United States. We created culturally appropriate and locally relevant faith-based CRC screening messages and materials for African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church communities in Atlanta, Georgia. Methods: We used boot camp translation (BCT), a validated community based participatory strategy, to elicit input from AME congregants to 1) develop faith-based CRC screening messages that resonate with the AME community and 2) identify the role of the church in bringing CRC information to the AME community. Eligible participants were members of the AME Atlanta East District churches, ages 45 to 75 years, and willing to participate in one 5-hour in-person meeting and two follow-up video-conferencing calls. The in-person session, conducted in the church sanctuary and fellowship hall, consisted of expert presentations by a national leader on colorectal cancer and screening, a local leader well-versed in barriers to screening and community resources, and a prominent figure within the church clergy. Additionally, we held interactive small group sessions to create messages and identify dissemination methods. Results: A total of 27 adults participated in the in-person session (17 women and 10 men). Participants preferred CRC screening messages that incorporated faith-based concepts including “honoring God by taking care of one's body”_ and “choosing faith over fear of screening.”_ Other key themes focused on increasing awareness and knowledge of CRC screening, taking control of one's own health, and sharing personal stories with one's community to reduce stigma and inspire action. Favored dissemination channels within the church were Sunday service, print (e.g., flyers, pamphlets, message cards) distributed at church, and digital materials (e.g., videos) shown during service. Desired community channels included cancer awareness events and social media platforms. Conclusions: Churches serve as key partners in delivering health information as they are among the most trusted institutions within the Black and African American community. Using BCT, we successfully incorporated participant feedback to create faith-based CRC screening messages and identified appropriate channels for sharing information within the AME community.

Culturally targeted message framing and colorectal cancer screening preferences among African Americans.

The current study investigated whether culturally targeted message frames alter preferences for specific colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities among African Americans. African Americans who were eligible for CRC screening (N = 457) viewed a video about CRC risks, prevention, and recommended screening options. Participants then received a gain or loss-framed message about screening, with half of participants viewing an additional culturally targeted message about overcoming disparities in CRC through screening. Participants reported their desired thoroughness in CRC screening and preferences for being screened using colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool-based fecal immunochemical testing. Relative to gain-framing, loss-framed messaging enhanced desired thoroughness in CRC screening. Targeted loss-framing enhanced preferences for colonoscopy and decreased preferences for stool-based FIT screening. Findings demonstrate that message framing and culturally targeted messaging can impact CRC screening preferences. Altering preferences may carry implications for reducing CRC screening disparities among African Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults

Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference. To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening. This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022. Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex. The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group. Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]). The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

Supplemental Material for Culturally Targeted Message Framing and Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences Among African Americans

Supplemental Material for Culturally Targeted Message Framing and Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences Among African Americans

Harnessing academic-community partnerships to improve colorectal cancer screening rates in medically underserved communities.

166 Background: Colorectal cancer continues to be very common, and a widening racial disparity has been demonstrated. Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Cancer Control Program which is a program of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center partnered with nine Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) on this five-year program to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Methods: This project was funded by the CDC and was a partner of a state’s comprehensive cancer control program and a variety of community health centers. Activities included clinical and environmental assessment and baseline data review of CRC screening, identification of a CRC screening team at each clinic, selection and implementation and evaluation of a panel of evidence-based interventions (EBI) per the The Community Guide to Preventive Services. Ongoing implementation data tracking and monitoring strategies were used to create opportunities for data-informed decisions at each clinic. Results: FIT kits were the preferred CRC screening modality. The preferred EBI were patient reminder systems, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, professional education, EMR improvements and small media. Screening rates for CRC increased by 17% over the course of the project with a peak weighted average of screening at 51.8% for eligible average risk adults, which was up from a baseline of 34.8%. Over 9,000 take-home stool kits were distributed, and a 60.7% completion rate was achieved. The positivity rate for the FIT kits across all centers was 7.6%. A subset of the patients with a positive FIT (n = 97) were reviewed and 53.7% (n = 51) did not have a documented colonoscopy in their electronic medical record. Conclusions: This project of an academic-community partnership was successful in increasing CRC screening in medically underserved communities in Wisconsin. The positivity rate in this high needs population was higher than expected based on prior publications. Further efforts should focus on decreasing the gap between positive FIT testing and completion colonoscopy.[Table: see text]

Heterogeneous Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Germany: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

ObjectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests differ in benefits, harms, and processes, making individual informed decisions preference based. The objective was to analyze the preferences of insurees in Germany for characteristics of CRC screening modalities. MethodsA generic discrete choice experiment with 2-alternative choice sets and 6 attributes (CRC mortality, CRC incidence, complications, preparation, need for transportation, and follow-up; 3 levels each) depicting characteristics of fecal testing, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy was generated. Participants completed 8 choice tasks. Internal validity was tested using a within-set dominated pair. Between June and October 2020, written questionnaires were sent to a stratified random sample (n = 5000) of 50-, 55-, and 60-year-old insurees of the AOK (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) Lower Saxony, who had previously received an invitation to participate in the organized screening program including evidence-based information. Preferences were analyzed using conditional logit, mixed logit, and latent-class model. ResultsFrom 1282 questionnaires received (26% [1282 of 4945]), 1142 were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of the respondents chose the dominated alternative in the internal validity test. Three heterogeneous preference classes were identified. Most important attributes were preparation (class 1; n = 505, 44%), CRC mortality (class 2; n = 347, 30%), and CRC incidence (class 3; n = 290, 25%). Contrary to a priori expectations, a higher effort was preferred for bowel cleansing (class 1) and accompaniment home (classes 1 and 2). ConclusionInternal validity issues of choice data need further research and warrant attention in future discrete choice experiment surveys. The observed preference heterogeneity suggests different informational needs, although the underlying reasons remained unclear.

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

BackgroundGuidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).MethodsIAR aged 45–75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true‐positive, true‐negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi‐target stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.ResultsPreferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt‐sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt‐sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non‐invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.ConclusionsWhile physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt‐sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR.This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening of physicians and individuals at average risk in the United States: A discrete choice experiment.

60 Background: Several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options are considered in guidelines for individuals at average-risk (IAR). These options differ in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision that need to be compared and weighed. This study elicited and compared the relative importance that physicians and IAR place on these screening aspects. Methods: Primary care physicians [PCPs] and gastroenterologists [GIs] who recommended/performed ≥1 screening one month prior to study and adult IAR completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants repeatedly chose between screening tests described by type of test, frequency, true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), and adenoma TP (physicians only). The instrument was tested in qualitative (physicians: n=6; IAR: n=6) and quantitative pilots (physicians: n=100; IAR: n=202). A mixed logit model was used to estimate relative attribute importance (RAI) and predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. Generalizability to the population was confirmed. Results: 1,249 IAR and 400 physicians participated. IAR were 46% male and the mean age was 58.9. Physicians were 79% male and their mean age was 53.4. Preferences were most affected by TP rates (IAR RAI=58%; physicians RAI=42%). Physicians also placed high importance (RAI=41%) on adenoma TP rates. TN rates (IAR RAI=33%; physician RAI=9%), frequency (IAR RAI=6%; physician RAI=2%) and type (IAR RAI=4%; physician RAI=6%) were less important. Despite both IAR and physicians placing most importance on precision, preferences for screening modalities differed. On average, physicians preferred colonoscopy, while IAR preferred mt-sDNA over colonoscopy (p&lt;0.001). Both preferred mt-sDNA and colonoscopy over FIT (p&lt;0.001), with a mSEPT9 blood test being least preferred (p&lt;0.001). Preferences of IAR were heterogeneous with individuals who underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy screening preferring colonoscopy and the rest preferring mt-sDNA (p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: While both GI and PCPs overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being preferred on average other modalities. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve screening uptake. [Table: see text]

Health Care Provider Characteristics Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences and Use

ObjectiveTo assess health care provider (HCP) preferences related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening overall, and by HCP and patient characteristics. Participants and MethodsWe developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to assess factors associated with CRC screening preferences in clinical practice. The survey was administered online November 6 through December 6, 2019, to a validated panel of HCPs drawn from US national databases and professional organizations. The final analysis sample included 779 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and 159 gastroenterologists (GIs). ResultsHCPs chose colonoscopy as their preferred screening method for average-risk patients (96.9% (154/159) for GIs, 75.7% (590/779) for PCCs). Among PCCs, 12.2% (95/779) preferred multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), followed by fecal immunochemical test (FIT), (7.3%; 57/779) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (4.8%; 37/779). Preference among PCCs and GIs generally shifted toward noninvasive screening options for patients who were unable to undergo invasive procedures; concerned about taking time from work; unconvinced about need for screening; and refusing other screening recommendations. Among PCCs, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT and gFOBT was less frequent in larger compared with smaller clinical practices. Additionally, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT was more likely among PCCs with more years of clinical experience, higher patient volumes (> 25/day), and practice locations in suburban and rural settings (compared to urban). ConclusionBoth PCCs and GIs preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening of average-risk patients, although PCCs did so less frequently and with approximately a quarter preferring stool-based tests (particularly mt-sDNA). PCCs’ preference varied by provider and patient characteristics. Our findings underscore the importance of informed choice and shared decision-making about CRC screening options.

S3248 Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Physicians and Individuals at Average Risk in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment

S3248 Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Physicians and Individuals at Average Risk in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

BackgroundIn 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual’s preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age.MethodsParticipants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance.ResultsOf the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights.ConclusionsWe reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.

National Survey of Patient Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences

Recommended colorectal cancer screening modalities vary with respect to safety, efficacy, and cost. Better understanding of the factors that influence patient preference is, therefore, critical for improving population adherence to colorectal cancer screening. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a panel survey focused on three commonly utilized colorectal cancer screening options [fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FIT/gFOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and colonoscopy] with a national sample of U.S. adults, ages 40-75 years and at average risk of colorectal cancer, in November 2019. Of 5,097 panelists invited to participate, 1,595 completed the survey (completion rate, 31.3%). Our results showed that when presented a choice between two colorectal cancer screening modalities, more respondents preferred mt-sDNA (65.4%) over colonoscopy, FIT/gFOBT (61%) over colonoscopy, and mt-sDNA (66.9%) over FIT/gFOBT. Certain demographic characteristics and awareness of and/or experience with various screening modalities influenced preferences. For example, uninsured people were more likely to prefer stool-based tests over colonoscopy [OR, 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-5.65 and OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.13-7.47]. People who had heard of stool-based screening were more likely to prefer mt-sDNA over FIT/gFOBT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.26-3.40). People who previously had a stool-based test were more likely to prefer FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.74-4.41), while people who previously had a colonoscopy were less likely to prefer mt-sDNA or FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.62). Our survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal cancer screening recommendations. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Our national survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal screening recommendations.

Estimating the preferences and willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening: an opportunity to incorporate the perspective of population at risk into policy development in Thailand

Aims Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the public health burdens that can be lowered by early detection. This study aims to examine the preferences and willingness-to-pay of a population at risk for CRC screening in Thailand. Understanding the preferences for these individuals at risk would help Thailand, as an example of LMICs, to design effective population-based CRC screening programs. Materials and methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among screening-naïve adults aged 50–75 years, who were at risk of CRC, in the out-patient department of a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. A DCE questionnaire was developed from six CRC screening attributes. Each questionnaire was composed of six choice sets and each contained two alternatives described by the different levels of attributes and an opt-out alternative. Participants were asked to choose one alternative from each choice set. A multinomial logit model was developed to determine the relative preference of each attribute. The willingness-to-pays for all attributes and screening modalities and the estimated preferred choices of the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), 10-yearly colonoscopy, 5-yearly double-contrast barium enema (DCBE), 5-yearly computed tomographic colonography (CTC), 5-yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), and no screening was calculated and compared. Results Four hundred participants were included. All attributes, except pain and less bowel preparation, were statistically associated with the participants’ preference (p < .05). They preferred screenings with a high-risk reduction of CRC-related mortality, no complication, 5-year interval, and lower cost. The estimated preferred choices of FIT, colonoscopy, DCBE, CTC, and FS were 38.2%, 11.4%, 14.6%, 9.2%, and 11.4%, respectively. The willingness-to-pays for each screening modality was US$251, US$189, US$183, US$154, and US$142 (8,107, 6,105, 5,911, 4,974, and 4,587 THB) per episode, respectively. Conclusions The risk reduction of CRC-related mortality, complication, screening interval, and cost influenced the CRC screening preferences of Thai adults. FIT was the most preferred. Policymakers can develop a successful CRC screening campaign using these findings, incorporating the perspective of the population at risk in policy formulation to accomplish their goals.

Abstract PO-058: Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening: A Utah community- based study

Abstract There are disparities in colorectal cancer screening related to variations in patient- level factors including race, ethnicity, geography, and language. We conducted a survey among a diverse sample of adults eligible for colorectal cancer screening at three community health events in Salt Lake City, Utah to identify barriers and facilitators to screening. We report descriptive statistics and results of chi-squared testing to identify factors associated with the receipt of colorectal cancer screening. Of the 117 respondents, 37% were Caucasian, 17% African-American, 11% Asian, 3% American-Indian, and 1% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander; 33% identified as Hispanic or Latino/a. Twenty-four percent of the study participants completed surveys in Spanish, the remainder in English. Half (50%) of the responders were ≤55 years, 37% were 56-69 years and 13% were ≥ 70 years. A majority (76%) attended college and 20% completed high school or less. Over half (51%) were employed at the time of the survey and 75% reported having health insurance. Sixty percent previously underwent colorectal cancer screening, most commonly with colonoscopy (57%) or a stool-based test (13%). Most patients (70%) reported that the number one reason they were screened was due to a physician recommendation. Screened patients reported that their preferred colorectal cancer screening test was colonoscopy (40%) or a stool-based test (24%). Forty percent of respondents did not undergo any kind of colorectal cancer screening. This was significantly associated with Spanish speaking (p=0.02) and lack of health insurance (p&amp;lt;0.01). We explored barriers to screening among those without colorectal cancer screening. With regards to stool-based testing, the most common barrier (23%) was not understanding how to do a test at home. Others were worried about handling their stool (15%), receiving a positive result (15%), or the cost of the test (15%). With regards to colonoscopy, the most common barriers were the bowel preparation (36%) and worry about discomfort or pain during the procedure (34%). The “not screened” group preferred screening by stool-based tests (49%). In conclusion, we found that among a racial, ethnic, educational, and economically diverse population of health event attendees, a substantial proportion did not receive colorectal cancer screening. These results indicate that there is a significant potential for improved screening in our community, particularly among the Spanish-speaking and uninsured populations. Future studies should evaluate cultural and language concordant interventions that can address identified barriers while promoting the observed facilitators. Citation Format: Svenja Pauleck, Sheetal Hardikar, Jordan Esplin, Maranda Pahlkotter, Andrea Williamson, Federica S. Brecha, Garrett Harding, Nathaniel Ferre, Nancy Ortiz, Robin Marcus, Mark Lewis, Jessica Cohen. Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening: A Utah community- based study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-058.

Rethinking the Re-Prep: Attitudes Toward Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests After Inadequate Bowel Preparation.

To assess patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests after initial colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. An online scenario-based survey of adults aged 45 to 75 years at average risk for colorectal cancer was performed. When presented with a hypothetical scenario of screening colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation, 59% of respondents chose stool-based testing as a next step, 29% preferred a repeat colonoscopy within a year, and 12% preferred a repeat colonoscopy in 10 years (N = 1,080). Clinicians should consider offering stool-based screening tests as an alternative to repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

BackgroundPatient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations’ preferences regarding CRC screening.MethodsWe searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.ResultsA total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.ConclusionThe heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations’ preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.

Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

New insights into colorectal cancer screening and early detection tests

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cancer in both men and women worldwide. Creating a diagnostic panel is necessary for early diagnosis which could lead to a better long-term survival in cancer patients. Colonoscopy every 10 years, starting at age 50, is the preferred CRC screening test. Many studies have been worked on potential diagnostic biomarkers of CRC. In this article, we described the recent evolutions in the development of CRC noninvasive screening assays. Recently, a multifunctional fecal DNA test has been available commercially in the USA. A few other US FDA-approved tests like Epi proColon® (Epigenomics AG, Berlin, Germany) are also available now. Although a new marker class for fecal occult blood test, a novel biomarker based on fecal bacteria in CRC patients and circulating tumor cells are under investigation, there is still a strong need to do more research for CRC screening strategies.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Hispanic Primary Care Patients

Abstract The study compared the impact of a novel decision support and navigation intervention (DSNI) to a mailed standard intervention (SI) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Hispanic patients from 5 primary care practices in the Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN). Methods. We randomized surveyed and consented patients who were 50 to 75 years of age and were eligible for CRC screening either to an SI Group (n = 200) or a DSNI Group (n = 200). Following randomization, SI Group participants were mailed a set of standard materials (i.e., a letter from the participant's primary care practice encouraging selection and performance of either colonoscopy screening or a stool blood test (SBT) screening, a SBT kit, and instructions for arranging a colonoscopy appointment. Print materials were provided in English and Spanish. DSNI Group participants were also mailed the standard materials. In addition, DSNI participants received a telephone call from a bilingual patient navigator who reviewed the screening materials and verified the participant's preferred CRC screening test. During the call, the patient navigator used an online Decision Counseling Program© (DCP) to determine the participant's likelihood of test performance and to develop a personalized test preference- and likelihood-based screening plan. The plan was mailed to the participant and his/her primary care practice; and a participant screening status report was sent to the practice at 6 months. Finally, a 6-month survey was targeted to participants in both study groups. Results. Based on 6-month survey and medical records data, we found that CRC screening adherence was significantly higher (OR = 3.48, CI: 2.29, 5.29, P &amp;lt; 0.001) in the DSNI Group (73%) versus the SI Group (44%). Conclusions. A decision support and navigation intervention significantly increased CRC screening adherence among Hispanic primary care patients.