PurposeThe 2023 American College of Physicians (ACP) guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are at odds with the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, with the former recommending screening starting at age 50 y and the latter at age 45 y. This article "stress tests" CRC colonoscopy screening strategies to investigate their robustness to uncertainties stemming from the natural history of disease and sensitivity of colonoscopy.MethodsThis study uses the CRC-SPIN microsimulation model to project the life-years gained (LYG) under several colonoscopy CRC screening strategies. The model was extended to include birth cohort effects on adenoma risk. We estimated natural history parameters under 2 different assumptions about the youngest age of adenoma initiation. For each, we generated 500 parameter sets to reflect uncertainty in the natural history parameters. We simulated 26 colonoscopy screening strategies and examined 4 different colonoscopy sensitivity assumptions, encompassing the range of sensitivities consistent with prior tandem colonoscopy studies. Across this set of scenarios, we identify efficient screening strategies and report posterior credible intervals for benefits of screening (LYG), burden (number of colonoscopies), and incremental burden-effectiveness ratios.ResultsProjected absolute screening benefits varied widely based on assumptions, but strategies starting at age 45 y were consistently in the efficiency frontier. Strategies in which screening starts at age 50 y with 10-y intervals were never efficient, saving fewer life-years than starting screening at age 45 y and performing colonoscopies every 15 y while requiring more colonoscopies per person.ConclusionsDecennial colonoscopy screening initiation at age 45 y remained a robust recommendation. Colonoscopy screening with a 10-y interval starting at age 50 y did not result in an efficient use of colonoscopies in any of the scenarios evaluated.HighlightsColorectal cancer colonoscopy screening strategies initiated at age 45 y were projected to yield more life-years gained while requiring the least number of colonoscopies across different model assumptions about disease natural history and colonoscopy sensitivity.Colonoscopy screening starting at age 50 y with a 10-y interval consistently underperformed strategies that started at age 45 y.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) demonstrated that guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy are effective at reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and mortality. Even if the impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has not been evaluated within population-based RCT with mortality as the outcome, the results of comparative analyses with gFOBT provide strong indirect evidence of its effectiveness. Extensive information is also available on sensitivity and specificity of FIT, compared with gFOBT. FIT has almost universally replaced gFOBT in organized screening programs worldwide. Using FIT as a comparator is an efficient way to evaluate the effectiveness of new tests, with respect to test performance and relevant intermediate outcomes such as rates of interval cancer and late-stage cancer incidence. Direct comparison with FIT in the pre-screening evaluation of the accuracy of the new test will guide selection of the cut-off of the new test, and document the potential gain in sensitivity. Comparison in cross-sectional single-round screening evaluation can either use paired or parallel designs. Only parallel designs allow direct comparisons of participation rates. Relative accuracy can be derived in both designs with an assumption of similar colorectal cancer and precursor prevalence between groups in parallel designs. Finally, multiple-rounds prospective comparison will document potential effect on risk of CRC and precancerous lesions, and on absolute reductions in late-stage incidence as a proxy of mortality. This paper provides an overview of evidence and rationale for using FIT as a comparator for evaluating new non-invasive tests with repeated testing at short intervals.

Approximately 60 million adults live in rural regions of the US, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and follow-up. Rural residents enrolled in Medicaid have particularly low CRC screening and follow-up rates.

To determine the effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative Medicaid health plan-clinic program of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result when implemented in rural clinics as part of standard care.

This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 28 rural clinic units in Oregon affiliated with 3 Medicaid health plans. The clinics were randomized to the intervention (n = 14) or to usual care (n = 14). Participants were Medicaid enrollees (aged 50-75 years) due for CRC screening. The intervention was delivered from May 11, 2021, through June 4, 2022, and analyses were performed from June 2023 through September 2024.

The stepwise intervention involved (1) mailed FIT outreach and (2) patient navigation to colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. Implementation support included practice facilitation, training, collaborative learning, and patient tracking tools.

The primary effectiveness outcome was completion of any CRC screening within 6 months of eligibility determination. An additional effectiveness outcome was follow-up colonoscopy completion within 6 months of an abnormal FIT result. Implementation was measured as (1) the proportion of intervention-eligible enrollees who were mailed an FIT and who were sent an advance notification or reminder and (2) the proportion with an abnormal FIT result who were offered patient navigation.

This study included 5614 Medicaid enrollees (2613 in intervention clinics and 3001 in usual care clinics). Enrollees had a mean (SD) age of 58.2 (5.5) years; most (4940 [88.0%]) were aged 50 to 64 years. A total of 2948 enrollees (52.5%) were female, 325 (6.2%) were Hispanic and 3774 (67.2%) were White, and 4457 (79.4%) lived in rural regions. Compared with Medicaid enrollees in usual care clinics, enrollees in intervention clinics had a higher adjusted 6-month proportion of any CRC screening completion (11.8% vs 4.5%; difference, 7.3 [95% CI, 5.3-9.2] percentage points). Implementation was 100% (all 1489 intervention-eligible enrollees) for mailed FIT outreach, 88.5% for advance notification, 78.1% for reminders, and 57.9% for patient navigation.

In this cluster randomized clinical trial of rural clinics, mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation boosted participation in CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. More efforts are needed to address low participation in both FIT testing and follow-up colonoscopy.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04890054.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant health challenge in Kuwait, ranking as the second most common cancer with the incidence rate 13.2 cases per 100,000 people in year 2019. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of three colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods in Kuwait from the perspective of Kuwait's healthcare providers. Using a Decision Tree Analysis Model, the study compared three screening modalities: Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) followed by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy alone, sigmoidoscopy alone and alongside no screening. Over a 10-year period post-diagnosis, the model tracked costs and outcomes based on CRC patients' life expectancy, expressing results using Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). Colorectal cancer screening using FOBT followed by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy resulted in 7.7 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of USD 3,573. In contrast, no screening achieved 7.2 QALYs but was more expensive, costing USD 4,084. Screening with only sigmoidoscopy or only colonoscopy provided 6.8 QALYs each, at costs of USD 4,905 and USD 5,002, respectively. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainties in cost and outcome estimates. FOBT followed by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy can be considered as an efficient and effective approach towards early detection of CRC. This approach can be used by healthcare policymakers in Kuwait, in the development of population-based CRC screening programs to optimize resource allocation and improve public health outcomes.

Genomic screening to identify individuals with Lynch Syndrome (LS) and those with a high polygenic risk score (PRS) promises to personalize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Understanding its clinical and economic impact is needed to inform screening guidelines and reimbursement policies.

We developed a Markov model to simulate individuals over a lifetime. We compared LS+PRS genomic screening with standard of care (SOC) for a cohort of US adults at age 30. The Markov model included health states of no CRC, CRC stages (A-D), and death. We estimated incidence, mortality, and discounted economic outcomes of the population under different interventions.

Screening 1000 individuals for LS+PRS resulted in 1.36 fewer CRC cases and 0.65 fewer deaths compared with SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $124,415 per quality-adjusted life year; screening had a 69% probability of being cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year . Setting the PRS threshold at the 90th percentile of the LS+PRS screening program to define individuals at high risk was most likely to be cost-effective compared with 95th, 85th, and 80th percentiles.

Population-level LS+PRS screening is marginally cost-effective, and a threshold of 90th percentile is more likely to be cost-effective than other thresholds.

Recent studies have reported increases in early-onset cancer cases (diagnosed under age 50) and call into question whether the increase is related to earlier diagnosis from other medical tests and reflected by decreasing tumor-size-at-diagnosis (apparent effects) or actual increases in underlying cancer risk (true effects), or both. The classic Multi-Stage Clonal Expansion (MSCE) model assumes cancer detection at the emergence of the first malignant cell, although later modifications have included lag-times or stochasticity in detection to more realistically represent tumor detection requiring a certain size threshold. Here, we introduce an approach to explicitly incorporate tumor-size-at-diagnosis in the MSCE framework and account for improvements in cancer detection over time to distinguish between apparent and true increases in early-onset cancer incidence. We demonstrate that our model is structurally identifiable and provides better parameter estimation than the classic model. Applying this model to colorectal, female breast, and thyroid cancers, we examine changes in cancer risk while accounting for detection improvements over time in three representative birth cohorts (1950-1954, 1965-1969, and 1980-1984). Our analyses suggest accelerated carcinogenic events and shorter mean sojourn times in more recent cohorts. We further use this model to examine the screening impact on the incidence of breast and colorectal cancers, both having established screening protocols. Our results align with well-documented differences in screening effects between these two cancers. These findings underscore the importance of accounting for tumor-size-at-diagnosis in cancer modeling and support true increases in early-onset cancer risk in recent years for breast, colorectal, and thyroid cancer.

The genetic susceptibility association between viral infection and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been established.

We conducted two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using genome-wide association study (GWAS) data. In addition to traditional MR methods, we employed several other approaches, including cML, ConMix, MR-RAPS, and dIVW, to comprehensively assess causal effects. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to ensure the robustness of the results.

After sensitivity analysis, presence of SNPs linked to increased susceptibility to cold sores infection was found to decrease the risk of CRC (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.93, P = 0.01). In subgroup analysis, presence of SNPs linked to increased susceptibility to viral hepatitis (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, P = 0.02) and infectious mononucleosis (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.98, P = 0.02) were associated with a decreased risk of colon cancer, while measles virus (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.07-1.85, P = 0.01) was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer. Presence of SNPs linked to increased susceptibility to herpes zoster (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.05-1.52, P = 0.01) was associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer, while infectious mononucleosis (OR: 0.809, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98, P = 0.02) was associated with a decreased risk.

The study provides the first evidence of the genetic susceptibility associations between different viral infections and CRC, enhancing our understanding of the etiology of CRC.

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited.

To evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups.

This nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case's diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017.

Completing 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated.

The primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity.

From a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity).

In this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

Colonoscopy-based screening provides protection against colorectal cancer (CRC), but the optimal starting age and time intervals of screening colonoscopies are unknown. We aimed to determine an optimal screening schedule for the US population and its dependencies on the objective of screening (life years gained or incidence, mortality, or cost reduction) and the setting in which screening is performed. We used our established open-source microsimulation model CMOST to calculate optimized colonoscopy schedules with one, two, three or four screening colonoscopies between 20 and 90 years of age. A single screening colonoscopy was most effective in reducing life years lost from CRC when performed at 55 years of age. Two, three and four screening colonoscopy schedules saved a maximum number of life years when performed between 49-64 years; 44-69 years; and 40-72 years; respectively. However, for maximum incidence and mortality reduction, screening colonoscopies needed to be scheduled 4-8 years later in life. The optimum was also influenced by adenoma detection efficiency with lower values for these parameters favoring a later starting age of screening. Low adherence to screening consistently favored a later start and an earlier end of screening. In a personalized approach, optimal screening would start earlier for high-risk patients and later for low-risk individuals. In conclusion, our microsimulation-based approach supports colonoscopy screening schedule between 45 and 75 years of age but the precise timing depends on the objective of screening, as well as assumptions regarding individual CRC risk, efficiency of adenoma detection during colonoscopy and adherence to screening.

Novel liquid biopsy technologies are creating a watershed moment in cancer early detection. Evidence supporting population screening is nascent, but a rush to market the new tests is prompting cancer early detection researchers to revisit the standard blueprint that the Early Detection Research Network established to evaluate novel screening biomarkers. In this commentary, we review the Early Detection Research Network's Phases of Biomarker Development (PBD) for rigorous evaluation of novel early detection biomarkers and discuss both hazards and opportunities involved in expedited evaluation. According to the PBD, for a biomarker-based test to be considered for population screening, 1) test sensitivity in a prospective screening setting must be adequate, 2) the shift to early curable stages must be meaningful, and 3) any stage shift must translate into clinically significant mortality benefit. In the past, determining mortality benefit has required lengthy randomized screening trials, but interest is growing in expedited trial designs with shorter-term endpoints. Whether and how best to use such endpoints in a manner that retains the rigor of the PBD remains to be determined. We discuss how computational disease modeling can be harnessed to learn about screening impact and meet the needs of the moment.

The effectiveness of triage screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is not fully achieved in Chinese populations, mainly due to low compliance to colonoscopy follow-up. This study aimed to collect viewpoints of experts in China on ongoing screening programs and emerging screening tests for CRC, which may help to improve effectiveness of CRC screening in the country.

We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts involving CRC screening in China during October to November of 2020. Interview topics included personal characteristics, work context, opinions on ongoing screening programs, challenges and opportunities in optimization of screening strategies, and prospects for CRC screening in near future. To analyze the data, we used a generic qualitative research approach inspired by grounded theory, including open, axial, and selective coding.

This analysis revealed a total of 83 initial categories, 37 subcategories and 10 main categories, which included 4 core categories of current modality for CRC screening, factors influencing screening effectiveness, optimization of CRC screening modality, and prospects for development of CRC screening. The results provide insight into the factors underlying the challenges of the ongoing CRC screening programs in China: the most important concern is the low compliance to colonoscopy, followed by the low specificity of the currently-used initial tests. The experts proposed to use quantitative instead of qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optimize risk assessment tools to improve specificity of initial tests. Regarding the emerging screening tests, 9 of 15 experts did not think that the novel techniques are good enough to replace the current tests, but can be used complementarily in opportunistic screening for CRC.

The viewpoints of Chinese experts suggested that use quantitative FIT or optimize risk assessment tools may help to identify high-risk individuals of CRC more accurately, improve adherence to colonoscopy, and thus fully achieve the effectiveness of screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the US despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Yet, available literature provides little information as to how specific information providers communicate influence patient decision-making about CRC screening. We tested the pathways through which information communicated by providers about the "Why" and "How" of CRC screening using the mt-sDNA test contributes to intention to complete the test. Data came from a behavioral theory-informed survey that we developed to identify psychosocial factors associated with mt-sDNA screening. RTI International administered the survey between 03/2022-06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021-9/2021. Participants completed an electronic or paper survey. We tested the proposed relationships using structural equation modeling and tested indirect effects using Monte Carlo method. A total of 2,973 participants completed the survey (response rate: 21.7%) and 81.6% (n = 2,427) reported have had a conversation with their health care provider about mt-sDNA screening before the test was ordered. We found that "Why" information from providers was positively associated with perceived effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening, while "How" information was positively associated with perceived ease of use. "Why" information contributed to screening intention through perceived effectiveness while "How" information contributed to screening intention through perceived ease of use. These findings emphasize the critical role of provider communication in shaping patient decision-making regarding CRC screening. CRC screening interventions could consider implementing provider-patient communication strategies focusing on improving patient understanding of the rationale for CRC screening and the effectiveness of available screening options as well as addressing barriers and enhancing patients' self-efficacy in completing their preferred screening option.

Although cancer has been the second leading cause of death for close to 100 years, progress has been made in reducing cancer mortality and morbidity, with the adoption of high-quality screening tests and treatment advances delivered at earlier stages of diagnosis. To achieve the high cancer screening rates demonstrated by some practices, proven effective strategies need to be broadly adopted at both the patient and population levels. Factors affecting cancer screening test completion and approaches to improvement are described both generally and for breast, lung, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Closing the racial disparity gap is a critical component of reaching cancer screening and prevention goals.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths despite being the most preventable and treatable forms of cancer when caught early through screening. There is an unmet need for novel screening approaches with improved accuracy, less invasiveness, and reduced costs. In recent years, evidence has accumulated around particular biological events that happen during the adenoma-to-carcinoma transition, especially focusing on precancerous immune responses in the colonic crypt. Protein glycosylation plays a central role in driving those responses, and recently, numerous reports have been published on how aberrant protein glycosylation both in colonic tissue and on circulating glycoproteins reflects these precancerous developments. The complex field of glycosylation, which exceeds complexity of proteins by several orders of magnitude, can now be studied primarily because of the availability of new high-throughput technologies such as mass spectrometry and artificial intelligence-powered data processing. This has now opened new avenues for studying novel biomarkers for CRC screening. This review summarizes the early events taking place from the normal colon mucosa toward adenoma and adenocarcinoma formation and associated critical protein glycosylation phenomena, both on the tissue level and in the circulation. These insights will help establish an understanding in the interpretation of novel CRC detection modalities that involve high-throughput glycomics.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs.

Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured.

There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds.

Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted.

gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Approximately 81% of deaths in Argentina are from chronic non-communicable diseases and 21% caused by cancer. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer in Argentina. Even though CRC screening has been recommended for adults from 50 to 75 years old by using a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) annually, screening rates remain below 20% in the country.

We conducted an 18-month, two-arm, pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of a quality improvement intervention, based on the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, considering barriers and catalysts to articulate theory and practice, to increase CRC screening rates using FITs at primary care level. The study involved ten public primary health centres in Mendoza province, Argentina. The primary outcome measure was the rate of effective CRC screening. Secondary outcomes were the rate of participants with a positive FIT, tests with invalid results and the rate of participants referred for colonoscopy.

Screening was effective in 75% of the participants in the intervention arm vs 54.2% in the control arm, OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.4, p=0.001). These results remained unchanged after adjusting for individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Regarding secondary outcomes, the overall prevalence of positive tests was 17.7% (21.1% in the control arm and 14.7% in the intervention arm, p=0.3648). The overall proportion of participants with inadequate test results was 5.2% (4.9% in the control arm vs 5.5% in the intervention arm, p=0.8516). All the participants with positive tests were referred for colonoscopy in both groups.

An intervention based on quality improvement strategies proved to be highly successful in increasing effective CRC screening in Argentina's primary care setting within the public healthcare system.

NCT04293315.

The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes due to differential disruptions to CRC screening. This comparative microsimulation analysis uses two CISNET CRC models to simulate the impact of ongoing screening disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We evaluate three channels through which screening was disrupted: delays in screening, regimen switching, and screening discontinuation. The impact of these disruptions on long-term CRC outcomes was measured by the number of life-years lost due to CRC screening disruptions compared to a scenario without any disruptions. While short-term delays in screening of 3-18 months are predicted to result in minor life-years loss, discontinuing screening could result in much more significant reductions in the expected benefits of screening. These results demonstrate that unequal recovery of screening following the pandemic can widen disparities in CRC outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Despite significant overall declines in CRC incidence and mortality, there has been an alarming increase in CRC among people younger than 50. This study uses an established microsimulation model, CRC-SPIN, to perform a 'stress test' of colonoscopy screening strategies. First, we expand CRC-SPIN to include birth-cohort effects. Second, we estimate natural history model parameters via Incremental Mixture Approximate Bayesian Computation (IMABC) for two model versions to characterize uncertainty while accounting for increased early CRC onset. Third, we simulate 26 colonoscopy screening strategies across the posterior distribution of estimated model parameters, assuming four different colonoscopy sensitivities (104 total scenarios). We find that model projections of screening benefit are highly dependent on natural history and test sensitivity assumptions, but in this stress test, the policy recommendations are robust to the uncertainties considered.

We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a worldwide health problem whose control depends on public policy establishment and effective prevention and screening programs. In Brazil, there are few studies related to adherence to screening methods.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between demographic and socioeconomic to adherence to CRC screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) among average-risk individuals for CRC.

In this prospective cross-sectional study, conducted between March 2015 and April 2016, 1,254 asymptomatic individuals aged 50-75 years, participating in a hospital screening campaign in Brazil, were invited to participate in the study.

The adherence rate to FIT was 55.6% (697/1,254). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients aged 60-75 years (odds ratio (OR)=1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.66; p=0.03), religious belief (OR=2.04; 95% CI: 1.34-3.11; p<0.01), previous fecal occult blood test (OR=2.07; 95% CI: 1.55-2.76; p<0.01), and full/part-time working status (OR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.49-0.89; p<0.01) were independently associated with adherence to CRC screening.

The results of the present study highlight the importance of considering the labor aspects when implementing screening programs, suggesting that campaigns conducted in the workplace and repeated over the years may be more effective.

There have been multiple recent updates for recommendations pertaining to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Among the most notable is the recommendation from several guideline-issuing bodies to initiate CRC screening examinations at 45 years of age for individuals at average risk for CRC. Current CRC screening methods include stool-based tests and colon visualization examinations. Currently recommended stool-based tests include fecal immunochemical testing, high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, and multitarget stool DNA testing. Visualization examinations include colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsule endoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Although these screening tests have shown encouraging results for CRC detection, there are important differences between these testing modalities for precursor lesion detection and management. In addition, emerging CRC screening methods are being developed and evaluated. However, additional large, multicenter clinical trials in diverse populations are needed to validate the diagnostic accuracy and generalizability of these new tests. This article reviews the recently updated CRC screening recommendations and current and emerging testing options.

Clinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies.

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs.

Mailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained.

Mailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force is perhaps America's best-known source of evidence-based medicine (EBM) recommendations. This paper reviews aspects of the history of one such recommendation-screening for colorectal cancer (CRC)-to explore how the Task Force evaluates the best available evidence to reach its conclusions.Although the Task Force initially believed there was inadequate evidence to recommend CRC screening in the 1980s, it later changed its mind. Indeed, by 2002, it was recommending screening colonoscopy for those aged 50 and older, "extrapolating" from the existing evidence as there were no randomized controlled trials of the procedure. By 2016, due in part to the use of an emerging analytic modality known as modeling, the Task Force supported four additional CRC screening tests that lacked randomized data. Among the reasons the Task Force gave for these decisions was the desire to improve adherence for a strategy-screening healthy, asymptomatic individuals-that it believed saved lives.During these same years, the Task Force diverged from other organizations by declining to advocate screening otherwise healthy Black patients earlier than age 50-despite the fact that such individuals had higher rates of CRC than the general population, higher mortality from the disease and earlier onset of the disease. In declining to extrapolate in this instance, the Task Force underscored the lack of reliable data that proved that the benefits of such testing would outweigh the harms.The history of CRC screening reminds us that scientific evaluation relies not only on methodological sophistication but also on a combination of intellectual, cognitive and social processes. General internists-and their patients-should realize that EBM recommendations are often not definitive but rather thoughtful data-based advice.

Screening for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC), adenomatous polyps, and precancerous lesions can reduce mortality. This review aimed to illustrate methods, guidelines, and clinical utility of CRC screening programs.

Literature search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was independently performed by two authors in September 2021. Articles discussing CRC screening methods and updated guidelines were reviewed.

After reviewing the full text of 55 studies, it was found that the screening tests for CRC are divided into stool-based, endoscopic, and molecular. All CRC screening guidelines recommend screening starting at age 45-50, but vary regarding screening methods, frequency, and timing of screening discontinuation. Controversies include clinical benefits of screening the elderly and discontinuation of screening. Effective screening barriers involve patient- and healthcare-related factors.

Overall, screening should start at age 45-50 for average-risk individuals. Colonoscopy and FIT tests are standard modalities recommended for regular screening. Increasing public awareness of the importance of screening and implementing mass national screening programs can detect early CRC and decrease related mortality.

For colon cancer patients, one goal of health insurance is to improve access to screening that leads to early detection, early-stage diagnosis, and polyp removal, all of which results in easier treatment and better outcomes. We examined associations among health insurance status, mode of detection (screen detection vs symptomatic presentation), and stage at diagnosis (early vs late) in a diverse sample of patients recently diagnosed with colon cancer from the Chicago metropolitan area.

Data came from the Colon Cancer Patterns of Care in Chicago study of racial and socioeconomic disparities in colon cancer screening, diagnosis, and care. We collected data from the medical records of non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients aged ≥50 and diagnosed with colon cancer from October 2010 through January 2014 (N = 348). We used logistic regression with marginal standardization to model associations between health insurance status and study outcomes.

After adjusting for age, race, sex, and socioeconomic status, being continuously insured 5 years before diagnosis and through diagnosis was associated with a 20 (95% CI, 8-33) percentage-point increase in prevalence of screen detection. Screen detection in turn was associated with a 15 (95% CI, 3-27) percentage-point increase in early-stage diagnosis; however, nearly half (47%; n = 54) of the 114 screen-detected patients were still diagnosed at late stage (stage 3 or 4). Health insurance status was not associated with earlier stage at diagnosis.

For health insurance to effectively shift stage at diagnosis, stronger associations are needed between health insurance and screening-related detection; between screening-related detection and early stage at diagnosis; or both. Findings also highlight the need to better understand factors contributing to late-stage colon cancer diagnosis despite screen detection.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of preoperative waiting time on the short-term outcomes and prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

We retrospectively analyzed 3744 CRC patients who underwent primary CRC surgery at a single clinical medical center from Jan 2011 to Jan 2020. The baseline information, short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared among the short-waiting group, the intermediate-waiting group, and the long-waiting group.

A total of 3744 eligible CRC patients were enrolled for analysis. There were no significant differences in all of the baseline information and short-term outcomes among the three groups. In multivariate analysis, older age (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.631-2.324; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.693, 95% CI = 1.445-1.983), advanced clinical stage (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.301, 95% CI = 1.161-1.457; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.262, 95% CI = 1.139-1.400), overall complications (OS: p=0.000, HR = 1.613, 95% CI = 1.303-1.895; DFS: p=0.000, HR = 1.560, 95% CI = 1.312-1.855), and major complications (OS: p=0.001, HR = 1.812, 95% CI = 1.338-2.945; DFS: p=0.006, HR = 1.647, 95% CI = 1.153-2.352) were independent factors of OS and DFS. In addition, no significant difference was found in all stages (OS, p=0.203; DFS, p=0.108), stage I (OS, p=0.419; DFS, p=0.579), stage II (OS, p=0.465; DFS, p=0.385), or stage III (OS, p=0.539; DFS, p=0.259) in terms of OS and DFS among the three groups.

Preoperative waiting time did not affect the short-term outcomes or prognosis in CRC patients.

We examined patient preferences regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision-making and factors associated with these preferences among screening-eligible US adults.

Through a national survey of 1595 US adults ages 40-75 (response rate: 31.3%), we measured general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making preferences (0-100, 100 = highest desire for involvement) and preferred control level over three CRC screening decisions (whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen). Analyses focused on respondents aged 45-75 at average CRC risk (N = 1062).

Respondents expressed strong desire for involvement in general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making (Mean = 68.1, 64.4). Over half of respondents reported preferring having equal control as their providers over whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen. Women and people with higher education expressed higher desire for involvement in general medical decision-making. For CRC screening decision-making, variations exist in preferred level of involvement and control by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, and recency of routine checkup.

Most respondents preferred a collaborative process of CRC screening decision-making, while variations existed across subgroups.

Providers should assess patients' values and preferences and involve them in CRC screening decision-making at a level they are comfortable with.

Joking is an important communication behavior that helps people cope with colorectal cancer and colonoscopy screening. However, whether joking serves a beneficial or maladaptive function in the context of colorectal cancer screening remains unknown. The lack of a valid scale impedes our understanding of how joking influences colonoscopy uptake. This study aims to develop and validate the Colonoscopy Joking Scale, a scale of joking behaviors in colonoscopy screening. A sample of Mturk participants aged 50-75 (N = 105) who were not compliant with colonoscopy screening recommendations was recruited to rate items for three joking factors and a measure of colonoscopy screening intentions. Two joking factors (i.e., screening-related and sexual connotation) related to colonoscopy screening and one related to general health were identified in the analysis. The psychometric analysis demonstrated strong convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity. The Colonoscopy Joking Scale will be helpful to understand what joking factor is associated with specific barriers to colonoscopy for different patients so that effective educational and interventional programs can be implemented.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality; however, screening rates remain well below the national benchmark of 80%.

To determine whether an electronic primer message delivered through the patient portal increases the completion rate of CRC screening in a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program.

In this randomized clinical quality improvement trial at the University of California, Los Angeles Health of 2339 patients enrolled in a FIT mailing program from August 28, 2019, to September 20, 2020, patients were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group, and the screening completion rate was measured at 6 months. Participants were average-risk managed care patients aged 50 to 75 years, with a valid mailing address, no mailed CRC outreach in the previous 6 months, and an active electronic health record (EHR) patient portal who were due for CRC screening. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either (1) the standard FIT mailed outreach (control group) or (2) the standard FIT mailed outreach plus an automated primer to notify patients of the upcoming mailed FIT sent through the electronic patient portal (intervention group).

The primary outcome was the screening completion rate (ie, returning the FIT). Secondary outcomes were (1) were the time to CRC screening from the FIT mailing date, (2) screening modality completed, and (3) the effect of opening the electronic primer on screening completion rate.

The study included 2339 patients (1346 women [57.5%]; mean [SD] age, 58.9 [7.5] years). The screening completion rate was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (37.6% [445 of 1182] vs 32.1% [371 of 1157]; P = .005). The time to screening was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .003). The proportion of each screening test modality completed was similar in both groups. In a subanalysis of the 900 of 1182 patients (76.1%) in the intervention group who opened the patient portal primer message, there was a 7.3-percentage point (95% CI, 2.3-12.4 percentage points) increase in CRC screening (local mean treatment effect; P = .004).

Implementation of an electronic patient portal primer message in a mailed FIT outreach program led to a significant increase in CRC screening and improvement in the time to screening completion. The findings provide an evidence base for additional refinements to mailed FIT outreach quality improvement programs in large health systems.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05115916.

The Korea National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) provides fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for people aged ≥50 years. This study aimed to investigate the long-term survival effects of CRC screening based on screening history and interval time since screening. The study cohort was obtained by linking three national databases, namely the Korea Central Cancer Registry, KNCSP database, and Death Certificate. We included 32 509 CRC patients diagnosed in 2008-2009, who underwent CRC screening via the KNCSP between 2004 and 2009. The patients were followed-up until 2019, and their survival was assessed according to their CRC screening history. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to deaths among CRC patients according to CRC screening history, after adjusting for covariates. Of the 32 509 patients, 20 022 (61.5%) patients were alive by the end of 2019. Long-term survival was significantly higher among screened patients (68.2%) than non-screened (57.2%) individuals. Compared with never-screened patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for CRC-specific death in screened patients was 0.77 (95% CI%, 0.73-0.80). Lowest HR was observed in screened, localized CRC patients (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56); HR for CRC-specific death was the lowest in patients screened within 12 months of diagnosis (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74), following which, the HRs increased with increasing time interval. CRC screening was positively associated with favorable prognosis in CRC patients aged 50-79 years. The effects on long-term survival according to interval time was the best among individuals screened within one year before diagnosis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) lowers mortality and morbidity and is generally cost-effective, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of screening promotion.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a group-randomized trial. Setting: Multicultural, underinsured communities in the Phoenix, Arizona, area.

English- or Spanish-speaking adults who were out of compliance for CRC screening guidelines.

All participants received community-based group education (GE), and the intervention group also received tailored community-to-clinic navigation (GE+TN).

Number of participants screened and costs of tailored navigation, clinic visits, and CRC screening tests.

Incremental cost per additional person screened from the perspective of the healthcare system with bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Community sites were recruited and randomized to GE (n = 120) and GE + TN (n = 119). Across these sites 1154 individuals were screened, 504 were eligible, and 345 attended the group education class (n = 134 GE; n = 211 GE + TN). Screening rates (26.5% GE + TN; 10.4% GE; 16.1% increase 95% CI: 7%, 23%) and costs per participant ($271 GE + TN; $167 GE; a net cost increase of $104 95% CI: $1, $189) were significantly higher in the intervention group. Incremental cost-effectiveness was $646 (95% CI: -$68, $953) per additional person screened.

Depending on the value placed on an additional person screened, the addition of community-to-clinic tailored navigation to a community-based CRC screening promotion program may be highly cost-effective.

The FACS, GILDA, and COLOFOL trials have cast doubt on the value of intensive extracolonic surveillance for resected nonmetastatic colorectal cancer and by extension metastasectomy. We reexamined this pessimistic interpretation. We evaluate an alternative explanation: insufficient power to detect a realistically sized survival benefit that may be clinically meaningful.

A microsimulation model of postdiagnosis colorectal cancer was constructed assuming an empirically plausible efficacy for metastasectomy and thus surveillance. The model was used to predict the large-sample mortality reduction expected for each trial and the implied statistical power. A potential recurrence imbalance in the FACS trial was investigated. Goodness of fit between model predictions and trial results were evaluated. Downstream life expectancy was estimated and power calculations performed for future trials evaluating surveillance and metastasectomy.

For all 3 trials, the model predicted a mortality reduction of ≤5% and power of <10%. The FACS recurrence imbalance likely led to a large relative bias (>2.5) in the hazard ratio for overall survival favoring control. After adjustment, both COLOFOL and FACS results were consistent with model predictions (P>.5). A 2.6 (95% credible interval 0.5-5.1) and 3.6 (95% credible interval 0.8-7.0) month increase in life expectancy is predicted comparing intensive extracolonic surveillance-routine computed tomography scans and carcinoembryonic antigen assays-with 1 computed tomography scan at 12 months or no surveillance, respectively. An adequately sized surveillance trial is not feasible. A metastasectomy trial should randomize at least 200 to 300 patients.

Recent trial results do not warrant de novo skepticism of metastasectomy nor targeted extracolonic surveillance. Given the potential for clinically meaningful life-expectancy gain and significant uncertainty, a trial of metastasectomy is needed.

Fatal and non-fatal events associated with drug misuse are skyrocketing in most United States jurisdictions, including Indiana. Historically, the role of the judiciary is to arrest, impose sanctions and protect society from harm. Adults arrested for drug abuse in Indiana can be sentenced to 1 of 17 correctional facilities. As an alternative, they may be eligible to participate in a problem-solving court (PSC) programme that refers individuals to treatment as a pretrial diversionary strategy. The aim of the study is to determine which interventions offered by PSCs and correctional facilities impact morbidity and mortality. The study began in 2019 and will end in 2023; therefore, the results in this manuscript are preliminary.

The study cohort included two populations arrested for drug misuse: (1) adults sentenced to Indianan correctional facilities (1 January 2018 to 30 June 2021) and (2) adults participating in an Indiana PSC programme (1 January 2018 to 30 June 2021). The study used a mixed-methods design that integrated qualitative interviews of deputy wardens, PSC team members and service providers with the following quantitative datasets: sentencing information, emergency department visits, inpatient hospitalization admissions, prescription drug monitoring programme data and death records. The individuals will be followed at 2-week, 4-week, 6-month and 1-year intervals post-release. Difference-in-difference and time-to-event analyses will identify impactful interventions. A model will be created to show the effect of impactful interventions in Indiana counties that do not have PSCs.

Findings are preliminary. There is variability amongst correctional facilities regarding programme eligibility, provided services and provision of medication-assisted treatment. All correctional facilities were severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is anticipated that the adoption of impactful interventions will lower opioid-related morbidity and mortality rates.

To measure the effects of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on overall and site-specific long-term effectiveness of population-based organised service screening.

A prospective cohort study of Taiwanese nationwide biennial FIT screening was performed. A total of 5 417 699 eligible subjects were invited to attend screening from 2004 through 2009 and were followed up until 2014. We estimated the adjusted relative rates (aRRs) on the effectiveness of reducing advanced-stage CRC (stage II+) and CRC death by Bayesian Poisson regression models with the full adjustment for a cascade of self-selection factors (including the screening rate and the colonoscopy rate) and the completeness of colonoscopy together with demographic features.

FIT screening (exposed vs unexposed) reduced the incidence of advanced-stage CRC (48.4 vs 75.7 per 100 000) and mortality (20.3 vs 41.3 per 100 000). Statistically significant reductions of both incidence of advanced-stage CRCs (aRR=0.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.70) and deaths from CRC (aRR=0.60, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.64) were noted. FIT screening was more effective in reducing distal advanced-stage CRCs (aRR=0.61, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.64) and CRC mortality (aRR=0.56, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.69) than proximal advanced CRCs (aRR=0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92) and CRC mortality (aRR=0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80).

A large-scale population-based biennial FIT screening demonstrates 34% significant reduction of advanced-stage CRCs and 40% reduction of death from CRC with larger long-term effectiveness in the distal colon than the proximal colon. Our findings provide a strong and consistent evidence-based policy for supporting a sustainable population-based FIT organised service screening worldwide. The disparity of site-specific long-term effectiveness also provides an insight into the remedy for lower effectiveness of FIT screening in the proximal colon.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the United States. A better understanding of existing barriers is critical for improving uptake of, and adherence to, CRC screening. Using data from a population-based panel survey, we examined barriers to utilization of three commonly used screening options (FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, and screening colonoscopy) and assessed differences by socio-demographic characteristics, healthcare access, and health status. Data were obtained from a questionnaire developed by the authors and implemented through a U.S. national panel survey conducted in November 2019. Among 5,097 invited panelists, 1,595 completed the survey (31.3%). Analyses were focused on individuals ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC. Results showed that among respondents who reported no prior CRC screening with FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, or colonoscopy, the top barriers were lack of knowledge (FIT/gFOBT: 42.1%, mt-sDNA: 44.9%, colonoscopy: 34.7%), lack of provider recommendation (FIT/gFOBT: 32.1%, mt-sDNA: 27.3%, colonoscopy: 18.6%), and suboptimal access (FIT/gFOBT: 20.8%, mt-sDNA: 17.8%, colonoscopy: 26%). Among participants who had used one or two of the screening options, the top barriers to FIT/gFOBT and mt-sDNA were lack of provider recommendation (31.6% & 37.5%) and lack of knowledge (24.6% & 25.6%), while for colonoscopy top barriers were psychosocial barriers (31%) and lack of provider recommendation (22.7%). Differences by sex, race/ethnicity, income level, and health status were observed. Our research identified primary barriers to the utilization of three endorsed CRC screening options and differences by patient characteristics, highlighting the importance of improving CRC screening education and considering patient preferences in screening recommendations.

Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines set the surveillance schedule based on polyp characteristics. Polyps with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) require 3 years of follow-up regardless of size. However, it is unclear whether patients with diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) with HGD have a higher risk. We evaluated the effect of diminutive adenoma with HGD on adenoma occurrence.

From January 2015 to December 2017, patients who underwent index and surveillance colonoscopy were retrospectively screened. The patients were grouped into no adenoma group, low-risk (patients with ≤2 low-grade dysplasia [LGD]), diminutive HGD, and high-risk (HGD >5 mm, ≥3 adenomas) groups according to the index colonoscopy results. Each group was analyzed using logistic analysis.

The mean follow-up period was 22.47 months. Altogether, 610 (50.45%) patients had LGD and 152 (12.5%) had HGD. Among them, 61 (5.0%) patients had a diminutive polyp with HGD. Analysis of the risks of developing advanced adenoma in the surveillance colonoscopy showed that compared to the no adenoma group, the diminutive HGD group did not show a significant risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.503 [0.449-5.027], p = 0.509), while the high-risk group showed a significant risk (OR = 2.044 [1.015-4.114], p = 0.045).

Diminutive adenoma with HGD increased the risk of adenoma on surveillance colonoscopy, and in the case of advanced adenoma, the risk was increased, but it was not statistically significant.

We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

Single location and medical decision.

Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.