Association of Endoscopist Colonoscopy Quality Measures With Follow-Up Colonoscopy Outcomes After Positive Stool Tests (Multitarget Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test): Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests could result from stool test characteristics or from the quality of endoscopist performance. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between endoscopist detection rates and polyp yield in colonoscopies performed for positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test to evaluate the degree to which positive stool tests followed by negative colonoscopy ("false positives") vary with endoscopist quality. In addition, we investigated the frequency of significant polyps in the subgroup of highest quality colonoscopies following positive stool tests. METHODS: We compared the frequencies of negative colonoscopies and of specific polyps following positive stool tests across quartiles of endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) and clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate (CSSDR). RESULTS: Our sample included 864 mt-sDNA+ and 497 FIT+ patients. We found a significantly lower frequency of negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests among endoscopists with higher ADR and CSSDR, particularly in the 2 highest quartiles. In addition, detection of any adenoma after a positive stool test for endoscopists in the fourth ADR quartile was 63.3% (FIT+) and 62.8% (mt-sDNA+). Among endoscopists in the fourth CSSDR quartile, sessile serrated lesions were found in 29.2% of examinations following a positive mt-sDNA and in 13.5% following FIT+ examinations. DISCUSSION: The frequency of negative colonoscopies after positive stool tests was significantly higher in examinations performed by endoscopists with low ADR and CSSDR. Our results also suggest a benchmark target of at least 40% for ADR in patients with mt-sDNA+ or FIT+ tests and 20% for sessile serrated lesions in mt-sDNA+ patients.

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

Prevalence of neoplasia at colonoscopy among testicular cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We determined the yield of colonoscopy in TCS to assess its potential in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a colonoscopy screening study among TCS in four Dutch hospitals to assess the yield of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplasia was defined as adenomas, serrated polyps (SPs), advanced adenomas (AAs: ≥10 mm diameter, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component), advanced serrated polyps (ASPs: ≥10 mm diameter or dysplasia) or CRC. Advanced neoplasia (AN) was defined as AA, ASP or CRC. Colonoscopy yield was compared to average-risk American males who underwent screening colonoscopy (n = 24,193) using a propensity score matched analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, alcohol consumption and body mass index. A total of 137 TCS underwent colonoscopy. Median age was 50 years among TCS (IQR 43-57) vs 55 years (IQR 51-62) among American controls. A total of 126 TCS were matched to 602 controls. The prevalence of AN was higher in TCS than in controls (8.7% vs 1.7%; P = .0002). Nonadvanced adenomas and SPs were detected in 45.2% of TCS vs 5.5% of controls (P < .0001). No lesions were detected in 46.0% of TCS vs 92.9% of controls (P < .0001). TCS treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have a higher prevalence of neoplasia and AN than matched controls. These results support our hypothesis that platinum-based chemotherapy increases the risk of colorectal neoplasia in TCS. Cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to ascertain the threshold of AN prevalence that justifies the recommendation of colonoscopy for TCS.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk. METHODS: We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

What do 'false-positive' stool tests really mean? Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry.

We utilized the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to calculate false discovery rates (FDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) using three 'positive' colonoscopy definitions. Understanding the frequency of meaningful 'true positive' mt-sDNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) results can optimize the use of these colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests. We calculated FDR (positive stool test followed by negative colonoscopy divided by all positive stool tests) and PPV for mt-sDNA and FIT cohorts using the following definitions: 1) DeeP-C Study (CRC, adenomas/serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm, villous/High Grade Dysplasia); 2) < 10 year US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) follow-up: DeeP-C findings & ≥1 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) < 1 cm (with/without dysplasia) or ≥ 1 tubular adenomas < 1 cm. 3) Clinically Significant: DeeP-C + USMSTF + clinically significant serrated polyps: traditional serrated adenomas, SSPs, hyperplastic polyps (HPs) > 1 cm, and 5-9 mm proximal HPs. The sample included 549 mt-sDNA + and 410 FIT + and patients (mean age 66.4, 43.0% male). Using the most limited definition of positive colonoscopy, DeeP-C, FDR was 71.9% for mt-sDNA + and 81.7% for FIT +. Using the USMSTF definition, FDR decreased substantially: mt-sDNA+:33.2% and FIT+:47.6%. Adding all CSSPs resulted in the lowest FDR: mt-sDNA+:32.2% and FIT+:47.1%. Decreasing FDRs corresponded to increasing PPVs: mt-sDNA+:28.1% and FIT+:18.3% (DeeP-C definition) and mt-sDNA+:67.8% and FIT+:52.9% (DeeP-C + USMSTF + CSSP) (Table 1). FDRs decreased substantially when the definition of positive exams included all significant precancerous findings. These data present a comprehensive understanding of false positive outcomes at colonoscopies following positive stool tests, which to our knowledge is the first such analysis.

Higher Serrated Polyp Detection Rates Are Associated With Lower Risk of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and sessile serrated detection rates (SSLDRs). METHODS: We included patients with either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis in the NH State Cancer Registry. PCCRC was any CRC diagnosed ≥ 6 months after index examination. RESULTS: Of 26,901 patients, 162 were diagnosed with PCCRC. The hazard ratio for PCCRC was lowest for patients whose endoscopists had the highest SSLDR quintile (≥6%) (hazard ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.50). DISCUSSION: Endoscopists with higher SSLDRs had lower risks of PCCRC. These data validate SSLDR as a clinically relevant quality measure.

Serrated Polyp Yield at Colonoscopy in Patients with Positive FIT, Positive mt-sDNA, and Colonoscopy Only: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Stool-based screening with fecal immunochemical (FIT) or multitarget-stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests is associated with increased colonoscopy polyp yield. mt-sDNA includes methylated markers, which improve detection of serrated polyps (SP) versus FIT. We compared SP detection in colonoscopies performed for positive FIT or mt-sDNA tests, as well as in colonoscopies without a preceding stool test, using the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, a comprehensive statewide population-based registry. METHODS: Across the three groups, we compared the frequency of clinically relevant SPs (CRSP: sessile SPs, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas). We also compared SP size, histology, number, and bulk (combined sizes). RESULTS: Our sample included 560 mt-sDNA+ (age ± SD: 66.5 ± 7.9), 414 FIT+ (age ± SD: 66.3 ± 8.8), and 59,438 colonoscopy-only patients (age ± SD: 61.7 ± 8.0). mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely to have a higher yield of CRSPs and CRSP bulk than FIT+ (P < 0.0001) or colonoscopy-only patients (P < 0.0001). More mt-sDNA+ patients had CRSPs without large adenomas or colorectal cancers (17.9% vs. 9.9% of FIT+ and 8% of colonoscopy-only patients). After adjusting for synchronous large adenomas, colorectal cancers, and other risk factors, mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.18-2.85) than FIT+ patients to have CRSPs. CONCLUSIONS: mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher SP yield than FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients, particularly in the absence of synchronous large adenomas or colorectal cancer. IMPACT: Our results suggest that screening with mt-sDNA tests could improve colorectal cancer screening by identifying more patients at increased risk from the serrated pathway.

Using New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to assess United States and European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to compare the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) high risk groups in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia on first follow-up colonoscopy and long-term colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We compared advanced metachronous neoplasia risk (serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm or with dysplasia, advanced adenomas [≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia], CRC) on first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high risk findings according to ESGE versus USMSTF guidelines. We also compared the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of both guidelines for metachronous neoplasia. RESULTS: The risk for metachronous neoplasia in our sample (n = 20 458) was higher in the high risk USMSTF (3 year) (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-14.9) and ESGE groups (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-15.0) compared with the lowest risk USMSTF (5.1 %; 95 %CI 4.7-5.5; P < 0.001) and ESGE categories (6.3 %; 95 %CI 6.0-6.7; P < 0.001), respectively. Adding other groups such as USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the 3-year category resulted in minimal change in the PPV and NPV for metachronous advanced neoplasia. High risk ESGE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03, 95 %CI 1.97-4.65) and USMSTF (HR 3.07, 95 %CI 2.03-4.66) designations were associated with similar long-term CRC risk (CRC per 100 000 person-years: USMSTF 3-year group 3.54, 95 %CI 2.68-4.68; ESGE high risk group: 3.43, 95 %CI 2.57-4.59). CONCLUSION: Performance characteristics for the ESGE and USMSTF recommendations are similar in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia and long-term CRC. The addition of risk groups, such as the USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the USMSTF 3-year category did not alter the PPV or NPV significantly.

Colonoscopy Findings in FIT+ and mt-sDNA+ Patients versus in Colonoscopy-only Patients: New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry Data.

Few studies compare fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) outcomes in practice. We compared colonoscopy yield following FIT+ or mt-sDNA+ tests to colonoscopies without preceding stool tests in the comprehensive population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR). Outcomes were any neoplasia and an ordered outcome: adenocarcinoma, advanced neoplasia (adenoma/serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm/villous/high-grade dysplasia), nonadvanced neoplasia, or normal. Our total sample included 306 mt-sDNA+ (average age ± SD 67.0 ± 7.9), 276 FIT+ (66.6 ± 8.7), and 50,990 colonoscopy-only patients (61.8 ± 8.1). Among average-risk patients (N = 240 mt-sDNA+, N = 194 FIT+, N = 26,221 colonoscopy only), mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher risk for any neoplasia (67.1%) compared with FIT+ (54.6%, P = 0.00098) or colonoscopy (40.8%, P < 0.0001). Severity of findings and histology subtypes differed across the three groups (P < 0.0001 for both), with a higher yield of advanced findings in mt-sDNA+ patients. In particular, clinically relevant serrated polyps (hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm/traditional serrated adenomas/sessile serrated polyps) were detected at a higher frequency in mt-sDNA+ patients as compared with FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients. Even after adjustment, patients with positive mt-sDNA [OR = 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.00-4.02] or FIT+ tests (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.36) were more likely to have histologically more advanced findings than colonoscopy alone. At follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA+ tests were more likely to predict neoplasia than FIT+, largely due to increased detection of serrated polyps. Prevention Relevance: Colorectal cancer screening options include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test which, if positive, must be followed by a colonoscopy. Assessing "real-world" outcomes of colonoscopies following positive stool tests can inform their clinical use. See related Spotlight, p. 417.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR. METHODS: We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in Individuals With Positive Multitarget Stool DNA Tests: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) includes multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening option in average-risk individuals, but data on colonoscopy outcomes after positive mt-sDNA tests in community settings are needed. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate colonoscopy outcomes and quality following positive mt-sDNA in the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. METHODS: We compared colonoscopy outcomes and quality between age-matched, sex-matched, and risk-matched patients from 30 endoscopy practices with and without a preceding positive mt-sDNA test. Main outcomes were colonoscopy findings of CRC, advanced noncancerous neoplasia, nonadvanced neoplasia, or normal examination. Quality measures included withdrawal time, bowel preparation quality, examination completion, and percentage of average-risk individuals with normal colonoscopies receiving a USPSTF-recommended 10 year rescreening interval. RESULTS: Individuals with positive mt-sDNA tests (N=306, average age 67.0 y; 61.8% female) were significantly more likely than colonoscopy-only patients (N=918, 66.2 y; 61.8% female) to have CRC (1.3% vs. 0.4%) or advanced noncancerous neoplasia (27.1% vs. 8.2%) (P<0.0001). Neoplasia was found in 68.0% of patients having colonoscopy after a positive mt-sDNA test, (positive predictive value, was 68.0%), versus 42.3% of patients with colonoscopy only (P<0.0001). No significant differences in colonoscopy quality measures were observed between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy after a positive mt-sDNA test was more frequently associated with CRC and colorectal neoplasia than colonoscopy alone. Positive mt-sDNA tests can enrich the proportion of colonoscopies with clinically relevant findings. Follow-up recommendations suggest that endoscopists do not inappropriately shorten rescreening intervals in mt-sDNA-positive patients with normal colonoscopy. These findings support the clinical utility of mt-sDNA for CRC screening in community practice.

Why is colorectal cancer increasing in younger age groups in the United States?

Introduction: While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased for older adults, the rates are increasing in adults younger than 50 years of age in the United States as well as globally. In response to strong epidemiologic evidence as well as sophisticated models, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has recommended screening adults for CRC starting at age 45. Understanding the factors associated with the rise of incidence in adults younger than age 50 may help to identify those adults who may be at greatest risk.Areas covered: In this review, we provide an overview of the recent literature and discuss possible explanations for the increase in CRC in young adults including obesity and other recognized CRC risk factors, delay in diagnosis of symptomatic patients (<50 years of age), and review perspectives on the current and future status of the field.Expert opinion: Currently there are little data regarding risk factors for CRC in average risk young adults who are asymptomatic. With potential endorsement of screening at 45 years of age by US Preventive Services Task Force, more data regarding clinical and molecular risk factors associated with CRC in young adults will be available.

Colonoscopy Outcomes in Average-Risk Screening Equivalent Young Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Data are needed to further inform the American Cancer Society recommendation to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45. We used the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to compare the prevalence of advanced neoplasia (AN) in an "average-risk screening equivalent" group aged 45-49 years with patients aged 50-54 years and older receiving screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Colonoscopies in adults older than 50 years of age usually have diagnostic indications of varying clinical significance. We combined patients older than 50 years with diagnostic indications (abdominal pain and constipation) expected to yield AN prevalence similar to screening low AN risk and those with a screening indication to form an "average-risk screening equivalent" group. We excluded high-risk indications (e.g., bleeding and anemia), surveillance examinations, and patients with a first-degree family history of CRC, incomplete examinations, and poor bowel preparation. We calculated prevalence/adjusted risks for AN (≥1 cm, villous, high-grade dysplasia, and CRC) and clinically significant serrated polyps (large [≥1 cm] hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenomas, and proximal hyperplastic polyp ≥ 5 mm). RESULTS: In our sample (n = 40,812), AN prevalence was as follows: <40 years (1.1%), 40-44 years (3.0%), 45-49 years (3.7%), 50-54 years (3.6%), 55-59 years (5.1%), and 60+ years (6.7%) (P < 0.0001 across all groups). The prevalence of both AN and clinically significant serrated polyp was similar in the 45-49 and 50-54 years' age groups. Furthermore, the prevalence of AN increased significantly in the 40-44 group as compared to that in the <40 years group. Adjusted analyses confirmed these results. The diagnostic indications considered to have low risk were not predictive of AN. DISCUSSION: New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data, demonstrating an increase in AN risk starting at age 40 and a similar prevalence for individuals aged 45-49 and those ages 50-54, provide clinically useful evidence for optimization of prevention and the age to start screening. However, this is a complex issue involving additional considerations that will need to be addressed.

Proven Strategies for Increasing Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented or detected early through screening and surveillance, barriers that lower adherence to screening significantly limit its effectiveness. Therefore, implementation of interventions that address and overcome adherence barriers is critical to efforts to decrease morbidity and mortality from CRC. This article reviews the current available evidence about interventions to increase adherence to CRC screening.