Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need. METHODS: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed. RESULTS: If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Overview of the CDC Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study: an educational intervention of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The recommended screening interval when using the Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) test (co-testing) is 5 years. However because providers are reluctant to extend the screening interval, we launched a study to identify barriers to appropriate use of the co-test and to implement an educational intervention to promote evidence-based screening practices. This article provides an overview of the study including the multi-component intervention and participant demographics. METHODS: The study was conducted in 15 clinics associated with 6 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Illinois. Each clinic received HPV tests to administer with routine Pap tests among enrolled patients (n=2,246) and was assigned to a study arm: intervention arm (n=7) received a multi-component educational intervention (small media, academic detailing, and website) for providers and printed educational materials for patients, and control arm (n=8) received printed copies of general guidelines. Clinic coordinators (n=15), providers (n=98), and patients (n=984) completed baseline surveys to assess screening practices. RESULTS: Providers reported an average age of 41.3 years and were predominately female, non-Hispanic, and white. Patients reported an average age of 45.0 years and nearly two-thirds were Hispanic or black. Of the 2,246 patients, 89% had a normal co-test. Lessons learned from the study included the importance of buy-in at a high level in the organization, a champion provider, and a clinical coordinator devoted to the study. CONCLUSION: Materials from this study can be adapted to educate providers and patients on appropriate use of the co-test and encourage extended screening intervals as a safe and effective practice.

Patient knowledge and beliefs as barriers to extending cervical cancer screening intervals in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Despite guidelines recommending cervical cancer screening intervals be extended beyond one year, clinical practice has been slow to change. Patient preferences are a potential barrier. In the Centers for Disease Control's Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) across Illinois, we surveyed patients about screening practices, and assessed beliefs regarding lengthening screening intervals. METHOD: We analyzed data from 984 low income women in the Cx3 Study (2009-2011). Participants completed a survey assessing health history, knowledge about Pap testing, beliefs and intentions about extending screening intervals, and demographics. RESULTS: The majority reported annual Pap testing (61%), while only 24% reported a 2-3 year screening interval (recommendation at time of survey). Misunderstandings about the Pap test were prevalent, with over half believing it screened for vaginal, yeast, and sexually transmitted infections (58%-72%). Unfavorable beliefs about extending screening intervals were common. The majority (57%) indicated that they would not wait 3 years to be screened if their physician recommended it, and intentions were associated with knowledge about Pap testing. CONCLUSION: Most women reported annual cervical cancer screening, and intended to resist longer screening intervals. Patients' lack of knowledge and unfavorable beliefs may serve as barriers to extending screening intervals.

Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Information about colonoscopy complications, particularly postpolypectomy bleeding, is limited. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude and severity of colonoscopy complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. PATIENTS: 16, 318 members 40 years of age or older undergoing colonoscopy between January 1994 and July 2002. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic records reviewed for serious complications, including hospital admission within 30 days of colonoscopy for colonic perforation, colonic bleeding, diverticulitis, the postpolypectomy syndrome, or other serious illnesses directly related to colonoscopy. RESULTS: 82 serious complications occurred (5.0 per 1000 colonoscopies [95% CI, 4.0 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies]). Serious complications occurred in 0.8 per 1000 colonoscopies without biopsy or polypectomy and in 7.0 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy or polypectomy. Perforations occurred in 0.9 per 1000 colonoscopies (CI, 0.5 to 1.5 per 1000 colonoscopies) (0.6 per 1000 without biopsy or polypectomy and 1.1 per 1000 with biopsy or polypectomy). Postbiopsy or postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 4.8 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy (CI, 3.6 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies). Biopsy or polypectomy was associated with an increased risk for any serious complication (rate ratio, 9.2 [CI, 2.9 to 29.0] vs. colonoscopy without biopsy). Ten deaths (1 attributable to colonoscopy) occurred within 30 days of the colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: 99.3% (16 204) of colonoscopies were nonscreening examinations. The rate of complications may be lower in a primary screening sample. The small number of observed adverse events limited power to detect risk factors for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with biopsy or polypectomy is associated with increased risk for complications. Perforation may also occur during colonoscopies without biopsies.

Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening rates for colorectal cancer remain low compared with screening rates for other cancers. The size of the unscreened population and the capacity to provide widespread screening are unknown. We estimated the number of average-risk persons aged 50 years or older not screened for colorectal cancer, the number of procedures required for this population, and the endoscopic capacity to satisfy this unmet need. METHODS: Using data from the US Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health Interview Survey, we designed a forecasting model to estimate the number of persons in the United States currently not screened for colorectal cancer and the number of examinations needed to screen these persons. Test need was compared with available capacity, based on results from the national Survey of Endoscopic Capacity, assuming different proportions of available capacity were used for colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Approximately 41.8 million average-risk people aged 50 years or older have not been screened for colorectal cancer according to national guidelines. Sufficient capacity exists to screen the unscreened population within 1 year using fecal occult blood testing followed by diagnostic colonoscopy for positive tests. Depending on the proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening, it could take up to 10 years to screen the unscreened population using flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The capacity exists for widespread screening with fecal occult blood testing. The capacity for screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy depends on the proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening.

How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Estimates of the current number of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up examinations being performed are limited. A national study was therefore conducted among US physician practices. METHODS: Approximately 1800 medical practices were surveyed from a list of all practices known to have purchased or leased lower endoscopic equipment between 1996 and 2000. Questions were asked regarding the current number of lower endoscopic procedures performed and the potential maximum number that could be performed. RESULTS: In 2002, a total of 8207 practices reported performing flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the United States. Gastroenterologists performed 43.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.2-50.2) of all sigmoidoscopies and 82.5% (95% CI, 80.3-84.7) of all colonoscopies. Primary care physicians performed 24.9% (95% CI, 20.3-29.5) of all sigmoidoscopies and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4-2.6) of all colonoscopies. All physicians combined performed approximately 2.8 million (95% CI, 2.4-3.1) flexible sigmoidoscopies and 14.2 million (95% CI, 12.1-16.4) colonoscopies but reported that they could increase to approximately 9.5 million flexible sigmoidoscopies (95% CI, 8.4-10.5) and 22.4 million colonoscopies (95% CI, 20.1-24.8) in 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2.8 million flexible sigmoidoscopies and 14.2 million colonoscopies were estimated to have been performed in 2002. Physicians reported that they could perform an additional 6.7 million flexible sigmoidoscopies and 8.2 million colonoscopies in 1 year. These additional procedures could be used for the unscreened population and should be considered in the estimate of the national capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to all eligible persons in the United States.

Cost effectiveness of ACE inhibitor treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend treating patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus with ACE inhibitors after the onset of microalbuminuria. Recent clinical trials have shown ACE inhibitors can affect the development of nephropathy when initiated prior to the onset of microalbuminuria. Our objective is to examine the cost effectiveness of treating adults aged over 20 years with an ACE inhibitor (captopril) immediately following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes versus treating them after the onset of microalbuminuria. DESIGN: Using a semi-Markov model, we calculated four main outcome measures: lifetime direct medical costs (discounted), QALYs, cumulative incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and number of days of ESRD over a lifetime. Medical costs are in 1999 US dollars. SETTING: All analyses were from the viewpoint of a single US payer responsible for all direct medical costs, including screening for microalbuminuria, ACE inhibitor treatment (captopril), management of major diabetic complications, and routine annual medical costs not specific to diabetes. METHODS: We applied the model to a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 persons newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Distribution of sex and race/ethnicity within the cohort is representative of the general US population. RESULTS: We estimated that the incremental cost of early use of captopril for the average adult with type 1 diabetes is USD 27,143 per QALY. This level varies considerably with age and glycaemic level. When the age at onset of diabetes is 20 years and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) level is 9%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is USD 13,814 per QALY. When the age at onset is 25 years and HbA(1c) level is 7%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is USD 39,530 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This model, with its underlying assumptions and data, suggests that early treatment with captopril provides modest benefit at reasonable cost effectiveness, from the US single-payer perspective, in the prevention of ESRD compared with delaying treatment until diagnosis of microalbuminuria. Early treatment with other ACE inhibitors will provide similar cost effectiveness if they have equivalent efficacy, compliance and price per dose. Treatment may be considered among patients at age 20 years with new onset of type 1 diabetes. This conclusion is sensitive to the extent that ACE inhibitors delay onset of microalbuminuria. Other factors such as the patient's age and glycaemic level must be considered when deciding to initiate early treatment.