Up-to-Date Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Use in the United States, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: We examined national estimates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use and compared them with Healthy People 2030 national targets. Test use in 2021 was compared with prepandemic estimates. METHODS: In 2022, we used 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to estimate proportions of adults up to date with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast (women aged 50-74 y), cervical (women aged 21-65 y), and CRC screening (adults aged 50-75 y) across sociodemographic and health care access variables. We compared age-standardized estimates from the 2021 and 2019 NHIS. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date in 2021 were 75.7% (95% CI, 74.4%-76.9%), 75.2% (95% CI, 73.9%-76.4%), and 72.2% (95% CI, 71.2%-73.2%) for breast, cervical, and CRC screening, respectively. Estimates were below 50% among those without a wellness check in 3 years (all screening types), among those without a usual source of care or insurance (aged <65 y) (breast and CRC screening), and among those residing in the US for less than 10 years (CRC screening). Percentages of adults who were up to date with breast and cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy were similar in 2019 and 2021. Fecal occult blood/fecal immunochemical test (FOBT/FIT) use was modestly higher in 2021 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In 2021, approximately 1 in 4 adults of screening age were not up to date with breast, cervical, and CRC screening recommendations, and Healthy People 2030 national targets were not met. Disparities existed across several characteristics, particularly those related to health care access. Breast, cervical, and colonoscopy test use within recommended screening intervals approximated prepandemic levels. FOBT/FIT estimates were modestly higher in 2021.

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test use in the US territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among eligible adults, but information on screening use in the US territories is limited. METHODS: To estimate the proportion of adults up-to-date with breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on USPSTF recommendations, we analyzed Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2016, 2018, and 2020 for the 50 US states and DC (US) and US territories of Guam and Puerto Rico and from 2016 for the US Virgin Islands. Age-standardized weighted proportions for up-to-date cancer screening were examined overall and by select characteristics for each jurisdiction. RESULTS: Overall, 67.2% (95% CI: 60.6-73.3) of women aged 50-74 years in the US Virgin Islands, 74.8% (70.9-78.3) in Guam, 83.4% (81.7-84.9) in Puerto Rico, and 78.3% (77.9-78.6) in the US were up-to-date with breast cancer screening. For cervical cancer screening, 71.1% (67.6-74.3) of women aged 21-65 years in Guam, 81.3% (74.6-86.5) in the US Virgin Islands, 83.0% (81.7-84.3) in Puerto Rico, and 84.5% (84.3-84.8) in the US were up-to-date. For colorectal cancer screening, 45.2% (40.0-50.5) of adults aged 50-75 years in the US Virgin Islands, 47.3% (43.6-51.0) in Guam, 61.2% (59.5-62.8) in Puerto Rico, and 69.0% (68.7-69.3) in the US were up-to-date. Adults without health care coverage reported low test use for all three cancers in all jurisdictions. In most jurisdictions, test use was lower among adults with less than a high school degree and an annual household income of < $25,000. CONCLUSION: Cancer screening test use varied between the US territories, highlighting the importance of understanding and addressing territory-specific barriers. Test use was lower among groups without health care coverage and with lower income and education levels, suggesting the need for targeted evidence-based interventions.

Cancer Screening Test Use-U.S., 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce mortality from these cancers, but screening use has been below national targets. The purpose of this study is to examine the proportion of screening-eligible adults who are up to date with these screenings and how screening use compares with Healthy People 2020 targets. METHODS: Data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were used to examine the percentages of adults up to date with breast cancer screening among women aged 50‒74 years without previous breast cancer, cervical cancer screening among women aged 21‒65 years without previous cervical cancer or hysterectomy, and colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50‒75 years without previous colorectal cancer. Estimates are presented by sociodemographic characteristics and healthcare access factors. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date were 76.2% (95% CI= 75.0, 77.5) for breast cancer screening, 76.4% (95% CI= 75.2, 77.6) for cervical cancer screening, and 68.3% (95% CI= 67.3, 69.3) for colorectal cancer screening. Although some population subgroups met breast and colorectal cancer screening targets (81.1% and 70.5%, respectively), many did not, and cervical cancer screening was below the target for all examined subgroups. Lower education and income, nonmetropolitan county of residence (which included rural counties), no usual source of care or health insurance coverage, and Medicaid coverage were associated with lower screening test use. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests based on the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were below national targets. Continued monitoring may allow for examination of screening trends, inform interventions, and track progress in eliminating disparities.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). METHODS: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. RESULTS: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. LAY SUMMARY: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018.

Screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality from these cancers.* However, screening test receipt has been below national targets with disparities observed in certain populations (1,2). National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2018 were analyzed to estimate percentages of adults up to date with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendations. Screening test receipt remained below national Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) targets, although CRC test receipt neared the target. Disparities were evident, with particularly low test receipt among persons who were uninsured or did not have usual sources of care. Continued monitoring helps assess progress toward targets and could inform efforts to promote screening and reduce barriers for underserved populations.

What's the "secret sauce"? How implementation variation affects the success of colorectal cancer screening outreach.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems vary how they implement (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT), and participating health systems could adapt the program. This multi-method study explored which program adaptations might have resulted in higher screening rates. METHODS: First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we generated an overall model by fitting a weighted regression line to our data. Third, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine how combinations of conditions were linked to higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates. RESULTS: Seventeen health systems took part in at least 1 year of BeneFIT. The overall screening completion rate was 20% (4-28%) in year 1 and 25% (12-35%) in year 2 of the program. Health systems that used two or more adaptations had higher screening rates, and no single adaptation clearly led to higher screening rates. In year 1, small systems, with just one clinic, that used phone reminders (n = 2) met the implementation success threshold (≥ 19% screening rate) while systems with > 1 clinic were successful when offering a patient incentive (n = 4), scrubbing mailing lists (n = 4), or allowing mailed FIT returns with no other adaptations (n = 1). In year 2, larger systems with 2-4 clinics were successful with a phone reminder (n = 4) or a patient incentive (n = 3). Of the 10 systems that implemented BeneFIT in both years, seven improved their CRC screening rates in year 2. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can choose among many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan's mailed FIT program. Different combinations of adaptations led to success with health system size emerging as an important contextual factor.

Advanced Notification Calls Prior to Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test in Previously Screened Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Phone calls as part of multimodal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach are effective but resource-intensive. Previous studies of advanced notification calls before FIT mailing have not differentiated patients' prior screening status. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a phone call preceding mailing of a FIT kit on test completion rate for patients who have completed a prior FIT. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial nested within a larger study. All patients were assigned to receive organized mailed FIT outreach in the larger study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in a safety-net health setting ages 50-75 years old with a previously negative FIT. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either receive an advanced notification phone call or no phone call preceding a mailed FIT kit. Both groups received an informational postcard prior to the mailed FIT. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was FIT completion rate at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were FIT completion rates at 60, 90, and 180 days, rates stratified by demographic subgroups, and rates according to outcome of the phone call. KEY RESULTS: A total of 1645 patients were assigned to advanced notification calls and 1595 were assigned to no call preceding the FIT mailing. Although FIT completion rate was higher at day 60 (55.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.01), an advanced notification call did not significantly improve FIT completion at 1 year (70.9% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.52). Of the patients assigned to receive an advanced notification call, 90.5% were spoken with or left a voicemail; patients who were spoken with were more likely to complete a FIT at 1 year compared with patients who were only left a voicemail or could not be left a voicemail (79.9% vs. 69.2% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced notification phone calls prior to FIT mailing did not improve rates at 1 year for patients with a previously negative FIT.

Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care. METHODS: Patients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care. CONCLUSION: Population-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.

Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: National guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies. METHODS: The analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent. RESULTS: Of all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate ≥20%. CONCLUSIONS: In 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.

Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach. METHODS: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter. RESULTS: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.

INTRODUCTION: Screening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015. METHODS: We collected data from the program's 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists' recommendations for the next test. RESULTS: Overall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%-97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%-99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%-84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%-56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%-47.2%) in less than 3 years. CONCLUSION: Although overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.

Evaluating the Use of LAST 2-Tiered Nomenclature and Its Impact on Reporting Cervical Lesions in a Population-Based Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, the Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) Project recommended a 2-tiered nomenclature, low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL and HSIL), to replace the 3-tiered cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) system for HPV-associated lesions. Prior to 2019, preinvasive cervical lesions classified as CIN3, severe dysplasia, carcinoma in situ (CIS), and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) were considered reportable to the Louisiana Tumor Registry for a CIN3 project funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); but lesions classified exclusively as high-grade/HSIL based on the 2-tiered system were not considered reportable. Due to the terminology changes, we wanted to know whether pre-2019 reportable criteria need to be modified to capture all reportable precancerous cervical cases diagnosed in 2019 forward. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilization of LAST 2-tiered classification, low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing on cervical biopsy/surgical specimens, assess the search criteria needed to identify high-grade lesions for the CDC-funded CIN3 project, and assess the impact of underreporting cervical lesions caused by terminology changes. METHODS: An equal number of abnormal/precancerous and normal cervical findings from biopsy pathology reports received in 2015 were randomly selected by an artificial intelligence (AI) search engine developed by Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Inc (AIM) using pre2019 search criteria. Selected pathology reports were reflagged for the reportability by AIM audit software based on 2019 search criteria and manually reviewed for the use of reportable terms including CIN3, severe dysplasia, CIS, AIS, highgrade/HSIL terminology, and CIN2 or CIN2-3 with positive p16 IHC testing. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to assess the agreement between AIM auto-coding and manual review. Positive predictive values (PPV) and sensitivity tests were computed to evaluate the reportable terms. RESULTS: Six out of 9 surveyed laboratories used 2-tiered terminology on cervical biopsy pathology reports and 7 performed p16 IHC tests. Of 1,974 randomly selected reports from 5 laboratories, 987 were flagged as precancer by AI using pre-2019 search criteria. After adding the high-grade/HSIL term into pre-2019 search criteria, precancerous reports increased by 29%. After manual review, 41.6% of these cases were reportable precancerous cervical cases with a PPV of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.62-0.67) and 13.6% had p16 IHC performed. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 2-tiered and 3-tiered nomenclature are needed to ensure complete identification of all reportable high-grade cervical lesions.

Low Literacy Level Instructions and Reminder Calls Improve Patient Handling of Fecal Immunochemical Test Samples.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an alternative to colonoscopy and can increase overall screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, little is known about the frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples. METHODS: We performed a prospective study, nested within a randomized controlled trial of patients, recruited from December 2015 through August 2017, who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening (50-75 years old). The patients were randomly assigned to usual care or outreach groups that received a mailed FIT with low literacy level instructions or a reminder call, or both. We examined frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples, including absence of collection date; time from collection to laboratory receipt of more than 14 days; or mishandling of stool, buffer, or cap. The outcomes were the frequency of mishandled FIT samples, effects of outreach on mishandling, and positive results from the FIT among proper and mishandled samples. RESULTS: FIT samples were returned from 1871 patients assigned to usual care and 3045 who received the low literacy level instructions and a reminder call. In total, 19.8% of samples were mishandled; most of these (93.7%) had not labeled the date of stool collection but were still processed. Of the received samples, 1.2% of were not processed because the time from patient collection to laboratory receipt was more than 14 days. Outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples (16.5% vs 25.0% for usual care; P < .0001). The proportion of mishandled samples was lowest among patients who received the low literacy level instruction and a reminder call (12.8%, P < .0001). There was no significant difference in proportions of positive results between properly processed samples (7.5%) and improperly processed samples (6.2%) (P = .14). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening, we found that almost 20% of FIT samples were mishandled, with most patients missing the stool collection date. Patient outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples, but there was no difference in proportions of positive results between properly and improperly handled samples. Our findings indicate that routine processing of undated FIT samples is associated with similar rates of positive results. There are limited data on test characteristics for FIT samples beyond the 14 days of stool acquisition. The inclusion of low literacy level instructions with reminder calls was associated with improved patient handling of the FIT sample. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT02613260.

A taxonomic signature of obesity in a large study of American adults.

Animal models suggest that gut microbiota contribute to obesity; however, a consistent taxonomic signature of obesity has yet to be identified in humans. We examined whether a taxonomic signature of obesity is present across two independent study populations. We assessed gut microbiome from stool for 599 adults, by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We compared gut microbiome diversity, overall composition, and individual taxon abundance for obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), overweight (25 ≤ BMI < 30), and healthy-weight participants (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25). We found that gut species richness was reduced (p = 0.04), and overall composition altered (p = 0.04), in obese (but not overweight) compared to healthy-weight participants. Obesity was characterized by increased abundance of class Bacilli and its families Streptococcaceae and Lactobacillaceae, and decreased abundance of several groups within class Clostridia, including Christensenellaceae, Clostridiaceae, and Dehalobacteriaceae (q < 0.05). These findings were consistent across two independent study populations. When random forest models were trained on one population and tested on the other as well as a previously published dataset, accuracy of obesity prediction was good (~70%). Our large study identified a strong and consistent taxonomic signature of obesity. Though our study is cross-sectional and causality cannot be determined, identification of microbes associated with obesity can potentially provide targets for obesity prevention and treatment.

Colorectal cancer screening in the United States: Trends from 2008 to 2015 and variation by health insurance coverage.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64 years and 65-75 years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p < 0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p < 0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64 years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p < 0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVES: Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.

The gut microbiota in conventional and serrated precursors of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease arising from at least two precursors-the conventional adenoma (CA) and the serrated polyp. We and others have previously shown a relationship between the human gut microbiota and colorectal cancer; however, its relationship to the different early precursors of colorectal cancer is understudied. We tested, for the first time, the relationship of the gut microbiota to specific colorectal polyp types. RESULTS: Gut microbiota were assessed in 540 colonoscopy-screened adults by 16S rRNA gene sequencing of stool samples. Participants were categorized as CA cases (n = 144), serrated polyp cases (n = 73), or polyp-free controls (n = 323). CA cases were further classified as proximal (n = 87) or distal (n = 55) and as non-advanced (n = 121) or advanced (n = 22). Serrated polyp cases were further classified as hyperplastic polyp (HP; n = 40) or sessile serrated adenoma (SSA; n = 33). We compared gut microbiota diversity, overall composition, and normalized taxon abundance among these groups. CA cases had lower species richness in stool than controls (p = 0.03); in particular, this association was strongest for advanced CA cases (p = 0.004). In relation to overall microbiota composition, only distal or advanced CA cases differed significantly from controls (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002). In taxon-based analysis, stool of CA cases was depleted in a network of Clostridia operational taxonomic units from families Ruminococcaceae, Clostridiaceae, and Lachnospiraceae, and enriched in the classes Bacilli and Gammaproteobacteria, order Enterobacteriales, and genera Actinomyces and Streptococcus (all q < 0.10). SSA and HP cases did not differ in diversity or composition from controls, though sample size for these groups was small. Few taxa were differentially abundant between HP cases or SSA cases and controls; among them, class Erysipelotrichi was depleted in SSA cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that gut microbes may play a role in the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis through the development of CAs. Findings may have implications for developing colorectal cancer prevention therapies targeting early microbial drivers of colorectal carcinogenesis.