Colonoscopy outreach increased CRC screening more than FIT outreach; both were better than usual care
R. Fletcher
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2017-167-12-065
IF: 39.2
2017-12-19
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:Question How do outreach for colonoscopy, outreach for fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and usual care compare for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion rates within 3 years? Methods Design Randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01710215. Allocation Concealed.* Blinding Blinded* (participants, {health care providers, data collectors, and outcome assessors}). Follow-up period 3 years. Setting Safety-net Health System, Dallas County, Texas, USA. Patients 5999 adults, 50 to 64 years of age (median 56 y, 62% women) who were enrolled in a sliding fee scale program, had 1 primary care visit in the previous year, and were not up to date with CRC screening. Exclusion criteria included colonoscopy within 10 years; sigmoidoscopy within 5 years; FIT within 1 year; or history of colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, polyps, or colectomy. Intervention Colonoscopy outreach comprising a mailed invitation, 2 attempts to reach participants by telephone, notification that co-payment may be required, open-access scheduling, free mailed bowel-prep kits and instructions, and preprocedural calls at 10 and 2 days before colonoscopy (n =2400); FIT outreach comprising an invitation and a 1-sample home kit mailed annually, postage-paid return envelope, 2 attempts to reach participants by telephone, and referral for colonoscopy in the case of abnormal results (n =2400); or usual care with screening recommended at clinic visits (n =1199). Mailed invitations were in English and Spanish and included information on CRC risk. Outcomes Primary outcome was completion of the screening process within 3 years (see Table footnote for definition). Secondary outcomes included adenoma and advanced neoplasia. Patient follow-up 81% who had 1 subsequent visit to the health system at 3 years (intention-to-treat analysis). Main results Both colonoscopy and FIT outreach increased completion of the screening process compared with usual care (Table). Detection rates for adenoma and advanced neoplasia were greater with colonoscopy outreach than with FIT outreach or usual care; FIT outreach did not differ from usual care. Conclusions In adults eligible for colorectal cancer screening, outreach for colonoscopy increased screening completion rate more than outreach for FIT; both increased completion rates more than usual care. Outreach for colonoscopy increased detection of adenomas and advanced neoplasia. Colonoscopy outreach vs fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening Outcome Event rates At 3 y Colonoscopy FIT Usual Care RBI (95% CI) NNS (CI) Completion 38% 28% 37% (27 to 49) 10 (8 to 13) 38% 11% 260% (204 to 328) 4 (4 to 4) 28% 11% 162% (120 to 213) 6 (6 to 7) NNS = number needed to screen; other abbreviations defined in Glossary. RBI, NNS, and CI calculated from event rates in article. Colonoscopy completed and no cancer detected; cancer detected by colonoscopy and treatment evaluation within 2 mo; normal FIT annually for 3 y; abnormal FIT with colonoscopy within 6 mo and cancer not detected; or abnormal FIT with cancer detected by colonoscopy and treatment evaluation within 2 mo. Commentary Efforts to increase CRC screening are often considered successful once patients have completed a test. But the benefits of screening depend on completion of a series of actionsscreening, periodic rescreening, follow-up of positive screening results with diagnostic colonoscopy, and removal of adenomas and cancers found. These steps, from beginning to end, must be completed for the patient to benefit from having begun screening. Singal and colleagues evaluated outreach interventions intended to achieve completion of this chain of actions for 2 commonly used testscolonoscopy and FIT. Other studies of outreach generally consider a single test or step in the screening process (1). Although screening rates in the first year were lower for colonoscopy than FIT, completion of the screening process over 3 years was higher for colonoscopy due to a reduction over time in the completion of all aspects of FIT screening. Of patients offered FIT, 70% were screened in the first year, most with FIT, but only 31% who had negative results completed 3 FITs in 3 years. These results make sense because it is easier to keep up to date with colonoscopy over time, since 1 test simultaneously achieves screening and diagnosis and is good for 10 years, whereas FIT must be done yearly, with additional testing if results are positive. FIT completion rates were low at each step: Only 33% of patients with positive results on screening FIT had colonoscopy. Even in highly regarded integrated systems, follow-up of positive FIT results needs improvement (2). When screening tests are being chosen, perhaps the feasibility of achieving all downstream actions related to screening, in addition to sensitivity, false-positive rates, safety, and cost, should be considered. This would add another reason to choose colonoscopy, despite its up-front cost, small risk, and 1-time inconvenience. However, this may not be possible in all health systems or all patients with such barriers as limited endoscopic capacity, transportation, or co-payments. Those who choose to screen with FIT should pay as much attention to finishing the sequence as they do to starting it.