Deborah Fisher

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (CRCS) facilitates early detection and lowers CRC mortality. OBJECTIVES: To increase CRCS in a randomized trial of stepped interventions. Step 1 compared three modes of delivery of theory-informed minimal cue interventions. Step 2 was designed to more intensively engage those not completing CRCS after Step 1. METHODS: Recruitment packets (60,332) were mailed to a random sample of individuals with a record of U.S. military service during the Vietnam-era. Respondents not up-to-date with CRCS were randomized to one of four Step 1 groups: automated telephone, telephone, letter, or survey-only control. Those not completing screening after Step 1 were randomized to one of three Step 2 groups: automated motivational interviewing (MI) call, counselor-delivered MI call, or Step 2 control. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses assessed CRCS on follow-up surveys mailed after each step. RESULTS: After Step 1 (n = 1784), CRCS was higher in the letter, telephone, and automated telephone groups (by 1%, 5%, 7%) than in survey-only controls (43%), although differences were not statistically significant. After Step 2 (n = 516), there were nonsignificant increases in CRCS in the two intervention groups compared with the controls. CRCS following any combination of stepped interventions overall was 7% higher (P = 0.024) than in survey-only controls (55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide study of Veterans, CRCS after each of two stepped interventions of varying modes of delivery did not differ significantly from that in controls. However, combined overall, the sequence of stepped interventions significantly increased CRCS.

AIMS: While most guidelines still recommend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiation at age 50 years in average-risk individuals, guideline-creating bodies are starting to lower the recommended age of initiation to 45 years to mitigate the trend of increasing CRC rates in younger populations. Using CRC-AIM, we modeled the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age, incorporating theoretical and reported adherence rates, for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening.Methods and Materials: Screening strategies were simulated for individuals without CRC at age 40 and screened from ages 50-75 or 45-75 years. Outcomes included CRC incidence, CRC mortality, and life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals screened (compared with no screening). Models used theoretically perfect (100%) and previously reported (71% mt-sDNA; 43% FIT) adherence rates. RESULTS: With perfect adherence, mt-sDNA and FIT resulted in 22.2 and 23.4 more predicted LYG, respectively, with screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years; reported adherence resulted in 23.9 and 24.4 more LYG, respectively.With perfect adherence, screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years resulted in 26.1 and 28.6 CRC cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 22.8 and 25.5 cases with FIT; with reported real-world adherence there were 28.5 and 31.2 cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 37.1 and 40.2 cases with FIT. Similar patterns were observed for CRC deaths.With screening initiation at age 45 and reported adherence, mt-sDNA averted 8.6 more CRC cases and 3.3 more deaths per 1000 individuals than FIT. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated CRC screening outcomes improved by lowering the initiation age from 50 to 45 years. Incorporating reported adherence rates yields greater benefits from triennial mt-sDNA versus annual FIT screening.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a poor 5-year survival and carries significant morbidity. Pain is a commonly studied symptom in pancreatic cancer; however, few studies examine the frequency of multiple patient-reported symptoms. Our aim is to ascertain patient-reported symptom burden at initial consultation with a palliative care provider and compare patient prognostic awareness to provider estimation of prognosis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the standardized Quality Data Collection Tool (QDACT). Adults with pancreatic cancer seen by a palliative care provider were included. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic features, symptom prevalence and burden, as well as assess patient prognosis awareness defined by congruence or incongruence with provider estimated prognosis. RESULTS: 285 patients were included in our analysis. The average age was 68 years (SD: 12.4), 87.2% were white, 50% male. The mean number of moderate/severe symptoms was 2.6 (SD: 2) out of 9 symptoms. Tiredness (66.7%), appetite (64.5%) and pain (46.2%) had the highest rates of moderate/severe symptom burden. Patients with a prognosis of 1-6 months had the lowest proportion of congruence with provider estimation (56.5%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests targets to improve patient-centered care of pancreatic cancer. Patients commonly have multiple symptoms that are moderate/severe at time of palliative care referral. While pain has been well-reported, tiredness and decreased appetite are more prevalent at initial visit. This emphasizes the importance of assessing multiple symptoms and working closely with palliative care for early referral. Overall, one third of patient prognosis estimates differed from the provider assessment of prognosis. Our data support the importance of early referral to palliative care to manage symptoms and better prepare patients for end-of-life care.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data for patients with positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening stool-tests demonstrate that adenoma detection rates are lower when endoscopists are blinded to the stool-test results. This suggests adenoma sensitivity may be lower for screening colonoscopy than for follow-up to a known positive stool-based test. Previous CRC microsimulation models assume identical sensitivities between screening and follow-up colonoscopies after positive stool-tests. The Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) was used to explore the impact on screening outcomes when assuming different adenoma sensitivity between screening and combined follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies. METHODS: Modeled screening strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from 50 to 75 years. Outcomes were reported per 1000 individuals without diagnosed CRC at age 40. Base-case adenoma sensitivity values were identical for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies. Ranges of adenoma sensitivity values for colonoscopy performance were developed using different slopes of odds ratio adjustments and were designated as small, medium, or large impact scenarios. RESULTS: As the differences in adenoma sensitivity for screening versus follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies became greater, life-years gained (LYG) and reductions in CRC-related incidence and mortality versus no screening increased for mt-sDNA and FIT and decreased for screening colonoscopy. The LYG relative to screening colonoscopy reached >90% with FIT in the base-case scenario and with mt-sDNA in a "medium impact" scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming identical adenoma sensitivities for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies underestimate the potential benefits of stool-based screening strategies.