Search

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) is an organization of organizations with staffing, funding and leadership provided by the American Cancer Society (ACS) and guidance and funding by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, ACS, CDC, and the NCCRT launched the 80% by 2018 campaign. This highly successful initiative activated hundreds of organizations to prioritize colorectal cancer screening, disseminated smart, evidence-based interventions, and ultimately led to 9.3 million more Americans being up to date with screening compared with the precampaign rate. It's new campaign, 80% in Every Community, is designed to address persistent screening disparities., Competing Interests: Disclosure No disclosures (R. Wender, D. Brooks). K. Sharpe – Has served as a consultant for Genentech for work not related to the topic of this article. K. Sharpe is a former director of the NCCRT. M. Doroshenk is employed by Exact Sciences Corporation that manufactures a colorectal cancer screening test that is not discussed in this article. She is a former director of the NCCRT., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Community health centers are uniquely positioned to address disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as they have addressed other disparities. In 2012, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is the funding agency for the health center program, added a requirement that health centers report CRC screening rates as a standard performance measure. These annually reported, publically available data are a major strategic opportunity to improve screening rates for CRC. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted provisions to expand the capacity of the federal health center program. The recent report of the Institute of Medicine on integrating public health and primary care included an entire section devoted to CRC screening as a target for joint work. These developments make this the ideal time to integrate lifesaving CRC screening into the preventive care already offered by health centers. This article offers 5 strategies that address the challenges health centers face in increasing CRC screening rates. The first 2 strategies focus on improving the processes of primary care. The third emphasizes working productively with other medical providers and institutions. The fourth strategy is about aligning leadership. The final strategy is focused on using tools that have been derived from models that work., (Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society, Inc.)

Background: Obesity increases the risk of many cancers including colorectal cancer (CRC)., Methods: This is secondary data analysis of the 2010 National Health Interview Survey data. A total of 9360 obese and overweight participants, aged 50 to 80 years, were analyzed according to their perception of their personal cancer risk., Results: Having a perception of increased risk for cancer was associated with higher CRC screening rates. However, when compared with their normal-weight counterparts, overweight and obese individuals did not perceive themselves as being at an increased risk for cancer in general or for CRC specifically. Subgroup analysis revealed one notable exception. Obese black women appeared to recognize themselves as being at higher risk for CRC., Conclusions: Most obese and overweight individuals fail to recognize their increased cancer risk. Individuals who perceive themselves as being at increased risk for cancer, especially CRC, are more likely to have undergone CRC screening. Unfortunately, obese and overweight individuals do not seem to recognize the increased cancer risk conferred by their body weight. Education is needed so that obese and overweight individuals are aware that their excess body weight is a risk factor for cancer.

Objective: This paper reports on factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision stage (SDS) in screening-eligible primary care patients., Methods: Baseline telephone survey data (i.e., sociodemographic background, CRC screening perceptions, and SDS) were obtained for 1515 patients in a randomized behavioral intervention trial. Respondents reported SDS, a measure of proximity to actual screening, after listening to descriptions of screening stool blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy as had never heard of (NHO), were not considering or were undecided (NCU), or decided to do (DTD) each test. Polychotomous regression analyses were performed to differentiate participants by SDS., Results: At baseline, SDS was distributed as follows: NHO (8%), NCU (41%), and DTD (51%). We found that individuals who had DTD compared to those who were NCU about screening were older (OR=0.64), had prior cancer screening (OR=1.43), believed screening is important (OR=3.44), and had high social support (OR=2.49). Persons who were NCU compared to NHO participants were female (OR=2.18), were white (OR=2.35), had prior cancer screening (OR=2.81), and believed screening is important (OR=2.44)., Conclusions: Prior screening and belief in screening importance were found to be consistently associated with SDS across comparisons, while older age, gender, race, and social support were not., (Copyright © 2010 The Institute For Cancer Prevention. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has increased substantially in recent years. Media messages and changes in insurance reimbursement, as well as new screening guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the US Preventive Services Task Force, have contributed to this increase. Primary care providers (PCPs) are frequently responsible for making the recommendation and referral for screening. The process of successfully referring a patient for screening colonoscopy can be cumbersome and requires a coordinated effort between the PCP and the endoscopist. In recognition of the potential complexity of this process, the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable has issued a report to describe the components of a quality screening colonoscopy referral system in primary care practice. The elements of a quality program include an optimal scheduling and referral system, the appropriate patient preparation information, consistent reporting and follow-up systems, and a detailed approach to dealing with special situations.

This article describes a joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer delineating evidence-based surveillance recommendations for patients after polypectomy and colorectal cancer resection. Although there are some qualifying conditions, the following general guidelines apply: after colonoscopic polypectomy, patients with hyperplastic polyps should be considered to have normal colonoscopies, and subsequent colonoscopy is recommended at 10 years. Patients with one or two small (less than 1 cm) tubular adenomas, including those with only low-grade dysplasia, should have their next colonoscopy in five to 10 years. Patients with three to 10 adenomas, any adenoma 1 cm or larger, or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia should have their next colonoscopy in three years. Following curative resection of colorectal cancer, patients should undergo a colonoscopy at one year, with subsequent follow-up intervals determined by the results of this examination. Adoption of these guidelines will have a dramatic impact on the quality of care provided to patients after a colorectal cancer diagnosis, will assist in shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening, and will ultimately decrease suffering and death related to colorectal cancer.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored behavioral interventions to increase CRC screening use by conducting an economic analysis associated with a randomized trial among patients in a large, racially and ethnically diverse, urban family practice in Philadelphia., Methods: The incremental costs per unit increase were measured in individuals who were screened during the 24 months after intervention. Percent increase in screening was adjusted for baseline differences in the study groups. Each intervention arm received a targeted screening invitation letter, stool blood test (SBT) cards, informational booklet, and reminder letter. Tailored interventions incrementally added tailored messages and reminder telephone calls., Results: Program costs of the targeted intervention were 42 dollars per participant. Additional costs of adding tailored print materials and of delivering a reminder telephone call were 150 dollars and 200 dollars per participant, respectively. The cost per additional individual screened was 319 dollars when comparing the no intervention group with the targeted intervention group., Conclusions: The targeted intervention was more effective and less costly than the tailored intervention. Although tailoring plus reminder telephone call was the most effective strategy, it was very costly per additional individual screened. Mailed SBT cards significantly boosted CRC screening use. However, going beyond the targeted intervention to include tailoring or tailoring plus reminder calls in the manner used in this study did not appear to be an economically attractive strategy., (Cancer 2008. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Colorectal cancer screening is underutilized. The objective of the current study was to determine whether targeted and tailored interventions can increase screening use., Methods: A total of 1546 primary care practice patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to 4 study groups: control (387 patients), Standard Intervention (SI) (387 patients), Tailored Intervention (TI) (386 patients), or Tailored Intervention plus Phone (TIP) (386 patients). The control group received usual care throughout the study. The SI group received a targeted intervention by mail (ie, screening invitation letter, informational booklet, stool blood test, and reminder letter). The TI group received the targeted intervention with tailored "message pages." The TIP group received the targeted intervention, tailored message pages, and a telephone reminder. Intervention group contacts were repeated 1 year later. Screening was assessed 24 months after randomization., Results: Screening rates in study groups were 33% in the control group, 46% in the SI group, 44% in the TI group, and 48% in the TIP group. Screening was found to be significantly higher in all 3 intervention groups compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] of 1.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.3-2.5], OR of 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2-2.1], and OR of 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6], respectively), but did not vary significantly across intervention groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that older age, education, past cancer screening, screening preference, response efficacy, social support and influence, and exposure to study interventions were positive predictors of screening. Having worries and concerns about screening was found to be a significant negative predictor., Conclusions: Targeted and tailored interventions were found to increase colorectal cancer screening use. However, additional research is needed to determine how to increase the effect of such interventions in primary care.

A recommendation from a physician is the most influential factor in determining whether a patient is screened for colorectal cancer. While the vast majority of primary care physicians report that they screen for colorectal cancer, many patients do not receive the recommendation they need. Evidence-based strategies can help the physician ensure that every appropriate patient leaves the office with the needed recommendation. Choosing an office system that can be implemented by the physician or office staff can fuel efforts to achieve higher screening rates. Reminder systems, tracking systems, communication strategies, and policies that reinforce use of evidence-based guidelines may contribute.

Background: The purpose of the current study was to provide health professionals, professional organizations, policy makers, and the general public with a practical blueprint for increasing the practice of screening for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and adenomatous polyps over the next decade. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) was founded in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide strategic leadership, advocacy, long-range planning, and coordination of interventions targeted at reducing the disease burden of CRC through education, early detection, and prevention. The NCCRT and its three workgroups include CRC survivors; recognized experts in primary care, gastroenterology, radiology, colorectal surgery, nursing, public policy, epidemiology, and behavioral science; patient advocates; and representatives of health plans and insurers, government, and other organizations., Methods: The NCCRT performed a literature review of published and unpublished data related to CRC screening guidelines, compliance, and barriers to adherence, as well as test effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Members of the three NCCRT workgroups developed summary reports regarding professional education, public education and awareness, and health policy. A drafting committee developed the final strategic plan from workgroup reports, which was reviewed by the entire NCCRT membership, amended, and subsequently approved in final form., Results and Conclusions: Although the rationale for population-wide CRC screening is well established, the majority of adults in the U.S. are not currently being screened for CRC. Thus, the nation foregoes an opportunity to reduce CRC-related mortality by an estimated >or= 50%. To increase CRC screening rates, the issues of patient and physician barriers to screening, lack of universal coverage, lack of incentives to motivate adherence, and expanded infrastructure must be addressed., (Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.)

Updates to the American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines regarding screening for the early detection of prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers, based on the recommendations of recent ACS workshops, are presented. Additionally, the authors review the "cancer-related check-up," clinical encounters that provide case-finding and health counseling opportunities. Finally, the ACS is issuing an updated narrative related to testing for early lung cancer detection for clinicians and individuals at high risk of lung cancer in light of emerging data on new imaging technologies. Although it is likely that current screening protocols will be supplanted in the future by newer, more effective technologies, the establishment of an organized and systematic approach to early cancer detection would lead to greater utilization of existing technology and greater progress in cancer control.