Search

Introduction: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data., Methods: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial., Results: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon., Discussion: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Importance: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited., Objective: To evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups., Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case's diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017., Exposures: Completing 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity., Results: From a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

Objective: In 2019, a BMJ Rapid Recommendation advised against colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults with a predicted 15-year CRC risk below 3%. Using Switzerland as a case study, we estimated the population-level impact of this recommendation., Design: We predicted the CRC risk of all respondents to the population-based Swiss Health Survey. We derived the distribution of risk-based screening start age, assuming predicted risk was calculated every 5 years between ages 25 and 70 and screening started when this risk exceeded 3%. Next, the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model evaluated biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening with this risk-based start age. As a comparison, we simulated screening initiation based on age and sex., Results: Starting screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3% meant 82% of women and 90% of men would not start screening before age 65 and 60, respectively. This would require 43%-57% fewer tests, result in 8%-16% fewer CRC deaths prevented and yield 19%-33% fewer lifeyears gained compared with screening from age 50. Screening women from age 65 and men from age 60 had a similar impact as screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3%., Conclusion: With the recommended risk prediction tool, the population impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation would be similar to screening initiation based on age and sex only. It would delay screening initiation by 10-15 years. Although halving the screening burdens, screening benefits would be reduced substantially compared with screening initiation at age 50. This suggests that the 3% risk threshold to start CRC screening might be too high., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Organized screening outreach can reduce differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between demographic subgroups. Outcomes associated with additional outreach, beyond universal outreach, are not well known., Objective: To compare CRC screening completion by race and ethnicity, age, and sex after universal automated outreach and additional personalized outreach., Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included screening-eligible individuals aged 50 to 75 years assessed during 2019 in a community-based organized CRC screening program within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) integrated health care delivery setting. For KPNC members who are not up to date with screening by colonoscopy, each year the program first uses automated outreach (mailed prescreening notification postcards and fecal immunochemical test [FIT] kits, automated telephone calls, and postcard reminders), followed by personalized components for nonresponders (telephone calls, electronic messaging, and screening offers during office visits). Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and February 2023 and completed on February 5, 2023., Exposures: Completed CRC screening via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FIT., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants completing an FIT or colonoscopy after each component of the screening process. Differences across subgroups were assessed using the χ2 test., Results: This study included 1 046 745 KPNC members. Their mean (SD) age was 61.1 (6.9) years, and more than half (53.2%) were women. A total of 0.4% of members were American Indian or Alaska Native, 18.5% were Asian, 7.2% were Black, 16.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 56.5% were White. Automated outreach significantly increased screening participation by 31.1%, 38.1%, 29.5%, 31.9%, 31.8%, and 34.5% among these groups, respectively; follow-up personalized outreach further significantly increased participation by absolute additional increases of 12.5%, 12.4%, 13.3%, 14.4%, 14.7%, and 11.2%, respectively (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Overall screening coverage at the end of the yearly program differed significantly among members who were American Indian or Alaska Native (74.1%), Asian (83.5%), Black (77.7%), Hispanic (76.4%), or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (74.4%) compared with White members (82.2%) (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Screening completion was similar by sex; older members were substantially more likely to be up to date with CRC screening both before and at the end of the screening process., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a CRC screening program, sequential automated and personalized strategies each contributed to substantial increases in screening completion in all demographic groups. These findings suggest that such programs may potentially reduce differences in CRC screening completion across demographic groups.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric., Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017., Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer., Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65])., Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Background: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals aged younger than 50 years has been increasing. As screening guidelines lower the recommended age of screening initiation, concerns including the burden on screening capacity and costs have been recognized, suggesting that an individualized approach may be warranted. We developed risk prediction models for early-onset CRC that incorporate an environmental risk score (ERS), including 16 lifestyle and environmental factors, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) of 141 variants., Methods: Relying on risk score weights for ERS and PRS derived from studies of CRC at all ages, we evaluated risks for early-onset CRC in 3486 cases and 3890 controls aged younger than 50 years. Relative and absolute risks for early-onset CRC were assessed according to values of the ERS and PRS. The discriminatory performance of these scores was estimated using the covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve., Results: Increasing values of ERS and PRS were associated with increasing relative risks for early-onset CRC (odds ratio per SD of ERS = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.20; odds ratio per SD of PRS = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.68), both contributing to case-control discrimination (area under the curve = 0.631, 95% CI = 0.615 to 0.647). Based on absolute risks, we can expect 26 excess cases per 10 000 men and 21 per 10 000 women among those scoring at the 90th percentile for both risk scores., Conclusions: Personal risk scores have the potential to identify individuals at differential relative and absolute risk for early-onset CRC. Improved discrimination may aid in targeted CRC screening of younger, high-risk individuals, potentially improving outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers ( n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background & Aims: Some guidelines recommend starting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before age 50 years for African Americans, but there are few data on screening uptake and yield in this population., Methods: We performed a prospective study of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening among African American members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan. We compared data from African American members screened when they were 45-50 years old (early screening group) in 2018 with data from previously unscreened African American, white, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander health plan members who were 51-56 years old. Screening outreach was performed with mailed FIT kits. Logistic regression models, adjusted for sex, were used to evaluate differences among groups in screening uptake, colonoscopy follow-up of abnormal test results, and test yield., Results: Among 10,232 African Americans in the early screening group who were mailed a FIT, screening was completed by 33.1%. Among the 4% with positive test results, 85.3% completed a follow-up colonoscopy: 57.8% had any adenoma, 33.6% had an advanced adenoma (adenoma with advanced histology or polyp ≥10 mm), and 2.6% were diagnosed with CRC. African Americans in the early screening group were modestly more likely to have completed screening than previously unscreened African Americans, whites, and Hispanics 51-56 years old. The groups did not differ significantly in positive results from the FIT (range, 3.8%-4.6%) and more than 74% received a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive test result. The test yields for any adenoma (range, 56.7%-70.7%), advanced adenoma (range, 20.0%-33.6%), and CRC (range, 0%-7.1%) were similar., Conclusions: Proportions of African Americans who participated in early (aged 45-50 years) FIT screening and test yield were comparable to those of previously unscreened African Americans, whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders who were 51-56 years old., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium., Methods: We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type., Results: The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively., Conclusions: Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings., Methods: Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders., Results: Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18)., Conclusions: With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be reduced by effective screening and/or treatment. However, the influence of health care systems on disparities among insured patients is largely unexplored., Methods: To evaluate insured patients with CRC diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 across 6 diverse US health care systems in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Patient Outcomes Research To Advance Learning (PORTAL) CRC cohort, we contrasted CRC stage; CRC mortality; all-cause mortality; and influences of demographics, stage, comorbidities, and treatment between health systems., Results: Among 16,211 patients with CRC, there were significant differences between health care systems in CRC stage at diagnosis, CRC-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality. The unadjusted risk of CRC mortality varied from 27% lower to 21% higher than the reference system (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.66-0.80 to HR = 1.21, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.40; p < 0.01 across systems). Significant differences persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities (p < 0.01); however, adjustment for stage eliminated significant differences (p = 0.24). All-cause mortality among patients with CRC differed approximately 30% between health care systems (HR = 0.89-1.17; p < 0.01). Adjustment for age eliminated significant differences (p = 0.48)., Discussion: Differences in CRC survival between health care systems were largely explained by stage at diagnosis, not demographics, comorbidity, or treatment. Given that stage is strongly related to early detection, these results suggest that variation in CRC screening systems represents a modifiable systems-level factor for reducing disparities in CRC survival.

Background & Aims: Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin are commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to quantify the change in CRC and advanced adenoma detection and number of positive test results at different positivity thresholds and by sex and age., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE, selecting articles of FIT for CRC detection in asymptomatic adults undergoing screening. We calculated sensitivity and specificity, as well as detected number of cancers, advanced adenomas, and positive test results at positivity thresholds ≤10 μg hemoglobin/g feces, 10 to ≤20 μg/g, 20 to ≤30 μg/g, and >30 μg/g. We also analyzed results from stratified by patient sex, age, and reference standard., Results: Our meta-analysis comprised 46 studies with 2.4 million participants and 6478 detected cancers. Sensitivity for detection of CRC increased from 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%-75%) at thresholds >10 μg/g and ≤20 μg/g to 80% (95% CI, 76%-83%) at thresholds ≤10 μg/g. At these threshold values, sensitivity for detection of advanced adenomas increased from 21% (95% CI, 18%-25%) to 31% (95% CI, 27%-35%), whereas specificity decreased from 94% (95% CI, 93%-96%) to 91% (95% CI, 89%-93%). In 3 studies stratified by sex, sensitivity of CRC detection was 77% in men (95% CI, 75%-79%) and 81% in women (95% CI, 60%-100%) (P = .68). In 3 studies stratified by age groups, sensitivity of CRC detection was 85% for ages 50-59 years (95% CI, 71%-99%) and 73% for ages 60-69 years (95% CI, 71%-75%) (P = .10). All studies with colonoscopy follow-up had similar sensitivity levels for detection of CRC to studies that analyzed 2-year registry follow-up data (74%; 95% CI, 68%-78% vs 75%; 95% CI, 73%-77%)., Conclusions: In a meta-analysis of studies that analyzed detection of CRC and advanced adenomas at different FIT positivity thresholds, we found the sensitivity and specificity of detection to vary with positive cutoff value. It might be possible to decrease positive threshold values for centers with sufficient follow-up colonoscopy resources. More research is needed to precisely establish FIT thresholds for each sex and age subgroup., Protocol: PROSPERO CRD42017068760., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical Question: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?", Current Practice: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy., Recommendations: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids., How This Guideline Was Created: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations., The Evidence: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk., Understanding the Recommendation: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Guidelines recommend screening all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) for Lynch syndrome (LS). However, the efficiency of universal LS screening in elderly populations has not been well studied., Objective: To compare the performance of age-restricted and universal LS screening using reflex mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) of CRC tumors., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: A large, diverse, community-based health care system., Participants: 3891 persons with newly diagnosed CRC who had LS screening between 2011 and 2016., Measurements: Diagnostic yield of different LS screening strategies., Results: Sixty-three LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) were identified by universal screening, with only 5 (7.9%) detected after age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) detected after age 80 years. When all patients with CRC who had universal screening were used as the denominator, 58 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49% [95% CI, 1.13% to 1.92%]) were identified in patients with CRC diagnosed at or before age 70 years, 60 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.54% [CI, 1.18% to 1.98%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 75 years, and 62 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.59% [CI, 1.22% to 2.04%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 80 years. Using 75 years as the upper age limit for screening missed 3 of 63 (4.8%) LS cases but resulted in 1053 (27.1%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC. Using 80 years as the upper age limit missed 1 of 63 (1.6%) LS cases and resulted in 668 (17.2%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC., Limitation: Persons who were eligible for but did not complete germline analysis were excluded from calculations of performance characteristics., Conclusion: The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years. Stopping reflex CRC screening for LS after age 80 years may be reasonable because of very low efficiency, particularly in resource-limited settings, but this merits further investigation. Studies evaluating the effect of diagnosing LS in elderly persons on their family members are needed., Primary Funding Source: Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.

Background: As people with HIV (PWH) live longer, age-appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is increasingly important. Limited data exist on CRC screening and outcomes comparing PWH and persons without HIV., Setting: Large integrated health care system., Methods: This study included PWH and demographically matched persons without HIV who were aged 50-75 years during 2005-2016 and had no previous CRC screening. We evaluated time to first CRC screening (fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). We also assessed detection of adenoma and CRC with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy by HIV status, accounting for CRC risk factors including sex, age, race/ethnicity, number of outpatient visits, smoking, body mass index, type-2 diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease. Among PWH, we evaluated whether CD4 count (<200/200-499/≥500 cells/µL) was associated with adenoma and CRC., Results: Among 3177 PWH and 29,219 persons without HIV, PWH were more likely to be screened (85.6% vs. 79.1% within 5 years, P < 0.001). Among those with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, adenoma was detected in 161 (19.6%) PWH and 1498 (22.6%) persons without HIV, and CRC was detected in 4 (0.5%) PWH and 69 (1.0%) persons without HIV. In adjusted analyses, we found no difference in prevalence of either adenoma or CRC by HIV status (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 1.12). Lower CD4 count did not increase likelihood of adenoma or CRC., Conclusions: Within an integrated health care system with an organized CRC screening program, we found no disparities in CRC screening uptake or outcomes among people with and without HIV, and CD4 count did not influence CRC risk among PWH.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems., Methods: A total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status., Results: Even within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system., Conclusions: This study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery., (© 2018 UICC.)

Objectives: The effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer depends on timely colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, although limited data exist regarding effective system-level strategies for improving follow-up rates., Methods: Using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative), we first identified system-level strategies that were implemented for improving timely follow-up after a positive FIT test in a large community-based setting between 2006 and 2016. We then evaluated changes in time to colonoscopy among FIT-positive patients across 3 periods during the study interval, controlling for screening participant age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, FIT date, and previous screening history., Results: Implemented strategies over the study period included setting a goal of colonoscopy follow-up within 30 days of a positive FIT, tracking FIT-positive patients, early telephone contact to directly schedule follow-up colonoscopies, assigning the responsibility for follow-up tracking and scheduling to gastroenterology departments (vs primary care), and increasing colonoscopy capacity. Among 160,051 patients who had a positive FIT between 2006 and 2016, 126,420 (79%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days, including 67% in 2006-2008, 79% in 2009-2012, and 83% in 2013-2016 (P < 0.001). Follow-up within 180 days in 2016 varied moderately across service areas, between 72% (95% CI 70-75) and 88% (95% CI 86-91), but there were no obvious differences in the pattern of strategies implemented in higher- vs lower-performing service areas., Conclusions: The implementation of system-level strategies coincided with substantial improvements in timely colonoscopy follow-up after a positive FIT. Intervention studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies for promoting timely follow-up.

Importance: Guidelines recommend a 10-year rescreening interval after a colonoscopy with normal findings (negative colonoscopy results), but evidence supporting this recommendation is limited., Objective: To examine the long-term risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer deaths after a negative colonoscopy result, in comparison with individuals unscreened, in a large, community-based setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in an integrated health care delivery organization serving more than 4 million members across Northern California. A total of 1 251 318 average-risk screening-eligible patients (age 50-75 years) between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2015, were included. The study was concluded on December 31, 2016., Exposures: Screening was examined as a time-varying exposure; all participants contributed person-time unscreened until they were either screened or censored. If the screening received was a negative colonoscopy result, the participants contributed person-time in the negative colonoscopy results group until they were censored., Main Outcomes and Measures: Using Cox proportional hazards regression models, the hazard ratios (HRs) for colorectal cancer and related deaths were calculated according to time since negative colonoscopy result (or since cohort entry for those unscreened). Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity score, and body mass index., Results: Of the 1 251 318 patients, 613 692 were men (49.0%); mean age was 55.6 (7.0) years. Compared with the unscreened participants, those with a negative colonoscopy result had a reduced risk of colorectal cancer and related deaths throughout the more than 12-year follow-up period, and although reductions in risk were attenuated with increasing years of follow-up, there was a 46% lower risk of colorectal cancer (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.94) and 88% lower risk of related deaths (hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.82) at the current guideline-recommended 10-year rescreening interval., Conclusions and Relevance: A negative colonoscopy result in average-risk patients was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer and related deaths for more than 12 years after examination, compared with unscreened patients. Our study findings may be able to inform guidelines for rescreening after a negative colonoscopy result and future studies to evaluate the costs and benefits of earlier vs later rescreening intervals.

Background & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths occur when patients do not receive screening or have inadequate follow-up of abnormal results or when the screening test fails. We have few data on the contribution of each to CRC-associated deaths or factors associated with these events., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California systems (55-90 years old) who died of CRC from 2006 through 2012 and had ≥5 years of enrollment before diagnosis. We compared data from patients with those from a matched cohort of cancer-free patients in the same system. Receipt, results, indications, and follow-up of CRC tests in the 10-year period before diagnosis were obtained from electronic databases and chart audits., Results: Of 1750 CRC deaths, 75.9% (n = 1328) occurred in patients who were not up to date in screening and 24.1% (n = 422) occurred in patients who were up to date. Failure to screen was associated with fewer visits to primary care physicians. Of 3486 cancer-free patients, 44.6% were up to date in their screening. Patients who were up to date in their screening had a lower risk of CRC death (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.44). Failure to screen, or failure to screen at appropriate intervals, occurred in a 67.8% of patients who died of CRC vs 53.2% of cancer-free patients; failure to follow-up on abnormal results occurred in 8.1% of patients who died of CRC vs 2.2% of cancer-free patients. CRC death was associated with higher odds of failure to screen or failure to screen at appropriate intervals (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-2.77) and failure to follow-up on abnormal results (odds ratio, 7.26; 95% confidence interval, 5.26-10.03)., Conclusions: Being up to date on screening substantially decreases the risk of CRC death. In 2 health care systems with high rates of screening, most people who died of CRC had failures in the screening process that could be rectified, such as failure to follow-up on abnormal findings; these significantly increased the risk for CRC death., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Little information is available on the effectiveness of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on screening uptake, incidence, and mortality in community-based populations., Methods: We contrasted screening rates, age-adjusted annual CRC incidence, and incidence-based mortality rates before (baseline year 2000) and after (through 2015) implementation of organized screening outreach, from 2007 through 2008 (primarily annual fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy), in a large community-based population. Among screening-eligible individuals 51-75 years old, we calculated annual up-to-date status for cancer screening (by fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy), CRC incidence, cancer stage distributions, and incidence-based mortality., Results: Initiation of organized CRC screening significantly increased the up-to-date status of screening, from 38.9% in 2000 to 82.7% in 2015 (P < .01). Higher rates of screening were associated with a 25.5% reduction in annual CRC incidence between 2000 and 2015, from 95.8 to 71.4 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and a 52.4% reduction in cancer mortality, from 30.9 to 14.7 deaths/100,000 (P < .01). Increased screening was initially associated with increased CRC incidence, due largely to greater detection of early-stage cancers, followed by decreases in cancer incidence. Advanced-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 36.2%, from 45.9 to 29.3 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and early-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 14.5%, from 48.2 to 41.2 cases/100,000 (P < .04)., Conclusions: Implementing an organized CRC screening program in a large community-based population rapidly increased screening participation to the ≥80% target set by national organizations. Screening rates were sustainable and associated with substantial decreases in CRC incidence and mortality within short time intervals, consistent with early detection and cancer prevention., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Despite demographic variations in stool hemoglobin concentrations, few data exist regarding optimal positivity thresholds by age and sex., Objective: To identify programmatic (multitest) FIT performance characteristics and optimal FIT quantitative hemoglobin positivity thresholds in a large, population-based, screening program., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California., Participants: Adults aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for screening and had baseline quantitative FIT results (2013 to 2014) and 2 years of follow-up. Nearly two thirds (411 241) had FIT screening in the previous 2 years., Measurements: FIT programmatic sensitivity for CRC and number of positive test results per cancer case detected, overall and by age and sex., Results: Of 640 859 persons who completed a baseline FIT and were followed for 2 years, 481 817 (75%) had at least 1 additional FIT and 1245 (0.19%) received a CRC diagnosis. Cancer detection (programmatic sensitivity) increased at lower positivity thresholds, from 822 in 1245 (66.0%) at 30 µg/g to 925 (74.3%) at 20 µg/g and 987 (79.3%) at 10 µg/g; the number of positive test results per cancer case detected increased from 43 at 30 µg/g to 52 at 20 µg/g and 85 at 10 µg/g. Reducing the positivity threshold from 20 to 15 µg/g would detect 3% more cancer cases and require 23% more colonoscopies. At the conventional FIT threshold of 20 µg/g, programmatic sensitivity decreased with increasing age (79.0%, 73.4%, and 68.9% for ages 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 75 years, respectively; P = 0.009) and was higher in men than women (77.0% vs. 70.6%; P = 0.011)., Limitation: Information on advanced adenoma was lacking., Conclusion: Increased cancer detection at lower positivity thresholds is counterbalanced by substantial increases in positive tests. Tailored thresholds may provide screening benefits that are more equal among different demographic groups, depending on local resources., Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Background: Screening reduces colorectal cancer deaths, but <50% of Asian Americans are screening up-to-date according to surveys, with variability across Asian subgroups. We examined colorectal cancer screening participation among Asian Americans overall and Asian subgroups in a large integrated health care system with organized screening., Methods: Data were electronically accessed to characterize screening in 2016 for Asians overall and subgroups relative to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable target of ≥80% screening and compared with non-Hispanic whites. Screening up-to-date was defined as a colonoscopy with 10 years, a sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completed in 2016., Results: Among 436,398 patients, 69,826 (16.0%) were Asian, of whom 79.8% were screening up-to-date vs. 77.6% of non-Hispanic whites (p < 0.001). Almost all subgroups met the 80% target: Chinese (83.3%), Vietnamese (82.4%), Korean (82.1%), other Asian (80.3%), Filipino (78.7%), Asian Indian (79.6%), and Japanese (79.0%). Among Asians overall and non-Hispanic whites, 50.6% and 48.4% of members were up-to-date with screening by colonoscopy, and 28.0% and 28.2% were up-to-date by FIT, respectively. Across Asian subgroups, colonoscopy most frequently accounting for being screening up-to-date (range: 47.4-59.7%), followed by FIT (range: 21.6-31.5%)., Conclusions: In an organized screening setting, there were minimal differences in screening participation among Asian subgroups and almost all met the 80% screening target, despite differences in language preference. Screening test type differences across subgroups suggest possible preferences in screening modality, which can inform future research into tailored education or outreach.

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs])., Methods: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach., Results: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon., Conclusions: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Effectiveness of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends on annual testing, but little is known about patterns of repeat stool-based screening within different settings. Our study's objective was to characterize screening patterns and identify factors associated with repeat screening among patients who completed an index guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT)., Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study among people who completed a FOBT between January 2010 and December 2011 to characterize repeat screening patterns over the subsequent 3 years. We studied at 4 large health care delivery systems in the United States. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with repeat screening patterns. We included individuals aged 50-71 years who completed an index FOBT and had at least 3 years of follow-up. We excluded people with a history of CRC, colonoscopy within 10 years or flexible sigmoidoscopy within 5 years before the index test, or positive index stool test. Consistent screening was defined as repeat FOBT within every 15 months and inconsistent screening as repeat testing at least once during follow-up but less than consistent screening., Results: Among 959,857 eligible patients who completed an index FIT or gFOBT, 344,103 had three years of follow-up and met inclusion criteria. Of these, 46.6% had consistent screening, 43.4% inconsistent screening, and 10% had no repeat screening during follow-up. Screening patterns varied substantially across healthcare systems, with consistent screening proportions ranging from 1 to 54.3% and no repeat screening proportions ranging from 6.9 to 42.8%. Higher consistent screening proportions were observed in health systems with screening outreach and in-reach programs, whereas the safety-net health system, which uses opportunistic clinic-based screening, had the lowest consistent screening. Consistent screening increased with older age but was less common among racial/ethnic minorities and patients with more comorbidities., Conclusions: Adherence with annual FOBT screening is highly variable across healthcare delivery systems. Settings with more organized screening programs performed better than those with opportunistic screening, but evidence-based interventions are needed to improve CRC screening adherence in all settings.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Patients who receive an abnormal cancer screening result require follow-up for diagnostic testing, but the time to follow-up varies across patients and practices. Methods: We used a simulation study to estimate the change in lifetime screening benefits when time to follow-up for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers was increased. Estimates were based on four independently developed microsimulation models that each simulated the life course of adults eligible for breast (women ages 50-74 years), cervical (women ages 21-65 years), or colorectal (adults ages 50-75 years) cancer screening. We assumed screening based on biennial mammography for breast cancer, triennial Papanicolaou testing for cervical cancer, and annual fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. For each cancer type, we simulated diagnostic testing immediately and at 3, 6, and 12 months after an abnormal screening exam. Results: We found declines in screening benefit with longer times to diagnostic testing, particularly for breast cancer screening. Compared to immediate diagnostic testing, testing at 3 months resulted in reduced screening benefit, with fewer undiscounted life years gained per 1,000 screened (breast: 17.3%, cervical: 0.8%, colorectal: 2.0% and 2.7%, from two colorectal cancer models), fewer cancers prevented (cervical: 1.4% fewer, colorectal: 0.5% and 1.7% fewer, respectively), and, for breast and colorectal cancer, a less favorable stage distribution. Conclusions: Longer times to diagnostic testing after an abnormal screening test can decrease screening effectiveness, but the impact varies substantially by cancer type. Impact: Understanding the impact of time to diagnostic testing on screening effectiveness can help inform quality improvement efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(2); 158-64. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Screening colonoscopy's effectiveness in reducing colorectal cancer mortality risk in community populations is unclear, particularly for right-colon cancers, leading to recommendations against its use for screening in some countries. This study aimed to determine whether, among average-risk people, receipt of screening colonoscopy reduces the risk of dying from both right-colon and left-colon/rectal cancers., Design: We conducted a nested case-control study with incidence-density matching in screening-eligible Kaiser Permanente members. Patients who were 55-90 years old on their colorectal cancer death date during 2006-2012 were matched on diagnosis (reference) date to controls on age, sex, health plan enrolment duration and geographical region. We excluded patients at increased colorectal cancer risk, or with prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. The association between screening colonoscopy receipt in the 10-year period before the reference date and colorectal cancer death risk was evaluated while accounting for other screening exposures., Results: We analysed 1747 patients who died from colorectal cancer and 3460 colorectal cancer-free controls. Compared with no endoscopic screening, receipt of a screening colonoscopy was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of death from any colorectal cancer (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52). By cancer location, screening colonoscopy was associated with a 65% reduction in risk of death for right-colon cancers (aOR=0.35, CI 0.18 to 0.65) and a 75% reduction for left-colon/rectal cancers (aOR=0.25, CI 0.12 to 0.53)., Conclusions: Screening colonoscopy was associated with a substantial and comparably decreased mortality risk for both right-sided and left-sided cancers within a large community-based population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Colonoscopy quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates, varies widely across providers and is inversely related to patients' post-colonoscopy cancer risk. This has unknown consequences for the benefits of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) vs. primary colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Using an established microsimulation model, we predicted the lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality benefits of annual FIT vs. 10-yearly colonoscopy screening at differing ADR levels (quintiles; averages 15.3-38.7%), with colonoscopy performance assumptions estimated from community-based data on physician ADRs and patients' post-colonoscopy risk of cancer. For patients receiving FIT screening with follow-up colonoscopy by physicians from the highest ADR quintile, simulated lifetime cancer incidence and mortality were 28.8 and 5.4 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 20.6 and 4.4 for primary colonoscopy screening (risk ratios, RR = 1.40; 95% probability interval (PI), 1.19-1.71 for incidence, and RR = 1.22; 95%PI, 1.02-1.54 for mortality). With every 5% point ADR decrease, lifetime cancer incidence was predicted to increase on average 9.0% for FIT vs. 12.3% for colonoscopy, and mortality increased 9.9% vs. 13.3%. In ADR quintile 1, simulated mortality was lower for FIT than colonoscopy screening (10.1 vs. 11.8; RR = 0.85; 95%PI, 0.83-0.90), while incidences were more similar. This suggests that relative cancer incidence and mortality reductions for FIT vs. colonoscopy screening may differ by ADR, with fewer predicted deaths with colonoscopy screening in higher ADR settings and fewer deaths with annual FIT screening in lower ADR settings., (© 2017 UICC.)

Introduction: Recent studies report racial disparities among individuals in organized colorectal cancer (CRC) programs; however, there is a paucity of information on CRC screening utilization by race/ethnicity among newly age-eligible adults in such programs., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among Kaiser Permanente Northern California enrollees who turned age 50 years between 2007 and 2012 (N=138,799) and were served by a systemwide outreach and facilitated in-reach screening program based primarily on mailed fecal immunochemical tests to screening-eligible people. Kaplan-Meier and Cox model analyses were used to estimate differences in receipt of CRC screening in 2015-2016., Results: Cumulative probabilities of CRC screening within 1 and 2 years of subjects' 50th birthday were 51% and 73%, respectively. Relative to non-Hispanic whites, the likelihood of completing any CRC screening was similar in blacks (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI=0.96, 1.00); 5% lower in Hispanics (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI=0.93, 0.96); and 13% higher in Asians (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI=1.11, 1.15) in adjusted analyses. Fecal immunochemical testing was the most common screening modality, representing 86% of all screening initiations. Blacks and Hispanics had lower receipt of fecal immunochemical testing in adjusted analyses., Conclusions: CRC screening uptake was high among newly screening-eligible adults in an organized CRC screening program, but Hispanics were less likely to initiate screening near age 50 years than non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that cultural and other individual-level barriers not addressed within the program likely contribute. Future studies examining the influences of culturally appropriate and targeted efforts for screening initiation are needed., (Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Human papillomavirus vaccination may result in lowered intention to be screened for cervical cancer, potentially leading to gaps in screening coverage and avoidable cervical cancer diagnoses., Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between human papillomavirus vaccination and subsequent cervical cancer screening initiation and adherence to recommended screening intervals to detect gaps in screening coverage and inform future prevention efforts., Study Design: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2 distinct cohorts of female members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, which is a large integrated healthcare delivery system. Papanicolaou screening initiation was evaluated in women who reached 21 years from 2010-2013. Adherence to recommended screening intervals was evaluated in women who were 25-30 years old in 2010. All women were observed to the end of 2013 for the evaluation of their screening behaviors. History of human papillomavirus vaccination and Papanicolaou screening were obtained from electronic medical records. Adherence to recommended screening intervals was measured as ≥85% vs <85% of the observed "screening up-to-date" person-time. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models were used to examine associations between vaccination history and screening initiation and interval adherence. Demographic characteristics, gynecologic health history, healthcare use, and characteristics of women's primary care providers were included as potential confounders in the analyses., Results: There were 27,352 and 41,328 women included in the screening initiation and screening interval adherence analyses, respectively. In comparison with unvaccinated women, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for screening initiation among women who had been vaccinated against human papillomavirus were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.11-1.28), 1.44 (95% CI, 1.34-1.53), and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.50-1.65) for 1, 2, and ≥3 doses, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios for screening interval adherence were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.83-1.04), 1.73 (95% CI, 1.52-1.97), and 2.29 (95% CI, 2.05-2.56), for 1, 2, and ≥3 doses, respectively., Conclusion: Women who had been vaccinated against human papillomavirus in this community-based, integrated healthcare setting were more likely to be screened for cervical cancer than were unvaccinated women. Our findings underscore the need for targeted interventions among unvaccinated women who may be disproportionally affected by cervical cancer, despite the presence of population-based screening programs., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: Chao C received research funding from Merck, Co. for other studies related to the Gardasil vaccine. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are widely used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but hemoglobin degradation, due to exposure of the collected sample to high temperatures, could reduce test sensitivity. We examined the relation of ambient temperature exposure with FIT positivity rate and sensitivity., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients 50 to 75 years in Kaiser Permanente Northern California's CRC screening program, which began mailing FIT kits annually to screen-eligible members in 2007. Primary outcomes were FIT positivity rate and sensitivity to detect CRC. Predictors were month, season, and daily ambient temperatures of test result dates based on US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data., Results: Patients (n = 472,542) completed 1,141,162 FITs. Weekly test positivity rate ranged from 2.6% to 8.0% (median, 4.4%) and varied significantly by month (June/July vs December/January rate ratio [RR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.83) and season. FIT sensitivity was lower in June/July (74.5%; 95% CI, 72.5 to 76.6) than January/December (78.9%; 95% CI, 77.0 to 80.7)., Conclusions: FITs completed during high ambient temperatures had lower positivity rates and lower sensitivity. Changing kit design, specimen transportation practices, or avoiding periods of high ambient temperatures may help optimize FIT performance, but may also increase testing complexity and reduce patient adherence, requiring careful study., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Screening outreach programs using population health management principles offer services uniformly to all eligible persons, but racial/ethnic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening patterns in such programs are not well known., Objective: To examine the association between race/ethnicity and the receipt of CRC screening and timely follow-up of positive results before and after implementation of a screening program., Design: Retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible individuals at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California community-based integrated healthcare delivery system (2004-2013)., Subjects: A total of 868,934 screen-eligible individuals 51-74 years of age at cohort entry, which included 662,872 persons in the period before program implementation (2004-2006), 654,633 during the first 3 years after implementation (2007-2009), and 665,268 in the period from 4 to 7 years (2010-2013) after program implementation., Intervention: A comprehensive system-wide long-term effort to increase CRC that included leadership alignment, goal-setting, and quality assurance through a PHM approach, using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) along with offering screening at office visits., Main Measures: Differences over time and by race/ethnicity in up-to-date CRC screening (overall and by test type) and timely follow-up of a positive screen. Race/ethnicity categories included non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiple races., Key Results: From 2004 to 2013, age/sex-adjusted CRC screening rates increased in all groups, including 35.2 to 81.1 % among whites and 35.6 to 78.0 % among blacks. Screening rates among Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3 %) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5 %) remained lower than those for whites both before and after program implementation. Blacks, who had slightly higher rates before program implementation (adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 1.04, 99 % CI: 1.02-1.05), had lower rates after program implementation (RR for period from 4 to 7 years = 0.97, 99 % CI: 0.96-0.97). There were also substantial improvements in timely follow-up of positive screening results., Conclusions: In this screening program using core PHM principles, CRC screening increased markedly in all racial/ethnic groups, but disparities persisted for some groups and developed in others, which correlated with levels of adoption of mailed FIT., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Funder The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute at the United States National Institutes of Health (#U01 CA151736 and #U54 CA163262). Prior Presentations A prior version of this work was presented at the Digestive Disease Week conference on May 6, 2014. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Background: Population outreach strategies are increasingly used to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The influence of primary care on cancer screening in this context is unknown., Objective: To assess associations between primary care provider (PCP) visits and receipt of CRC screening and colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT)., Design: Population-based cohort study., Participants: A total of 968,072 patients ages 50-74 years who were not up to date with CRC screening in 2011 in four integrated healthcare systems (three with screening outreach programs using FIT kits) in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium., Measures: Demographic, clinical, PCP visit, and CRC screening data were obtained from electronic health records and administrative databases. We examined associations between PCP visits in 2011 and receipt of FIT/FOBT, screening colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (CRC screening) in 2012 and follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months of a positive FIT/FOBT in 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score models to adjust for confounding., Results: Fifty-eight percent of eligible patients completed a CRC screening test in 2012, most by FIT. Those with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of CRC screening at all sites. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had nearly twice the adjusted-odds of CRC screening (OR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.86-1.89). Overall, 79.6 % of patients with a positive FIT/FOBT completed colonoscopy within 3 months. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had 30 % higher adjusted odds of completing colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT (OR = 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.22-1.40)., Conclusions: Patients with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of both incident CRC screening and colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT, even in health systems with active population health outreach programs. In this era of virtual care and population outreach, primary care visits remain an important mechanism for engaging patients in cancer screening., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Funding This study was conducted as part of the NCI-funded consortium Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regiments (PROSPR), with support from NIH/NCI-funded PROSPR cooperative agreements (grant numbers U54CA163308, U01CA163304, U54CA163261, U5U54CA163262, U54CA163303, U54CA163307, U54CA163313). Dr. Halm was also supported in part by the AHRQ Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (R24 HS022418). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or AHRQ. Conflict of Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to report, other than receiving funding from the NCI as investigators in the PROSPR U54 grants listed above.

Introduction: Expert recommendations differ for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults aged >75 years may benefit from screening. This study examined screening use and follow-up, and how they varied by health status within age strata, among a large cohort of elderly individuals in community settings., Methods: A population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted among health plan members aged 65-89 years enrolled during 2011-2012 in three integrated healthcare systems participating in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Comorbidity measurements used the Charlson index. Analyses, conducted in 2015, comprised descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling that estimated age by comorbidity-specific percentages of patients for two outcomes: colorectal cancer screening uptake and follow-up of abnormal fecal blood tests., Results: Among 846,267 patients, 72% were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Of patients with a positive fecal blood test, 65% received follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months. Likelihood of being up-to-date and receiving timely follow-up was significantly lower for patients aged ≥76 years than their younger counterparts (p<0.001). Comorbidity was less influential than age and more strongly related to timely follow-up than being up-to-date. In all age groups, considerable numbers of patients with no/low comorbidity were not up-to-date or did not receive timely follow-up., Conclusions: In three integrated healthcare systems, many older, relatively healthy patients were not screening up-to-date, and some relatively young, healthy patients did not receive timely follow-up. Findings suggest a need for re-evaluating age-based screening guidelines and improving screening completion among the elderly., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a common method for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet its acceptability and performance over several rounds of annual testing are largely unknown., Objective: To assess FIT performance characteristics over 4 rounds of annual screening., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California., Patients: 323 349 health plan members aged 50 to 70 years on their FIT mailing date in 2007 or 2008 who completed the first round of FIT and were followed for up to 4 screening rounds., Measurements: Screening participation, FIT positivity (≥20 µg of hemoglobin/g), positive predictive values for adenoma and CRC, and FIT sensitivity for detecting CRC obtained from Kaiser Permanente electronic databases and cancer registries., Results: Of the patients invited for screening, 48.2% participated in round 1. Of those who remained eligible, 75.3% to 86.1% participated in subsequent rounds. Median follow-up was 4.0 years, and 32% of round 1 participants crossed over to endoscopy over 4 screening rounds-7.0% due to a positive FIT result. The FIT positivity rate (5.0%) and positive predictive values (adenoma, 51.5%; CRC, 3.4%) were highest in round 1. Overall, programmatic FIT screening detected 80.4% of patients with CRC diagnosed within 1 year of testing, including 84.5% in round 1 and 73.4% to 78.0% in subsequent rounds., Limitation: Screening detection, rather than long-term cancer prevention, was evaluated., Conclusion: Annual FIT screening was associated with high sensitivity for CRC, with high adherence to annual follow-up screening among initial participants. The findings indicate that annual programmatic FIT screening is feasible and effective for population-level CRC screening., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Background: Primary care providers and health systems have prominent roles in guiding effective cancer screening., Objective: To characterize variation in screening abnormality rates and timely initial follow-up for common cancer screening tests., Design: Population-based cohort undergoing screening in 2011, 2012, or 2013 at seven research centers comprising the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium., Participants: Adults undergoing mammography with or without digital breast tomosynthesis (n = 97,683 ages 40-75 years), fecal occult blood or fecal immunochemical tests (n = 759,553 ages 50-75 years), or Papanicolaou with or without human papillomavirus tests (n = 167,330 ages 21-65 years)., Intervention: Breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening., Main Measures: Abnormality rates per 1000 screens; percentage with timely initial follow-up (within 90 days, except 9-month window for BI-RADS 3). Primary care clinic-level variation in percentage with screening abnormality and percentage with timely initial follow-up., Key Results: There were 10,248/97,683 (104.9 per 1000) abnormal breast cancer screens, 35,847/759,553 (47.2 per 1000) FOBT/FIT-positive colorectal cancer screens, and 13,266/167,330 (79.3 per 1000) abnormal cervical cancer screens. The percentage with timely follow-up was 93.2 to 96.7 % for breast centers, 46.8 to 68.7  % for colorectal centers, and 46.6 % for the cervical cancer screening center (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher). The primary care clinic variation (25th to 75th percentile) was smaller for the percentage with an abnormal screen (breast, 8.5-10.3 %; colorectal, 3.0-4.8 %; cervical, 6.3-9.9 %) than for the percentage with follow-up within 90 days (breast, 90.2-95.8 %; colorectal, 43.4-52.0 %; cervical, 29.6-61.4 %)., Conclusions: Variation in both the rate of screening abnormalities and their initial follow-up was evident across organ sites and primary care clinics. This highlights an opportunity for improving the delivery of cancer screening through focused study of patient, provider, clinic, and health system characteristics associated with timely follow-up of screening abnormalities., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funders This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium (grant numbers U01CA163304 to M.T., W.B.; U54CA163303 to D.L.W., B.S.; U54CA163307 to A.N.A.T., T.O., J.H.; U54CA163313 to K.A., M.S.; U54CA163308 to C.S.S., E.H.; U54CA163308-04S1 to C.S.S., J.A.T.; U54CA163261 to C.R.; U54CA163261-04S1 to J.C., A.K.; U54CA163262 to A.G.Z., D.C., C.D., T.L.; U54CA163262-04S1 to D.C., M.S.; and U54CA164336 to C.W.). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Aims: Screening colonoscopy's effectiveness in reducing risk of death from right colon cancers remains unclear. Methodological challenges of existing observational studies addressing this issue motivated the design of 'Effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Average-Risk Adults (SCOLAR)'., Methods: SCOLAR is a nested case-control study based on two large integrated health systems. This affords access to a large, well-defined historical cohort linked to integrated data on cancer outcomes, patient eligibility, test indications and important confounders., Results: We found electronic data adequate for excluding ineligible patients (except family history), but not the detailed information needed for test indication assignment., Conclusion: The lessons of SCOLAR's design and implementation may be useful for future studies seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of screening tests in community settings.

Importance: Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs., Objective: To estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection., Design, Setting, and Participants: Microsimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010., Exposures: Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: In simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Purpose: Screening is a major contributor to colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality reductions in the United States but is underused. We estimated the fraction of CRC deaths attributable to nonuse of screening to demonstrate the potential benefits from targeted interventions., Methods: The established microsimulation screening analysis colon model was used to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) in people aged ≥50 years. The model incorporates long-term patterns and effects of screening by age and type of screening test. PAF for 2010 was estimated using currently available data on screening uptake. PAF was also projected assuming constant future screening rates to incorporate lagged effects from past increases in screening uptake. We also computed PAF using Levin's formula to gauge how this simpler approach differs from the model-based approach., Results: There were an estimated 51,500 CRC deaths in 2010, about 63% (N ∼ 32,200) of which were attributable to nonscreening. The PAF decreases slightly to 58% in 2020. Levin's approach yielded a considerably more conservative PAF of 46% (N ∼ 23,600) for 2010., Conclusions: Most of the current United States CRC deaths are attributable to nonscreening. This underscores the potential benefits of increasing screening uptake in the population. Traditional methods of estimating PAF underestimated screening effects compared with model-based approaches., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)