Search

When we are interested in etiologic questions about the joint effects of cancer and its treatment, a noncancer comparator is usually appropriate. Comparing the exposure-outcome association in people with and without a history of cancer can answer questions such as "Should cancer survivors take additional preventive measures to mitigate COVID-19 and its sequalae beyond what is recommended for those without a history of cancer?" In their article on new directions in cancer and aging, Kobayashi et al1 discuss the important issue of control selection in cancer survivorship studies. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (SOS) study conducted between 2008 and 2011 at medical centers in Western Washington. It mentions the effect of interventions of completion of colorectal cancer screening. It adds the recommendation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy with interval FOBT or colonoscopy.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe patient perspectives on survivorship care 1 year after cancer diagnosis. Methods: The study was conducted at an integrated healthcare delivery system in western Washington State. Participants were patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer who had enrolled in a randomized control trial (RCT) of oncology nurse navigation to improve early cancer care. Those alive and enrolled in the healthcare system 1 year after diagnosis were eligible for this analysis. Participants completed surveys by phone. Questions focused on receipt of treatment summaries and care plans; discussions with different providers; patient opinions on who does and should provide their care; and patient perspectives primary care providers' (PCP) knowledge and skills related to caring for cancer survivors Results: Of the 251 participants in the RCT, 230 (91.6 %) responded to the 12-month phone survey and were included in this analysis; most ( n = 183, 79.6 %) had breast cancer. The majority (84.8 %) considered their cancer specialist (e.g., medical, radiation, surgical or gynecological oncologist) to be their main provider for cancer follow-up and most (69.4 %) had discussed follow-up care with that provider. Approximately half of patients were uncertain how well their PCP communicated with the oncologist and how knowledgeable s/he was in caring for cancer survivors. Conclusions: One year after diagnosis, cancer survivors continue to view cancer specialists as their main providers and are uncertain about their PCP's skills and knowledge in managing their care. Our findings present an opportunity to help patients understand what their PCPs can and cannot provide in the way of cancer follow-up care. Implications for cancer survivors: Additional research on care coordination and delivery is necessary to help cancer survivors manage their care between primary care and specialty providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer tends to occur in an older age group of women also burdened with comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Numerous medications used to manage CVD (e.g., statins and antihypertensives) are hypothesized to alter breast cancer risk, but there are few studies on breast cancer outcomes. The COmmonly used Medications and Breast Cancer Outcomes (COMBO) cohort was developed to study how medications and co-morbidities influence breast cancer prognosis. Cohort study among adult women, diagnosed with incident early stage breast cancer, and enrolled in an integrated health plan. Data sources included health plan administrative databases, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry, and medical records. Statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), beta blockers (BB), calcium blockers, and diuretics were the exposures of interest. The outcome was second breast cancer events (SBCE) defined as recurrence or second primary breast cancer. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for SBCE, and components of SBCE. 4,216 women were followed for a median of 6.3 years, and 13.2 % experienced a SBCE (first of: n = 415 recurrences and n = 143 s primary breast cancers). Compared to non-users, we observed an increased risk of second primary breast cancer with ACEI use (HR = 1.66; 95 % CI, 1.06-2.58) and an increased risk of recurrence with BB use (HR = 1.29; 95 % CI, 1.01-1.64). There was suggestion of a reduced risk of SBCE with statin use (HR = 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.62-1.08) and second primary breast cancer with BB use (HR = 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.50-1.19). No differences in outcomes were observed by duration of medication use. A majority of CVD medications evaluated in this study appear safe with respect to SBCE, but ACEI and BB use warrant further evaluation. The study presented is one example of the questions that can be addressed using the COMBO cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing availability of electronic health records (EHRs) creates opportunities for automated extraction of information from clinical text. We hypothesized that natural language processing (NLP) could substantially reduce the burden of manual abstraction in studies examining outcomes, like cancer recurrence, that are documented in unstructured clinical text, such as progress notes, radiology reports, and pathology reports. We developed an NLP-based system using open-source software to process electronic clinical notes from 1995 to 2012 for women with early-stage incident breast cancers to identify whether and when recurrences were diagnosed. We developed and evaluated the system using clinical notes from 1,472 patients receiving EHR-documented care in an integrated health care system in the Pacific Northwest. A separate study provided the patient-level reference standard for recurrence status and date. The NLP-based system correctly identified 92% of recurrences and estimated diagnosis dates within 30 days for 88% of these. Specificity was 96%. The NLP-based system overlooked 5 of 65 recurrences, 4 because electronic documents were unavailable. The NLP-based system identified 5 other recurrences incorrectly classified as nonrecurrent in the reference standard. If used in similar cohorts, NLP could reduce by 90% the number of EHR charts abstracted to identify confirmed breast cancer recurrence cases at a rate comparable to traditional abstraction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). Methods: We conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50–74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6months of randomization as the primary outcome. Results: Of the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61–0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58–0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P <0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusion: Uptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of the effects of exposures after cancer diagnosis on cancer recurrence and survival can provide important information to the growing group of cancer survivors. Observational studies that address this issue generally fall into one of two categories: 1) those using health plan automated data that contain “continuous” information on exposures, such as studies that use pharmacy records; and 2) survey or interview studies that collect information directly from patients once or periodically postdiagnosis. Reverse causation, confounding, selection bias, and information bias are common in observational studies of cancer outcomes in relation to exposures after cancer diagnosis. We describe these biases, focusing on sources of bias specific to these types of studies, and we discuss approaches for reducing them. Attention to known challenges in epidemiologic research is critical for the validity of studies of postdiagnosis exposures and cancer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) women have among the lowest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Whether screening disparities persist with equal access to health care is unknown. Methods. Using administrative data from 1996-2007, we compared CRC screening events for 286 AI/AN and 14,042 White women aged 50 years and older from a health maintenance organization in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. Results. The proportion of AI/AN and White women screened for CRC at age 50 was similar (13.3% vs. 14.0%, p =.74). No differences were seen in the type of screening test. Time elapsed to first screening among AI/AN women who were not screened at age 50 did not differ from White women (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.3). Conclusions. Uptake for CRC screening was similar among insured AI/AN and White women, suggesting that when access to care is equal, racial disparities in screening diminish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: We investigated the relationship between use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Previous studies provided some evidence of an association, but did not assess risk of NHL subtypes. Methods: Cases and controls were members of Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system. Cases were persons diagnosed with NHL between 1980 and 2011 at age 25 years or older; eight control subjects were matched to each case on age, sex, and length of enrollment. Information on previous TCA use was ascertained from automated pharmacy data. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for NHL, overall and for common subtypes, for various patterns of TCA use. Results: We identified 2768 cases and 22,127 matched control subjects. We did not observe an appreciably increased risk of NHL among TCA ever-users compared to non-users (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0–1.2). Overall risk of NHL was associated to at most a small degree with longer-term use (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0–1.4; ≥10 prescriptions), high-dose use (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8–1.5; ≥50 mg), or non-recent use (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9 = 1.2; >5 years previously). TCA use was not associated with NHL subtypes, except chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2.0; longer-term use). Conclusions: We found little evidence that the use of TCAs increases the risk of NHL overall or for specific common subtypes of NHL. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals.Objective: To determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years.Design: 4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047)Setting: 21 primary care medical centers.Patients: 4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening.Intervention: Usual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2.Measurements: The proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2).Results: Compared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]).Limitation: Participants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability.Conclusion: Compared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer.Objective: To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC).Design: Nested case-control study.Setting: Four U.S. health plans.Patients: 1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration.Measurements: Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures.Results: In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer.Limitation: The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates.Conclusion: Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Much progress has been made in cancer survivorship research, but there are still many unanswered questions that can and need to be addressed by collaborative research consortia. Methods: Since 1999, the National Cancer Institute-funded HMO Cancer Research Network (CRN) has engaged in a wide variety of research focusing on cancer survivorship. With a focus on thematic topics in cancer survivorship, we describe how the CRN has contributed to research in cancer survivorship and the resources it offers for future collaborations. Results: We identified the following areas of cancer survivorship research: surveillance for and predictors of recurrences, health care delivery and care coordination, health care utilization and costs, psychosocial outcomes, cancer communication and decision making, late effects of cancer and its treatment, use of and adherence to adjuvant therapies, and lifestyle and behavioral interventions following cancer treatment. Conclusions: With over a decade of experience using cancer data in community-based settings, the CRN investigators and their collaborators are poised to generate evidence in cancer survivorship research. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Collaborative research within these settings can improve the quality of care for cancer survivors within and beyond integrated health care delivery systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: We sought to determine whether prophylactic oophorectomy rates changed after the introduction of a 2007 health plan clinical guideline recommending systematic referral to a genetic counselor for women with a personal or family history suggestive of an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of female members of Group Health, an integrated delivery system in Washington State. Subjects were women aged ≥35years during 2004–2009 who reported a personal or family history consistent with an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. Personal and family history information was collected on a questionnaire completed when the women had a mammogram. We ascertained oophorectomies from automated claims data and determined whether surgeries were prophylactic by medical chart review. Rates were age-adjusted and age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Poisson regression. Results: Prophylactic oophorectomy rates were relatively unchanged after compared to before the guideline change, 1.0 versus 0.8/1000 person-years, (IRR=1.2; 95% CI: 0.7–2.0), whereas bilateral oophorectomy rates for other indications decreased. Genetic counseling receipt rates doubled after the guideline change (95% CI: 1.7–2.4) from 5.1 to 10.2/1000 person-years. During the study, bilateral oophorectomy rates were appreciably greater in women who saw a genetic counselor compared to those who did not regardless of whether they received genetic testing as part of their counseling. Conclusion: A doubling in genetic counseling receipt rates lends support to the idea that the guideline issuance contributed to sustained rates of prophylactic oophorectomies in more recent years. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We describe a randomized controlled trial, the Lakota Oyate Wicozani Pi Kte (LOWPK) trial, which was designed to determine whether a Web-based diabetes and nutritional intervention can improve risk factors related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) among a group of remote reservation-dwelling adult American Indian men and women with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk for CVD. Enrollment on a rolling basis of 180 planned participants began during 2009; an average 18-month follow-up was completed by June 2011. The primary outcome variable is change in glycosylated hemoglobin level after an average 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcome variables include changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, and smoking status, as well as an evaluation of intervention cost-effectiveness. If effective, the LOWPK trial may serve as a guide for future chronic disease intervention trials in remote, technologically challenged settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To identify patterns and predictors of 1-year change in patient activation in chronically ill older adults. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Integrated healthcare delivery system. Participants Members of an integrated delivery system from 2007 to 2009 in western Washington state aged 65 and older with diabetes mellitus or heart disease; participants responded to baseline and 1-year follow-up mailed surveys about their health and health care (N = 2,341). Measurements Patient activation was measured using the 13-item Patient Activation Measure ( PAM) at baseline and follow-up. Automated diagnoses and procedure data were extracted from databases. Multinomial logistic regression, stratified according to baseline activation stage, was used to estimate the odds ratios for increasing or decreasing activation stage associated with participant characteristics and serious adverse health events. Results Fifty-two percent of participants changed activation stage between baseline and follow-up. Of people who changed stage, 54% increased, and 46% decreased. Older age and worse baseline self-reported health were independent predictors of activation change in multivariate models. Changes in health status or serious adverse health events such as the occurrence of hospitalizations, new major diagnoses, or procedures were not related to changes in activation in this age group. Conclusion Patient activation, as measured using the PAM, changes over time in elderly adults with chronic diseases. Clinicians and researchers who use the PAM for patient care or as an outcome measure in research studies should be aware of its fluctuation over time in chronically ill older persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a cross-sectional study of Medicare enrollees suffering from chronic diseases in an integrated health care delivery system in Washington. It informs that the study emphasized on the association between care coordination and continuity of primary care. The study found that high use of specialty care may hinder the primary care clinicians to coordinate care effectively. Several tables and charts related to study are also presented.

Background: Despite increased recognition that structural racism contributes to poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, there are knowledge gaps about how current patterns of racial residential segregation are associated with cancer screening uptake. The authors examined associations between Black residential segregation and screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer among non‐Hispanic Black and non‐Hispanic White adults. Methods: This was a retrospective study of CRC and cervical cancer screening‐eligible adults from five health care systems within the Population‐Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) Consortium (cohort entry, 2010–2012). Residential segregation was measured using site‐specific quartiles of the Black local isolation score (LIS). The outcome was receipt of CRC or cervical cancer screening within 3 years of cohort entry (2010–2015). Logistic regression was used to calculate associations between the LIS and screening completion, adjusting for patient‐level covariates. Results: Among CRC (n = 642,661) and cervical cancer (n = 163,340) screening‐eligible patients, 456,526 (71.0%) and 106,124 (65.0%), respectively, received screening. Across PROSPR sites, living in neighborhoods with higher LIS tended to be associated with lower odds of CRC screening (Kaiser Permanente Northern California: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] LIS trend in Black patients, 0.95 [p <.001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.98 [p <.001]; Kaiser Permanente Southern California: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 0.98 [p =.026]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.01 [p =.023]; Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.97 [p =.002]. However, for cervical cancer screening, associations with the LIS varied by site and race (Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.95 [p <.001]; Mass General Brigham: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 1.12 [p <.001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.03 [p <.001]). Conclusions: Across five diverse health care systems, the direction of the association between Black residential segregation and screening varied by PROSPR site, race, and screening type. Additional research, including studies that examine multiple dimensions of segregation and structural racism using intersectional approaches, are needed to further disentangle these relationships. In a retrospective study of five diverse health care systems in the United States, Black residential segregation, as measured by using the local isolation score, was not consistently associated with colorectal or cervical cancer screening in adjusted models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Understanding emergency department (ED) use in adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors could identify gaps in AYA survivorship. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of 7925 AYA survivors (aged 15–39 years at diagnosis) who were 2–5 years from diagnosis in 2006–2020 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. We calculated ED utilization rates overall and by indication of the encounter (headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts). We estimated rate changes by survivorship year and patient factors associated with ED visit using a Poisson model. Results: Cohort was 65.4% women, 45.8% Hispanic, with mean age at diagnosis at 31.3 years. Overall, 38% of AYA survivors had ≥1 ED visit (95th percentile: 5 ED visits). Unadjusted ED rates declined from 374.2/1000 person-years (PY) in Y2 to 327.2 in Y5 (p change < 0.001). Unadjusted rates declined for headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts. Factors associated with increased ED use included: age 20–24 at diagnosis [relative risk (RR) = 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.56 vs. 35–39 years]; female (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.11–1.47 vs. male); non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.38–1.95 vs. non-Hispanic white); comorbidity (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.16–1.55 for 1 and RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.40–2.30 for 2+ vs. none); and public insurance (RR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.70–2.32 vs. private). Compared with thyroid cancer, cancers associated with increased ED use were breast (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.24–1.70), cervical (RR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.76–2.71), colorectal (RR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.94–2.81), and sarcoma (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.03–1.88). Conclusion: ED utilization declined as time from diagnosis elapsed, but higher utilization was associated with social determinants of health and cancer types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer.Objective: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement.Design: Review of guidelines.Setting: United States.Patients: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines.Measurements: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type.Results: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type.Limitations: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines.Conclusion: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: BRAF mutation and DNA hypermethylation have linked sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) to serrated colorectal cancer (CRC) in cross-sectional studies, but they have not been evaluated in a longitudinal study. We aimed to evaluate the associations between molecular markers of serrated polyps and subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia.Methods: Study subjects included Kaiser Permanente Washington members aged 20-75 years who received an index colonoscopy between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/2007 and had hyperplastic polyps (HPs) or SSA/Ps according to study pathology review. Polyps from index colonoscopies were removed and assayed for BRAF mutation, CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), and MLH1 methylation. Pathology reports and biopsies from the subsequent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy through 1/1/2013 were reviewed for advanced colorectal neoplasia. We identified additional incident CRC cases through linkage to the Seattle-Puget Sound Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia, comparing index serrated polyps with different molecular markers.Results: We included 553 individuals with index serrated polyps (420 HPs and 133 SSA/Ps) and 795 subsequent endoscopies. The prevalence of BRAF-mutant, CIMP-high, and MLH1-methylated serrated polyps were 51%, 4%, and 2%, respectively. BRAF and CIMP were not associated with subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. MLH1-methylated SSP/As were significantly more likely to have subsequent advanced neoplasia (OR = 4.66, 95% CI 1.06-20.51).Conclusion: Our results suggest that BRAF-mutant and CIMP-high serrated polyps are not associated with subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. Among SSA/Ps, MLH1 methylation may be an important marker to identify high-risk CRC precursors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) experiencing cancer have support needs that differ from older adult cancer patients. The aim of our qualitative study was to determine the holistic needs of AYA cancer survivors and to develop a patient-centered conceptual model of AYA survivorship care. Analysis of our interview results reveals eight key domains critical to holistic patient-centered AYA survivorship care. We offer a conceptual model that differs from current conceptual models of AYA survivorship care by centering the patient and their support systems, emphasizing the need for continuing supportive navigation, and the importance of repeated support along the identified domains over time. Purpose: Conceptual models provide frameworks to illustrate relationships among patient-, provider-, system-, and community-level factors that inform care delivery and research. Existing models of cancer survivorship care focus largely on pediatric or adult populations whose needs differ from adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We developed a patient-centered conceptual model of AYA survivorship care. Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review of current conceptual and theoretical models of care. We engaged AYA cancer survivors (n = 25) in semi-structured one-hour telephone interviews. Most participants were in their 20s and 30s, and the majority (84%) were women. Recruitment was stratified by age and time since cancer diagnosis. We conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify themes that exemplified patient-centered care. Results: Most participants identified as white and female. Leukemia and breast cancer were the most common cancer types. Main themes included the need for (1) care coordination, (2) ongoing mental health support, (3) connection to AYA peer support, (4) support during fertility preservation efforts, (5) support with financial burden, (6) support for quality of life, (7) information about and support with side effects and late effects, and (8) attention to the unique needs of young adults. Conclusions: We present a patient-centered conceptual model of AYA survivorship care needs that can inform future cancer care delivery and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survivors have increased risk of endocrine complications, but there is a lack of information on the occurrence of specific endocrinopathies at the population-level. Methods: We used data from the California Cancer Registry (2006–2018) linked to statewide hospitalisation, emergency department, and ambulatory surgery databases. We estimated the cumulative incidence of and factors associated with endocrinopathies among adolescents and young adults (AYA, 15–39 years) who survived ≥2 years after diagnosis. Results: Among 59,343 AYAs, 10-year cumulative incidence was highest for diabetes (4.7%), hypothyroidism (4.6%), other thyroid (2.2%) and parathyroid disorders (1.6%). Hypothyroidism was most common in Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, breast, and cervical cancer survivors, while diabetes was highest among survivors of leukaemias, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer. In multivariable models, factors associated with increased hazard of endocrinopathies were treatment, advanced stage, public insurance, residence in low/middle socioeconomic neighbourhoods, older age, and non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Haematopoietic cell transplant was associated with most endocrinopathies, while chemotherapy was associated with a higher hazard of ovarian dysfunction and hypothyroidism. Conclusions: We observed a high burden of endocrinopathies among AYA cancer survivors, which varied by treatment and social factors. Evidence-based survivorship guidelines are needed for surveillance of these diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by David S. Carrell and colleagues to a letter to editor about their article "Observational Research in the Age of the Electronic Health Record" published in previous issue is presented.

The author comments on the issues concerning the contribution of epidemiology in comparative effectiveness research (CER). She highlights a study published in the "Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health" which compares the benefits and harm of CER and epidemiology. She emphasizes another study by Klungel and colleagues on the evaluation of effect modification by epidemiologists.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system. RESULTS: Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a high-er risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exposures derived from electronic health records (EHR) may be misclassified, leading to biased estimates of their association with outcomes of interest. An example of this problem arises in the context of cancer screening where test indication, the purpose for which a test was performed, is often unavailable. This poses a challenge to understanding the effectiveness of screening tests because estimates of screening test effectiveness are biased if some diagnostic tests are misclassified as screening. Prediction models have been developed for a variety of exposure variables that can be derived from EHR, but no previous research has investigated appropriate methods for obtaining unbiased association estimates using these predicted probabilities. The full likelihood incorporating information on both the predicted probability of exposure-class membership and the association between the exposure and outcome of interest can be expressed using a finite mixture model. When the regression model of interest is a generalized linear model (GLM), the expectation-maximization algorithm can be used to estimate the parameters using standard software for GLMs. Using simulation studies, we compared the bias and efficiency of this mixture model approach to alternative approaches including multiple imputation and dichotomization of the predicted probabilities to create a proxy for the missing predictor. The mixture model was the only approach that was unbiased across all scenarios investigated. Finally, we explored the performance of these alternatives in a study of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. These findings have broad applicability in studies using EHR data where gold-standard exposures are unavailable and prediction models have been developed for estimating proxies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was conducted to determine the effect of continuing a centralized fecal occult blood test (FOBT) mailed program on screening adherence.Methods: A patient-level randomized controlled trial was conducted in 21 patient-centered medical home primary care clinics between January 2010 and November 2012. A total of 2208 patients ranging in age from 52 to 75 years in a substudy of the Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-Up (SOS) trial were randomized at year 3 to continued automated interventions (Continued group), which included mailed information regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening choices, and were mailed stool kit tests or to a group in which interventions were stopped (Stopped group). The main outcomes and measures were the completion of CRC screening in year 3 and by subgroup characteristics, respectively.Results: Adherence to CRC screening in year 3 was found to be significantly higher in patients in the Continued group compared with those in the Stopped group (53.3% vs 37.3%; adjusted net difference, 15.6% [P<.001]). This difference was entirely due to greater completion of FOBT (adjusted net difference, 18.0% [P<.001]). Year 3 CRC screening rates were highest in patients in the Continued group completing FOBT in both years 1 and 2 (77.2%), followed by patients completing only 1 FOBT in 1 of the 2 years (44.6%), with low rates of CRC testing reported among patients not completing any FOBT within the first 2 years (18.1%).Conclusions: A centralized mailed FOBT CRC screening program continued to be more effective than patient-centered medical home usual-care interventions, but only for those patients who had previously completed FOBT testing. Research is needed regarding how to engage patients not completing CRC testing after being mailed at least 2 rounds of FOBT tests. Cancer 2016;122:312-321. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: International studies have shown that most colon cancers are diagnosed among people with symptoms, but research is limited in the United States. Here, we conducted a retrospective study of adults aged 50–85 years diagnosed with stage I–IIIA colon cancer between 1995 and 2014 in two US healthcare systems. Methods: Mode of detection (screening or symptomatic) was ascertained from medical records. We estimated unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing detection mode by patient factors at diagnosis (year, age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index [BMI], Charlson score), prediagnostic primary care utilization, and tumour characteristics (stage, location). Results: Of 1,675 people with colon cancer, 38.4% were screen‐detected, while 61.6% were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Screen‐detected cancer was more common among those diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 versus 1995–1999 (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19–2.28), and those with a BMI of 25–<30 kg/m2 (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.21–1.98) or ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.18–1.96) versus <25 kg/m2. Screen‐detected cancer was less common among people aged 76–85 (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39–0.65) versus 50–64, those with comorbidity scores >0 (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.91 for score = 1, OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.26–0.45 for score = 2+), and those with 2+ prediagnostic primary care visits (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.76) versus 0 visits. The odds of screen detection were lower among patients diagnosed with stage IIA (OR 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27–0.41) or IIB (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06–0.24) cancers versus stage I. Conclusions: Most colon cancers among screen‐eligible adults were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Even with increasing screening rates over time, research is needed to better understand why specific groups are more likely to be diagnosed when symptomatic and identify opportunities for interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Objective: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Design: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Participants: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Main Measures: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Key Results: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.Conclusions: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years. Design: Randomized trial. Setting: Integrated health care system in Washington state. Participants: Between August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50–74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490). Interventions: Years 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5–9. Main Measures: Time in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time. Key Results: Compared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16–1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001). Conclusions: An outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years. Trial Registration: Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 20% to 50% of women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer discontinue endocrine therapy early; most reports come from automated pharmacy data or small self-report evaluations .We conducted a larger self-report evaluation of endocrine therapy discontinuation associated with patient characteristics and therapy-related adverse effects. Methods: We surveyed 538 women from a single health plan who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer from 2002 to 2008 and received endocrine therapy. Women reported adverse effects and reasons for discontinuation via mailed survey; tumor characteristics were obtained via registry linkage.We classified women as discontinuers if they self-reported stopping therapy and their self-reported duration oft amoxifen plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) use was < 5 years, and nondiscontinuers if they self-reported ≥ 5 years use or currentuse. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for discontinuation versus continuation by using logistic regression adjusted for age and year of diagnosis. Results: Among 538 women, 98 (18.2%) discontinued endocrinetherapy early. Women with positive lymph nodes (v negative) were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93). Almost all women (94%)experienced adverse effects. Experiencing headaches was associated with discontinuation of AIs (OR = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.16 to 8.01) and tamoxifen (OR=2.34; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.41); few other individual adverse effects were related to discontinuation despite most discontinuers reporting they "did not like adverse effects" (AIs: 66.7%, tamoxifen: 59.1%). Conclusion: Few individual adverse effects or patient characteristics were significantly associated with endocrine therapy discontinuation, yet adverse effects were prevalent and were the most common reason women reported for discontinuing therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (AI) initiation over time and by patient characteristics among women diagnosed with breast cancer in a community setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,501 women age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with stages I to II invasive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in anintegrated delivery system. Using automated pharmacy dispensings,we determined endocrine therapy receipt within 12 months of diagnosis. We used generalized linear models to estimate adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs for any endocrine therapy use (v none), tamoxifen use (v none), AI use (v none), and AIs first (v tamoxifen). Each model adjusted for age, stage, body mass index, tumor size, lymph node status, comorbidities, other treatment, and diagnosis year. Results: Tamoxifen use was at its highest (56.9%) in 2001 and then decreased; AI use was lowest in 2001 (5.5%) and then peaked in 2005 (36.8%). In multivariate models, women age ≥ 65 years were less likely to use any endocrine therapy compared with women age 55 to 64 years (age 65 to 74 years: RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; age ≥ 75 years: RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.81). Women age≥ 75 years were significantly less likely to begin AIs versus no treatment (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.64) and versus tamoxifen (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97). Women with tumor sizes 1.0 to 1.9 cm and≥ 2.0 cm were significantly more likely to use any endocrine therapy compared with women with tumor sizes <1.0cm(RR, 1.41;95% CI, 1.23 to 1.61 and RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.81, respectively).Conclusion: Differential initiation over time, as well as by age and tumor size, suggests patient preferences and provider recommendations for endocrine therapy vary, despite guideline recommendations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data derived from electronic health records (EHR) are heterogeneous with availability of specific measures dependent on the type and timing of patients' healthcare interactions. This creates a challenge for research using EHR-derived exposures because gold-standard exposure data, determined by a definitive assessment, may only be available for a subset of the population. Alternative approaches to exposure ascertainment in this case include restricting the analytic sample to only those patients with gold-standard exposure data available (exclusion); using gold-standard data, when available, and using a proxy exposure measure when the gold standard is unavailable (best available); or using a proxy exposure measure for everyone (common data). Exclusion may induce selection bias in outcome/exposure association estimates, while incorporating information from a proxy exposure via either the best available or common data approaches may result in information bias due to measurement error. The objective of this paper was to explore the bias and efficiency of these three analytic approaches across a broad range of scenarios motivated by a study of the association between chronic hyperglycemia and 5-year mortality in an EHR-derived cohort of colon cancer survivors. We found that the best available approach tended to mitigate inefficiency and selection bias resulting from exclusion while suffering from less information bias than the common data approach. However, bias in all three approaches can be severe, particularly when both selection bias and information bias are present. When risk of either of these biases is judged to be more than moderate, EHR-based analyses may lead to erroneous conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objective.: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods.This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50–89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010–2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients.Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing.A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35–0.40). Older age (65–75 vs. 50–64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67–1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results.Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.Design: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods.This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50–89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010–2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients.Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing.A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35–0.40). Older age (65–75 vs. 50–64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67–1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results.Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.Main Measures: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods.This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50–89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010–2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients.Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing.A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35–0.40). Older age (65–75 vs. 50–64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67–1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results.Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.Key Results: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods.This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50–89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010–2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients.Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing.A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35–0.40). Older age (65–75 vs. 50–64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67–1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results.Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.Conclusions: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods.This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50–89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010–2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients.Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing.A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35–0.40). Older age (65–75 vs. 50–64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67–1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results.Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular medications may be associated with cancer development, but little is known about their association with cancer recurrence. Medications such as statins and antihypertensives may be commonly used among colon cancer survivors, who are, on average, diagnosed in their mid-60s. We described the associations between statins and antihypertensive medications and colon cancer recurrence in a large, population-based study.Methods: We conducted a cohort study among adults with stage I-IIIA colon cancer diagnosed in 1995-2014 in two Kaiser Permanente regions, Colorado and Washington. Statin and antihypertensive use were obtained from electronic pharmacy dispensing data. People were classified as medication users on the date of their first dispensing after cohort entry, which started 90 days after completing cancer treatment, continuing through the earliest of death, health plan disenrollment, or chart abstraction. We collected outcome information from medical record abstraction and tumor registries on colon cancer recurrences and second primary cancers. Using Cox proportional hazards multivariable models, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for colon cancer recurrences and any cancer event (recurrences and new primaries at any anatomic site) comparing medication users to non-users.Results: Among 2039 people, 937 (46%) used statins and 1425 (70%) used antihypertensives at any point during a median of 4.9 years of follow-up; 460 people had any additional cancer event, including 152 with a colon cancer recurrence. Statin use was not associated with colon cancer recurrence (HR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.65-1.85) or any cancer event (HR = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.85-1.47), nor was antihypertensive use associated with recurrence (HR = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.44-1.21) or any cancer event (HR = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.70-1.24).Conclusions: Our results suggest no association between cardiovascular medication use and the risk of recurrence or any additional cancer, and may provide reassurance to colon cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screening over many years is required to optimize reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. However, no prior trials have compared strategies for obtaining long-term adherence.Methods: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up was implemented in an integrated health care organization in Washington State. Between 2008 and 2009, 4675 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomized to receive the usual care (UC), which included clinic-based strategies to increase CRC screening (arm 1), or, in years 1 and 2, mailings with a call-in number for colonoscopy and mailed fecal tests (arm 2), mailings plus brief telephone assistance (arm 3), or mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation (arm 4). Active-intervention subjects (those in arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) who were still eligible for CRC screening were randomized to mailings being stopped or continued in years 3 and 5. The time in compliance with CRC screening over 5 years was compared for persons assigned to any intervention and persons assigned to UC. Screening tests contributed time on the basis of national guidelines for screening intervals (fecal tests annually, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years).Results: All participants contributed data, but they were censored at disenrollment, death, the age of 76 years, or a diagnosis of CRC. Compared with UC participants, intervention participants had 31% more adjusted covered time over 5 years (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.37; covered time, 47.5% vs 62.1%). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time.Conclusions: In a health care organization with clinic-based activities to increase CRC screening, a centralized program led to increased CRC screening adherence over 5 years. Longer term data on screening adherence and its impact on CRC outcomes are needed. Cancer 2017;123:4472-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Worry about cancer recurrence or progression is associated with negative effects of cancer, such as worse physical functioning, but associations with positive changes post-cancer, such as benefit finding, are unknown. We measured the proportion of patients reporting frequent worry about cancer recurrence or progression and examined the association between worry about cancer recurrence or progression to benefit finding and functioning in cancer.Methods: We surveyed 594 long-term (5-10 years post-diagnosis) survivors of cancer (breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, melanoma) in this cross-sectional study. The survey asked about worry about cancer recurrence/progression, negative effects of cancer on mental and physical function, and benefit finding as a result of the cancer (positive effects). Multivariate regressions estimated associations of worry about cancer with negative and positive effects of cancer.Results: Worrying about cancer often or all the time was reported by 19.6% of survivors. Worry about cancer was related to worse functioning (odds ratio (OR) range 1.40 to 1.46, all p's < .01). Worry about recurrence/progression was unrelated to benefit finding (all p's > .10).Conclusions: Worry about cancer was associated with negative, but not positive, effects of cancer. Treating worry about cancer is unlikely to reduce benefit finding after cancer. Given the high prevalence of worry about cancer and relationship to negative effects of cancer, clinical care should attempt to address this worry for long-term survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]