Search

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization is low among low-income, uninsured, and minority populations that receive care in community health centers (CHCs). There is a need for evidence-based interventions to increase screening and follow-up care in these settings., Methods: A multilevel, multi-component pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial is being conducted at 8 CHCs in two metropolitan areas (Boston and Los Angeles), with two arms: (1) Mailed FIT outreach with text reminders, and (2) Mailed FIT-DNA with patient support. We also include an additional CHC in Rapid City (South Dakota) that follows a parallel protocol for FIT-DNA but is not randomized due to lack of a comparison group. Eligible individuals in participating clinics are primary care patients ages 45-75, at average-risk for CRC, and overdue for CRC screening. Participants with abnormal screening results are offered navigation for follow-up colonoscopy and CRC risk assessment., Results: The primary outcome is the completion rate of CRC screening at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include the screening completion rate at 180 days and the rate of colonoscopy completion within 6 months among participants with an abnormal result. Additional goals are to enhance our understanding of facilitators and barriers to CRC risk assessment in CHC settings., Conclusions: This study assesses the effectiveness of two multilevel interventions to increase screening participation and follow-up after abnormal screening in under-resourced clinical settings, informing future efforts to address CRC disparities., Trial Registration: NCT05714644., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Folasade P. May: Exact Sciences: Advisory Board Sapna Syngal: inventor of the PREMM model (the intellectual property of which is owned by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute); research funding by Exact Sciences, Biological Dynamics, Inc.; consultant for Natera, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Opinion Statement: Research advocacy is an evolving concept and should be tailored for the colorectal cancer research community. Research advocacy training and evaluation must be designed for the patient community with their insight included at each step of engagement, training, and implementation. Patient advocates bring a great deal of expertise to the research review process, but it is important to ensure that their insight is appropriately placed, and they bring an appropriate orientation to the research process as the most informed patient. This can be accomplished in part by providing advocates with the proper training, employing universal core competencies, and applying principles of adult learning. Additionally, the research community, advocacy organizations, and industry partners must understand the need to diversify the voices that are being leveraged to guide research, recognizing the importance of adequate mental health tools and compensation commensurate with their experience. As a community, it is necessary that we create and implement training programs, as well as evaluate and measure their impact to continually improve and tailor the delivery of this specific education. Research advocacy has become a necessity to the field, and when implemented effectively, research advocates can have a significant impact on the delivery of health care research, improving health outcomes for all those affected by colorectal cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer among men and women in the United States. Patients and survivors experience a range of challenges, including anxiety, financial issues, long-term adverse effects, and more. The intent of this project was to assess the needs of the CRC community directly from survivors and their caregivers and to lay a foundation for ongoing support., Methods: Twelve nominal group technique sessions were facilitated. Participants were randomized and presented with the following questions: "What information do you wish you had at the time of diagnosis?" and "What information do you need now as a survivor?" After the nominal group technique process, each statement's score was divided by the number of people in the session, providing the average to identify the top-ranked statements. Themes and subthemes were applied to statements. Results were compared between coders., Results: There was a total of 79 participants, 49 of whom self-identified as a patient with or survivor of cancer. Patient/survivor demographics were as follows: stage IV disease (n=20), stage III disease (n=22), stage II disease (n=5), stage I disease (n=2), caregiver/family member (n=30), male (n=16), female (n=63), White (n=50), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n=1), Hispanic/Latino (n=13), Black/African American (n=11), Asian (n=1), and more than one race/ethnicity (n=3). The most frequent themes among responses to the first question were communication and coordination with care team and access to CRC resources. The most frequent themes among responses to the second question were psychosocial support and family/caregiver support. Frequent themes among responses across both questions were understanding treatment options and adverse effects., Conclusions: These findings highlight gaps in support for individuals affected by CRC, and lay a foundation for ongoing assistance. Future studies exploring differences based on disease stage, race/ethnicity, age, gender identity, geographic location, and tumor location are needed to further tailor support for those experiencing CRC. Themes identified in this project require a multidisciplinary approach to ensure that the unmet needs of survivors are addressed.

Purpose: Few population-level surveys have explored patient-centered priorities for improving colorectal cancer survivors' care. Working with patients, we designed a survey to identify care improvement and survivorship priorities., Methods: We surveyed a random sample of 4000 patients from a retrospective, population-based cohort of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed during 2010-2014. The survey included two multiple response questions: "What would you have changed about your cancer diagnosis and treatment experience?" and "What are your biggest health or lifestyle concerns (other than having cancer) since being diagnosed?" Multivariable regression identified characteristics associated with endorsement of health care experience and survivorship concerns., Results: Survey response rate was 50.2% (2000/3986). Fifty-three percent reported at least one unmet need, most commonly for more information about life after treatment (26.7%). Survivors of rectal cancer reported more needs than respondents with colon cancer; persons of color reported more needs than non-Hispanic whites; individuals without high school diplomas reported more needs than individuals with more education. Fear of recurrence was the most common health/lifestyle concern (58.9%). Respondents under age 65 reported nearly all health/lifestyle concerns more often than respondents over age 74. Rectal cancer survivors reported more concerns about activity limitation, changes, and body function and appearance than colon cancer survivors. Persons of color were more likely to report financial concerns than non-Hispanic whites., Conclusions: The greatest needs for intervention are among survivors of rectal cancer, survivors of minority racial/ethnic background, and survivors of younger age. Survivors with low educational attainment and those with higher stage disease could also benefit.

Immunotherapy is rapidly becoming a standard of care for many cancers. However, colorectal cancer had been generally resistant to immunotherapy, despite features in common with sensitive tumors. Observations of substantial clinical activity for checkpoint blockade in colorectal cancers with defective mismatch repair (microsatellite instability-high tumors) have reignited interest in the search for immunotherapies that could be extended to the larger microsatellite stable (MSS) population. The Cancer Research Institute and Fight Colorectal Cancer convened a group of scientists, clinicians, advocates, and industry experts in colorectal cancer and immunotherapy to compile ongoing research efforts, identify gaps in translational and clinical research, and provide a blueprint to advance immunotherapy. We identified lack of a T-cell inflamed phenotype (due to inadequate T-cell infiltration, inadequate T-cell activation, or T-cell suppression) as a broad potential explanation for failure of checkpoint blockade in MSS. The specific cellular and molecular underpinnings for these various mechanisms are unclear. Whether biomarkers with prognostic value, such as the immunoscores and IFN signatures, would also predict benefit for immunotherapies in MSS colon cancer is unknown, but if so, these and other biomarkers for measuring the potential for an immune response in patients with colorectal cancer will need to be incorporated into clinical guidelines. We have proposed a framework for research to identify immunologic factors that may be modulated to improve immunotherapy for colorectal cancer patients, with the goal that the biomarkers and treatment strategies identified will become part of the routine management of colorectal cancer. Cancer Immunol Res; 5(11); 942-9. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)