Search

BACKGROUND: Persons suspected or confirmed with familial colorectal cancer syndrome are recommended to have biennial colonoscopy from late adolescence or early adulthood. Persons without a syndrome but with one or more affected first-degree relatives are recommended to begin colonoscopy 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative, and every 5 to 10 years. Ontario introduced colonoscopy billing codes for these two indications in 2011. METHODS: We identified persons in Ontario under 50 years of age, without a prior history of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, with one or more of these billing claims between 2013 and 2017. We described the index colonoscopy, and subsequent colonoscopy up-to-date status. We computed average annual rates of colorectal and other cancer diagnoses, and displayed mean cumulative function plots, stratified by billing code, age and sex. RESULTS: Billing claims for 'familial syndrome' high-risk screening colonoscopy were identified among 14,846 persons; the average annual rate of CRC diagnoses was 38.6 per 100,000 among males and 22.2 among females. Colonoscopy up-to-date status fell to 50% within 7 years. Billing claims for 'first-degree relative' screening colonoscopy was identified among 49,505 persons; average annual rates of CRC diagnoses were 16.3 among males and 13.5 per 100,000 among females, respectively. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer was more frequent following billing claims for high-risk screening colonoscopy for familial syndromes, as were noncolorectal malignancies potentially associated with these syndromes. This billing claim for familial colorectal cancer syndrome colonoscopy appears to identify a group at elevated short-term risk for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical delays may be important contributors to outcomes among younger adults (<50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to describe delay intervals for younger adults with CRC using health administrative data to understand drivers of delay in this population. METHODS: This was a population-based study of adults <50 diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Using administrative code-based algorithms (including billing codes), we identified four time points along the pathway to treatment-first presentation with a CRC-related symptom, first investigation, diagnosis date and treatment start. Intervals between these time points were calculated. Multivariable quantile regression was performed to explore associations between patient and disease factors with the median length of each interval. RESULTS: 6853 patients aged 15-49 were diagnosed with CRC and met the inclusion criteria. Males comprised 52% of the cohort, the median age was 45 years (IQR 40-47), and 25% had stage IV disease. The median time from presentation to treatment start (overall interval) was 109 days (IQR 55-218). Time between presentation and first investigation was short (median 5 days), as was time between diagnosis and treatment start (median 23 days). The greatest component of delay occurred between first investigation and diagnosis (median 78 days). Women, patients with distal tumours, and patients with earlier stage disease had significantly longer overall intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Some younger CRC patients experience prolonged times from presentation to treatment, and time between first investigation to diagnosis was an important contributor. Access to endoscopy may be a target for intervention.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies. RESULTS: 55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evi

Outcome disparities between adults <50 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and older adults may be explained by clinical delays. This study synthesized the literature comparing delays and outcomes between younger and older adults with CRC. Databases were searched until December 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting delay in adults <50 that made comparisons to older adults. Comparisons were described narratively and stage between age groups was meta-analyzed. 39 studies were included representing 185,710 younger CRC patients and 1,422,062 older patients. Sixteen delay intervals were compared. Fourteen studies (36%) found significantly longer delays among younger adults, and nine (23%) found shorter delays among younger patients. Twelve studies compared time from symptom onset to diagnosis (N younger = 1538). Five showed significantly longer delays for younger adults. Adults <50 years also had higher odds of advanced stage (16 studies, pooled OR for Stage III/IV 1.76, 95% CI 1.52-2.03). Ten studies compared time from diagnosis to treatment (N younger = 171,726) with 4 showing significantly shorter delays for younger adults. All studies showing longer delays for younger adults examined pre-diagnostic intervals. Three studies compared the impact of delay on younger versus older adult. One showed longer delays were associated with advanced stage and worse survival in younger but not older adults. Longer delays among younger adults with CRC occur in pre-diagnostic intervals.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening has been modeled; however, the cost of health care following the diagnosis of colorectal cancer has not been described stratified by history of colorectal evaluative procedures. METHODS: We identified persons with first diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 from the Ontario Cancer Registry, and categorized them by history of colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1 (the 10 years before the 6-month prediagnostic interval) with or without procedures during Period 2 (the 6 month prediagnostic interval), versus only during Period 2, versus none. We extracted overall health care cost 1 year following diagnosis from population-wide administrative databases. RESULTS: Among cases diagnosed at 52 to 74 years, overall health care cost among those with no colorectal evaluative procedures on or before the date of diagnosis is $71,039.65 (SD $51,825.18), compared to $48,406.15 (SD $38,843.64) among those who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2. Among the population aged 20 to 74 years at diagnosis, cases with ≥1 screening colonoscopies for hereditary CRC syndrome, the mean overall initial cost was between $32,300.32 (SD) and $33,084.67 (SD $39,905.77), and those with ≥1 screening colonoscopies because of a first-degree relative with CRC, was between $36,344.71 (SD $35,539.85) and $45,456.41 (SD $49,818.59). CONCLUSIONS: Overall health care cost is lower among cases who received colorectal evaluative procedures during Period 1, with or without procedures during Period 2, and among those with screening colonoscopy for hereditary CRC syndromes or affected first-degree relatives.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40-64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as "prevention practitioners" held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. RESULTS: Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22-1.84]). CONCLUSION: Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03052959 , registered February 10, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces CRC-related death. Average risk individuals should be recalled for screening with gFOBT every 2 years in order to maximize effectiveness. However, adherence with repeated testing is often suboptimal. Our aim was to evaluate whether adding a gFOBT kit to a mailed recall letter improves participation compared with a mailed recall letter alone, among previous responders to a mailed invitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the primary care provider as the unit of randomization. Eligible patients had completed a gFOBT and tested negative in an earlier pilot study and were now due for recall. The intervention group received a mailed CRC screening recall letter from their primary care provider plus a gFOBT kit (n = 431) while the control group received a mailed CRC screening mailed recall letter alone (n = 452). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months. RESULTS: gFOBT uptake was higher in the intervention group (61.3%, n = 264) compared with the control group (50.4%, n = 228) with an absolute difference between the two groups of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 20.2%, P = <0.01). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to complete the gFOBT compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.9). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that adding gFOBT kits to the mailed recall letter increased participation among persons recalled for screening. Nine gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen one additional person.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to examine utilization of early repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure. METHODS: We identified persons having repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months following outpatient colonoscopy without prior colonoscopy ≤ 5 years or prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We modeled repeat colonoscopy using a generalized estimating equation with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of patients by endoscopist. RESULTS: The population included 334,663 persons, 7,892 (2.36%) of whom had an early repeat colonoscopy within 6 months. Overall, endoscopist prior year colonoscopy volume was inversely related to repeat ≤ 6 months. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months varied by the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy (adjusted OR = 1.41 (95% CI 1.29-1.55)) at nonhospital facilities compared to teaching or community hospitals. Among those who had polypectomy or biopsy, the adjusted OR for early repeat ≤ 6 months was elevated among those whose index colonoscopy was at a nonhospital facility (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.30-1.60), compared to those at a teaching hospital or community hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure is associated with the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). METHODS: The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant's eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40-64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial's Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and

BACKGROUND: The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) varies around the world and between females and males. We aimed to compare the risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario, Canada, to its general population. METHODS: We used an exposure-control matched design. We identified persons in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident Database with first eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2008 at age 40 years or older, and matched five controls by year of birth and sex on the immigrant's first eligibility date. We identified CRC from the Ontario Cancer Registry between the index date and December 31, 2014. All analyses were stratified by sex. We calculated crude and relative rates of CRC. We estimated risk of CRC over time by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared immigrants to controls in age and sex stratified strata using log-rank tests. We modeled the hazard of CRC using Cox proportional hazards regression, accounting for within-cluster correlation by a robust sandwich variance estimation approach, and assessed an interaction with time since eligibility. RESULTS: Among females, 1877 cases of CRC were observed among 209,843 immigrants, and 16,517 cases among 1,049,215 controls; the crude relative rate among female immigrants was 0.623. Among males, 1956 cases of CRC were observed among 191,792 immigrants and 18,329 cases among 958,960 controls; the crude relative rate among male immigrants was 0.582.. Comparing immigrants to controls in all age and sex stratified strata, the log rank test p < 0.0001 except for females aged > = 75 years at index, where p = 0.01. The age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for CRC among female immigrants was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59, 0.67) during the first 10 years, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.59, 0.74) thereafter. Among male immigrants the age-adjusted HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.52, 0.59) during the first 10 years and increased to 0.63 (95% CI 0.57, 0.71) thereafter. The adjusted HR > = 1 only among immi

Background The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50±74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. Methods We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. Results Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50±74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ ml) between age 50±74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45±80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. Interpretation Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

Background. This work examines the occurrence of interval colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck (CCC) program. We define interval CRC as CRC diagnosed within 2 years following normal guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT). Methods. Persons aged 50-74 who completed a baseline CCC gFOBT kit in 2008 and 2009, without a prior history of CRC, or recent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or gFOBT, were identified. Rates of CRC following positive and normal results at baseline and subsequent gFOBT screens were computed and overall survival was compared between those following positive and normal results. Results. Interval CRC was diagnosed within 24 months following the baseline screen among 0.16% of normals and following the subsequent screen among 0.18% of normals. Interval cancers comprised 38.70% of CRC following the baseline screen and 50.86% following the subsequent screen. Adjusting for age and sex, the hazard ratio (HR) for death following interval cancer compared to CRC following positive result was 1.65 (1.32, 2.05) following the first screen and 1.71 (1.00, 2.91) following the second screen. Conclusion. Interval CRCs following gFOBT screening comprise a significant proportion of CRC diagnosed within 2 years after gFOBT testing and are associated with a higher risk of death.

Background. Audit and feedback (A/F) reports are one of the few knowledge translation activities that can effect change in physician behavior. In this study, we pilot-tested an endoscopist A/F report to elicit opinions about the proposed report's usability, acceptability and usefulness, and implications for knowledge translation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven endoscopists in Ontario, Canada. We tested an A/F report template comprising 9 validated, accepted colonoscopy quality indicators populated with simulated data. Interview transcripts were coded using techniques such as constant comparison and themes were identified inductively over several team meetings. Results. Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) overall perceptions of the A/F report; (2) accountability and consequences for poor performance; (3) motivation to change/improve skills; and (4) training for performance enhancement and available resources. The A/F report was well received; however, participants cited some possible threats to the report's effectiveness including the perceived threat of loss of privileges or licensing and the potential for the data to be dismissed. Conclusions. Participants agreed that A/F has the potential to improve colonoscopy performance. However, in order to be effective in changing physician behavior, A/F must be thoughtfully implemented with attention to the potential concerns of its recipients.

Introduction. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the evidence for different CRC screening tests and to determine the most appropriate ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening and the most appropriate screening intervals for selected CRC screening tests in people at average risk for CRC. Methods. Electronic databases were searched for studies that addressed the research objectives. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials. A working group reviewed the evidence to develop conclusions. Results. Thirty RCTs and 29 observational studies were included. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) prevented CRC and led to the largest reduction in CRC mortality with a smaller but significant reduction in CRC mortality with the use of guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). There was insufficient or low quality evidence to support the use of other screening tests, including colonoscopy, as well as changing the ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening with gFOBTs in Ontario. Either annual or biennial screening using gFOBT reduces CRC-related mortality. Conclusion. The evidentiary base supports the use of FS or FOBT (either annual or biennial) to screen patients at average risk for CRC. This work will guide the development of the provincial CRC screening program.

Self-expandable stents for obstructing colorectal cancer (CRC) offer an alternative to operative management. The objective of the study was to determine stent utilization for CRC obstruction in the province of Ontario between April 1, 2000, and March 30, 2009. Colonic stent utilization characteristics, poststent insertion health outcomes, and health care encounters were recorded. 225 patients were identified over the study period. Median age was 69 years, 2/3 were male, and 2/3 had metastatic disease. Stent use for CRC increased over the study period and gastroenterologists inserted most stents. The median survival after stent insertion was 199 (IQR, 69-834) days. 37% of patients required an additional procedure. Patients with metastatic disease were less likely to go on to surgery (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p < 0.0001). There were 2.4/person-year emergency department visits (95% CI 2.2-2.7) and 2.3 hospital admissions/person-year (95% CI 2.1-2.5) following stent insertion. Most admissions were cancer or procedure related or for palliation. Factors associated with hospital admissions were presence of metastatic disease, lack of chemotherapy treatment, and stoma surgery. Overall the use of stents for CRC obstruction remains low. Stents are predominantly used for palliation with low rates of postinsertion health care encounters.

In the province-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Ontario, Canada, individuals with a family history of CRC are offered colonoscopy screening and those without are offered guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT, Hemoccult II). We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the cumulative number of CRC deaths prevented and colonoscopies performed between 2008 and 2038 with this family history-based screening program, compared to a regular gFOBT program. In both programs, we assumed screening uptake increased from 30% (participation level in 2008 before the program was launched) to 60%. We assumed that 11% of the population had a family history, defined as having at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with CRC. The programs offered screening between age 50 and 74 years, every two years for gFOBT, and every ten years for colonoscopy. Compared to opportunistic screening (2008 participation level kept constant at 30%), the gFOBT program cumulatively prevented 6,700 more CRC deaths and required 570,000 additional colonoscopies by 2038. The family history-based screening program increased these numbers to 9,300 and 1,100,000, a 40% and 93% increase, respectively. If biennial gFOBT was replaced with biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), annual Hemoccult Sensa or five-yearly sigmoidoscopy screening, both the added benefits and colonoscopies required would decrease. A biennial gFOBT screening program that identifies individuals with a family history of CRC and recommends them to undergo colonoscopy screening would prevent 40% (range in sensitivity analyses: 20-51%) additional deaths while requiring 93% (range: 43-116%) additional colonoscopies, compared to a regular gFOBT screening program.