Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Despite high-quality evidence demonstrating that screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers, a substantial portion of the population remains inadequately screened. There is a critical need to identify interventions that increase the uptake and adoption of evidence-based screening guidelines for preventable cancers at the community practice level. Text messaging (short message service, SMS) has been effective in promoting behavioral change in various clinical settings, but the overall impact and reach of text messaging interventions on cancer screening are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of text messaging interventions on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies published between the years 2000 and 2017, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, to identify controlled trials that measured the effect of text messaging on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancers. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2238 citations, of which 31 underwent full review and 9 met inclusion criteria. Five studies examined screening for breast cancer, one for cervical cancer, and three for colorectal cancer. No studies were found for lung cancer screening. Absolute screening rates for individuals who received text message interventions were 0.6% to 15.0% higher than for controls. Unadjusted relative screening rates for text message recipients were 4% to 63% higher compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging interventions appear to moderately increase screening rates for breast and cervical cancer and may have a small effect on colorectal cancer screening. Benefit was observed in various countries, including resource-poor and non-English-speaking populations. Given the paucity of data, additional research is needed to better quantify the effectiveness of this promising intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States is relatively low, the incidence of gastric cancer is higher than for esophageal cancer, for which clear guidelines for screening and surveillance exist. With the increasing availability of endoscopic therapy, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, for treating advanced dysplasia and early gastric cancer, establishing guidelines for screening and surveillance of patients who are at high risk of developing gastric cancer has the potential to diagnose and treat gastric cancer at an earlier stage and improve mortality from gastric cancer. The aims of this article were to review the data regarding the risk factors for developing gastric cancer, methods for gastric cancer screening, and results of national screening programs. METHODS: A review of the existing literature related to the aims was performed. RESULTS: Risk factors for gastric cancer that were identified include race/ethnicity (East Asian, Russian, or South American), first-degree relative diagnosed with gastric cancer, positive Helicobacter pylori status, and presence of atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia. Endoscopy has the highest rate of detecting gastric cancer compared with other gastric cancer screening methods. The national screening program in Japan has demonstrated a mortality reduction from gastric cancer based on cohort data. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric cancer screening with endoscopy should be considered in individuals who are immigrants from regions associated with a high risk of gastric cancer (East Asia, Russia, or South America) or who have a family history of gastric cancer. Those with findings of atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia on screening endoscopy should undergo surveillance endoscopy every 1 to 2 years. Large prospective multicenter studies are needed to further identify additional risk factors for developing gastric cancer and to assess whether gastric cancer screening programs for high-risk populations in the United States would result in improved mortality.

BACKGROUND: The AIMS65 score and the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS) are validated preendoscopic risk scores for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH). GOALS: To compare the 2 scores' performance in predicting important outcomes in UGIH. STUDY: A prospective cohort study in 2 tertiary referral centers and 1 community teaching hospital. Adults with UGIH were included. The AIMS65 score and GBRS were calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, in-hospital rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay, and a composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, transfusions, or need for intervention (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical treatment). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were enrolled. The AIMS65 score was superior to the GBRS in predicting in-hospital mortality (AUROC, 0.85 vs. 0.66; P<0.01) and length of stay (Somer's D, 0.21 vs. 0.13; P=0.04). The scores were similar in predicting 30-day mortality (AUROC, 0.74 vs. 0.65; P=0.16), in-hospital rebleeding (AUROC, 0.69 vs. 0.62; P=0.19), 30-day rebleeding (AUROC, 0.63 vs. 0.63; P=0.90), and the composite outcome (AUROC, 0.57 vs. 0.59; P=0.49). The optimal cutoffs for predicting in-hospital mortality were an AIMS65 score of 3 and a GBRS score of 10. For predicting rebleeding, the optimal cutoffs were 2 and 10, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS for predicting in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay for patients with UGIH. The AIMS65 score and GBRS are similar in predicting 30-day mortality, rebleeding, and a composite endpoint.

OBJECTIVES: We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown. METHODS: In this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence. RESULTS: Participants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P<0.001) or choice (42%, P<0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality has been shown to be associated with an endoscopist's adenoma detection rate, although the ability to detect adenomas depends, in part, on the quality of bowel preparation. Many endoscopists routinely recommend shorter examination intervals for colonoscopies with a fair or intermediate-quality bowel preparation, assuming that the preparation is insufficient for the purpose of colorectal cancer screening. In this issue, Clark et al. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the adequacy of a fair-quality bowel preparation, finding no difference in the adenoma detection rate of colonoscopies with an intermediate-quality bowel preparation relative to those with a high-quality preparation. Although this finding has potentially significant implications for patient care and healthcare costs, the limitations of the adenoma detection rate as a performance measure and variability in the application of bowel preparation ratings are important issues that must be considered.

GOALS: To evaluate the initial management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the United States. BACKGROUND: Various guidelines have addressed the initial management of upper GI bleeding, but the extent to which these guidelines are followed in clinical practice is unknown. STUDY: We conducted a national survey of emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists practicing in hospitals affiliated with an ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship. Participants rated their agreement and adherence to 9 preendoscopic quality indicators for the initial management of upper GI bleeding. Awareness, use, and barriers to the use of early prognostic risk scores were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1402 surveys were completed, with an estimated response rate of 11.3%. Gastroenterologists and trainees agreed with the quality indicators more than nongastroenterologists and attending physicians, respectively. There was no difference in the application of the quality indicators by specialty or clinical position. Among all physicians, 53% had ever heard of and 30% had ever used an upper GI bleeding risk score. More gastroenterologists than nongastroenterologists had heard of (82% vs. 44%, P<0.001) and used (51% vs. 23%, P<0.001) a risk score. There was no difference between attending physicians and trainees. Gastroenterologists and attending physicians more often cited lack of utility as a reason to not use risk scores, whereas nongastroenterologists and trainees more often cited lack of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Among emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists in the United States, agreement with upper GI bleeding initial management guidelines was high but adherence--especially pertaining to the use of risk scores--was low.

The association between cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer (CRC) has been controversial. To synthesize the available data, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of all prospective studies. A total of 36 studies were included in our meta-analysis. We examined the association between smoking and CRC, colon cancer and rectal cancer in terms of incidence and mortality. Separate analyses were conducted for smoking status, daily cigarette consumption, duration, pack-years and age of initiation. Relative to nonsmokers, current and former smokers had a significantly increased risk of CRC incidence and mortality, respectively. When CRC data were combined with colon/rectal cancer data, current smokers had a significantly increased risk of CRC incidence. All 4 dose-response variables examined-daily cigarette consumption (RR = 1.38 for an increase of 40 cigarettes/day), duration (RR = 1.20 for an increase of 40 years of duration), pack-years (RR = 1.51 for an increase of 60 pack-years) and age of initiation (RR = 0.96 for a delay of 10 years in smoking initiation)-were significantly associated with CRC incidence (all p-values < 0.0001). The relationship between duration of smoking and rectal cancer incidence was also significant. Among the subset of studies that distinguished cancer by site, a higher risk was seen for rectal cancer than for colon cancer for all analyses. Among prospective studies, a consistent association exists between smoking and CRC. The association is stronger for rectal cancer than for colon cancer in the subset of studies that differentiated cancer by site.

Carcinoid tumors are rare and slow growing malignancies derived from enterochromaffin cells. Two-thirds of carcinoid tumors arise in the gastrointestinal tract, and in 3% of these cases the primary site cannot be determined. Presenting symptoms depend on the location of the primary tumor but may be nonspecific, and in 13% of patients distant metastases are discovered on diagnosis. The classic carcinoid syndrome occurs in less than 10% of cases and only after metastasis to the liver. We present a case of a young woman with a gastrointestinal carcinoid tumor of unknown site that had metastasized to the liver. We also provide a review of the current diagnostic modalities. Familiarity with the signs and symptoms of carcinoid tumors and the diagnostic techniques thereof may facilitate early detection and improved outcome.