Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing globally. In this context, identifying risk factors for severe disease is important. We examined how race/ethnicity and immigration status influence IBD manifestations, treatments, and outcomes in a diverse, tertiary-care safety-net hospital. METHODS:We conducted a single-center retrospective review of all IBD inpatients and outpatients treated from 1997-2017. Using logistic regression modeling, we compared disease onset, treatment, and outcomes by race (White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian) and immigration status (US-born vs foreign-born). RESULTS:A total of 577 patients were identified, of which 29.8% were White, 27.4% were Hispanic, 21.7% were Black, and 13.0% were Asian. Compared to Whites, Asians were more likely to be male (odds ratio [OR] 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45, 5.00), whereas Blacks were more likely to be diagnosed with Crohn's disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.77) and more likely to undergo IBD-related intestinal resection (OR 2.49, 95% CI: 1.40, 4.50). Compared to US-born patients, foreign-born patients were more likely to be diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.02). They were also less likely to be diagnosed before 16 years of age (OR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41), to have undergone intestinal resections (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.83), to have received biologics (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.76), or to have had dermatologic manifestations (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.41). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IBD phenotype varies by race, although foreign-born patients of all races show evidence of later-onset and milder disease. These findings may aid in disease prognostication and clinical management and, furthermore, may provide insight into intrinsic and environmental influences on IBD pathogenesis.

INTRODUCTION:Screening decreases colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but uptake in the United States remains suboptimal. Prior studies have investigated the effect of various interventions on overall colorectal cancer screening and stool-based testing, but the effect on colonoscopy-the predominant screening test in the United States-has not been fully examined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of behavioral interventions on screening colonoscopy uptake. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through January 2022 for controlled trials that assessed the effect of behavioral interventions on screening colonoscopy uptake. All titles, abstracts, and articles were screened by at least 2 independent reviewers. Odds ratios were extracted from the original article or calculated from the raw data. The primary outcome was the relative increase in screening colonoscopy completion with any behavioral intervention. We performed random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analysis by type of intervention. RESULTS:A total of 25 studies with 30 behavioral interventions were analyzed. The most common interventions were patient navigation (n = 11) and multicomponent interventions (n = 6). Overall, behavioral interventions increased colonoscopy completion by 54% compared with controls (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-1.88). Patient navigation (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.35-2.34) and multicomponent interventions (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17-2.89) had the strongest effect on colonoscopy completion among interventions examined in multiple studies. Significant heterogeneity was observed both overall and by intervention type. There was no evidence of publication bias. DISCUSSION:Behavioral interventions increase screening colonoscopy completion and should be adopted in clinical practice. In particular, patient navigation and multicomponent interventions are the best-studied and most effective interventions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The septin 9 blood test is indicated for colorectal cancer screening in individuals who decline first-line tests, but participation in this context is unclear. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare reoffering colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) alone versus also offering the blood test among individuals who declined colonoscopy and FIT. METHODS:Screen-eligible Veterans aged 50-75 years who declined colonoscopy and FIT within the previous 6 months were randomized to letter and telephone outreach to reoffer screening with colonoscopy/FIT only (control), or additionally offering the blood test as a second-line option (intervention). The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test. RESULTS:Of 359 participants who completed follow-up, 9.6% in the control group and 17.1% in the intervention group completed any screening (7.5% difference; P = .035). Uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar in the 2 groups. The full screening strategy was completed in 9.0% and 14.9% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (5.9% difference; P = .084). CONCLUSIONS:Among individuals who previously declined colonoscopy and FIT, offering a blood test as a secondary option increased screening by 7.5% without decreasing uptake of first-line screening options. However, completion of a full screening strategy did not increase. These findings indicate that a blood test is a promising method to improve colorectal cancer screening, but obtaining a timely colonoscopy after a positive noninvasive test remains a challenge (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03598166).

BACKGROUND:Young adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) comprise a growing, yet understudied, patient population. We estimated 5-year relative survival of early-onset CRC and examined disparities in survival by race-ethnicity in a population-based sample. METHODS:We used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of cancer registries to identify patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (20-49 years of age) between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2013. For each racial-ethnic group, we estimated 5-year relative survival, overall and by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. To illustrate temporal trends, we compared 5-year relative survival in 1992-2002 vs 2003-2013. We also used Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the association of race-ethnicity and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, county type (urban vs rural), county-level median household income, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS:We identified 33,777 patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (58.5% White, 14.0% Black, 13.0% Asian, 14.5% Hispanic). Five-year relative survival ranged from 57.6% (Black patients) to 69.1% (White patients). Relative survival improved from 1992-2002 to 2003-2013 for White patients only; there was no improvement for Black, Asian, or Hispanic patients. This pattern was similar by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. In adjusted analysis, Black (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.49), Asian (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12), and Hispanic (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21) race-ethnicity were associated with all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study adds to the well-documented disparities in CRC in older adults by demonstrating persistent racial-ethnic disparities in relative survival and all-cause mortality in patients with early-onset CRC.