Faculty Bibliography

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 incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in individuals younger than 50 years, who do not usually undergo screening if they are of average risk. We sought to identify risk factors for CRC in this population. METHODS:We compared sociodemographic and medical characteristics of patients who received a diagnosis of CRC at an age of 18-49 years (early-onset) with patients who received a diagnosis of CRC at an age of 50 years or older (late-onset) and with age-matched, cancer-free individuals (controls) at a tertiary academic hospital. We collected data from all adult patients with a diagnosis of CRC from January 1, 2011 through April 3, 2017 from electronic health records. Associations with risk factors were assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS:We identified 269 patients with early-onset CRC, 2802 with late-onset CRC, and 1122 controls. Compared with controls, patients with early-onset CRC were more likely to be male (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.39-2.51), have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (3% vs 0.4% for controls; univariable P<.01), and have a family history of CRC (OR, 8.61; CI, 4.83-15.75). Prevalence values of well-established modifiable CRC risk factors, including obesity, smoking, and diabetes, were similar. Compared to patients with late-onset CRC, patients with early-onset CRC were more likely to be male (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.87), black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.65) or Asian (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.57-4.15), and have IBD (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.16-6.63) or a family history of CRC (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.89-4.25). Sensitivity analyses excluding IBD and family history of CRC showed comparable results. Early-onset CRC was more likely than late-onset disease to be detected in the left colon or rectum (75% vs 59%, P=.02) and at a late stage of tumor development (77% vs 62%, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS:In a retrospective study of patients with early-onset CRC vs late-onset CRC or no cancer, we identified non-modifiable risk factors, including sex, race, IBD, and family history of CRC, to be associated with early-onset CRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has increased substantially in New York City in recent years. However, screening uptake measured by telephone surveys may not fully capture rates among underserved populations. We measured screening completion within one year of a primary care visit among previously unscreened patients in a large urban safety-net hospital and identified sociodemographic and health-related predictors of screening. We identified 21,256 patients aged 50-75 who were seen by primary care providers (PCPs) in 2014, of whom 14,425 (67.9%) were not up-to-date with screening. Since PCPs facilitate the majority of screening, we compared patients who received screening within one year of an initial PCP visit to those who remained unscreened using multivariable logistic regression. Among patients not up-to-date with screening at study outset, 11.5% (1,658 patients) completed screening within one year of a PCP visit. Asian race, more PCP visits, and higher area-level income were associated with higher screening completion. Factors associated with remaining unscreened included morbid obesity, ever smoking, Elixhauser comorbidity index of 0, and having Medicaid/Medicare insurance. Age, sex, language, and travel time to the hospital were not associated with screening status. Overall, 39.9% of patients were up-to-date with screening by 2015. In an underserved urban population, CRC screening disparities remain, and overall screening uptake was low. Since more PCP visits were associated with modestly higher screening completion at one year, additional community-level education and outreach may be crucial to increase CRC screening in underserved populations.