Faculty Bibliography

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States.¹ Although CRC incidence has declined in individuals >50 years, incidence is rising in adults <50 years (early onset).¹ By 2027, CRC is projected to become the leading cause of cancer mortality in US adults <50 years.² To combat the rising incidence of early onset CRC (EOCRC), national guidelines recently lowered the screening age from 50 to 45 years for average-risk individuals.³ Understanding the risk profile of EOCRC can help combat the rising burden in young adults, especially in those ineligible for screening.

BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer screening uptake in the United States overall has increased, but racial/ethnic disparities persist and data on colonoscopy uptake by racial/ethnic subgroups are lacking. We sought to better characterize these trends and to identify predictors of colonoscopy uptake, particularly among Asian and Hispanic subgroups. STUDY/METHODS:We used data from the New York City Community Health Survey to generate estimates of up-to-date colonoscopy use in Asian and Hispanic subgroups across 6 time periods spanning 2003-2016. For each subgroup, we calculated the percent change in colonoscopy uptake over the study period and the difference in uptake compared to non-Hispanic Whites in 2015-2016. We also used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of colonoscopy uptake. RESULTS:All racial and ethnic subgroups with reliable estimates saw a net increase in colonoscopy uptake between 2003 and 2016. In 2015-2016, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Central/South Americans had higher colonoscopy uptake, whereas Chinese, Asian Indians, and Mexicans had lower uptake. On multivariable analysis, age, marital status, insurance status, primary care provider, receipt of flu vaccine, frequency of exercise, and smoking status were the most consistent predictors of colonoscopy uptake (≥4 time periods). CONCLUSIONS:We found significant variation in colonoscopy uptake among Asian and Hispanic subgroups. We also identified numerous demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related predictors of colonoscopy uptake. These findings highlight the importance of examining health disparities through the lens of disaggregated racial/ethnic subgroups and have the potential to inform future public health interventions.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Risk factors for gastric cancer in the United States are not well understood, especially in populations with a low proportion of immigrants. We conducted a matched case-control study in a Veteran Affairs Medical Center to identify risk factors for gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Gastric cancer patients and age- and sex-matched controls were identified in a 1:4 ratio from January 1, 1997 to October 31, 2018. Demographic, medical, endoscopic, and histologic data were extracted. We performed conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs for associations between potential risk factors and gastric cancer. RESULTS:Most gastric cancer cases were diagnosed on initial endoscopy (71.4%). Of these, the most common presenting stage was stage IV (40.8%). Risk factors for gastric cancer included Black and Asian race and never or current (compared to former) drinkers, although Helicobacter pylori eradication and pernicious anemia were associated with decreased risk. CONCLUSIONS:The high proportion of late-stage gastric cancer diagnoses highlights the need for improved risk stratification as well as screening and surveillance protocols in the U.S. population. Racial disparities among veterans in an equal-access system necessitate further investigation into the etiology of these disparities.

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).