Association between time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal test result and risk of colorectal Cancer and Cancer stage at Diagnosis

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 317, Issue 16, 2017, Pages 1631-1641

  Corley, Douglas A ^a   Jensen, Christopher D ^a   Quinn, Virginia P ^b   Doubeni, Chyke A ^c   Zauber, Ann G ^d   Lee, Jeffrey K ^a   Schottinger, Joanne E ^b   Marks, Amy R ^a   Zhao, Wei K ^a   Ghai, Nirupa R ^b   Lee, Alexander T ^b   Contreras, Richard ^b   Quesenberry, Charles P ^a   Fireman, Bruce H ^a   Levin, Theodore R ^a  

^a DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^b KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIFORNIA; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL ADENOMA; COLORECTAL CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC KIT; FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST; FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST KIT; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREENING TEST; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DISEASE COURSE; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; OCCULT BLOOD; ODDS RATIO; PATHOLOGY; RISK FACTOR; TIME FACTOR;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OCCULT BLOOD; ODDS RATIO; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 85018341076     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.3634     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer statistics. https://www. cdc. gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index. htm. AccessedMarch 24, 2017.
2. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screeningfor colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services TaskForce Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.
3. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, Bacchus CM, Dunfield L, et al. Recommendationson screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. CMAJ. 2016;188(5):340-348.
4. Stracci F, Zorzi M, Grazzini G. Colorectal cancerscreening: Tests, strategies, and perspectives. FrontPublic Health. 2014;2:210.
5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening forcolorectal cancer: US Preventive Services TaskForce recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627-637.
6. Veterans Health Administration. VHA Directive2007-004: Colorectal Cancer Screening. Washington, DC: Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2007.
7. PatersonWG, DepewWT, Paré P, et al; CanadianAssociation of GastroenterologyWait TimeConsensus Group. Canadian consensus onmedically acceptable wait times for digestive healthcare. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20(6):411-423.
8. Peterson K, Carson S, Humphrey L, Helfand M. Patients with positive screening fecal occult bloodtests: Evidence brief on the relationship betweentime delay to colonoscopy and colorectal canceroutcomes. https://www. hsrd. research. va. gov/publications/esp/fecaloccult. pdf. AccessedMarch 24, 2017.
9. Gellad ZF, Almirall D, Provenzale D, Fisher DA. Time from positive screening fecal occult blood testto colonoscopy and risk of neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54(11):2497-2502.
10. Wattacheril J, Kramer JR, Richardson P, et al. Lagtimes in diagnosis and treatment of colorectalcancer: Determinants and association with cancerstage and survival. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(9):1166-1174.
11. Gordon NP. How does the adult KaiserPermanente membership in Northern Californiacompare with the larger community https://www. dor. kaiser. org/external/uploadedFiles/content/research/mhs/-2011-Revised-Site/Documents-Special-Reports/comparison-kaiser-vs-nonKaiser-adults-kpnc(1). pdf. Accessed March 24, 2017.
12. Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics of membersof a large, integrated health care system:comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37-41.
13. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence ofsocioeconomic data in medical records: Validationand application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(5):703-710.
14. Levin TR, Jamieson L, Burley DA, Reyes J, Oehrli M, Caldwell C. Organized colorectal cancerscreening in integrated health care systems. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):101-110.
15. Valori R, Rey JF, AtkinWS, et al. Europeanguidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancerscreening and diagnosis: First edition-qualityassurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancerscreening and diagnosis. Endoscopy. 2012;44(suppl 3):SE88-105.
16. National Cancer Institute. SEER program codingand staging manual. https://seer. cancer. gov/archive/manuals/2013/SPCSM-2013-maindoc. pdf. AccessedMarch 10, 2017.
17. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Variationof adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colonlocation in a large population: Implications forscreening and quality programs. Clin GastroenterolHepatol. 2013;11(2):172-180.
18. Choi KS, Lee HY, Jun JK, Shin A, Park EC. Adherence to follow-up after a positive fecal occultblood test in an organized colorectal cancerscreening program in Korea, 2004-2008. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(6):1070-1077.
19. Etzioni DA, Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, et al. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancerscreening: The importance of follow-up. Dis ColonRectum. 2006;49(7):1002-1010.
20. Morris S, Baio G, Kendall E, et al. Socioeconomic variation in uptake of colonoscopyfollowing a positive faecal occult blood test result: A retrospective analysis of the NHS Bowel CancerScreening Programme. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(5):765-771.
21. Paszat L, Rabeneck L, Kiefer L, Mai V, Ritvo P, Sullivan T. Endoscopic follow-up of positive fecaloccult blood testing in the Ontario FOBT Project. Can J Gastroenterol. 2007;21(6):379-382.
22. Shields HM, Weiner MS, Henry DR, et al. Factors that influence the decision to do anadequate evaluation of a patient with a positivestool for occult blood. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(1):196-203.
23. Steele RJ, Kostourou I, McClements P, et al. Effect of gender, age and deprivation on keyperformance indicators in a FOBT-based colorectalscreening programme. J Med Screen. 2010;17(2):68-74.
24. Ferrat E, Le Breton J, Veerabudun K, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: Factors associated withcolonoscopy after a positive faecal occult bloodtest. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(6):1437-1444.
25. Partin MR, Burgess DJ, Burgess JF, Jr., et al. Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-upfor positive fecal occult blood test results:an observational study. Cancer EpidemiolBiomarkers Prev. 2015;24(2):422-434.
26. Powell AA, Nugent S, Ordin DL, NoorbaloochiS, Partin MR. Evaluation of a VHA collaborative toimprove follow-up after a positive colorectal cancerscreening test. Med Care. 2011;49(10):897-903.
27. Correia A, Rabeneck L, Baxter NN, et al. Lack offollow-up colonoscopy after positive FOBT in anorganized colorectal cancer screening program isassociated with modifiable health care practices. Prev Med. 2015;76:115-122.
28. Rabeneck L, Tinmouth JM, Paszat LF, et al. Ontario's ColonCancerCheck: Results from canada'sfirst province-wide colorectal cancer screeningprogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(3):508-515.
29. Rao SK, Schilling TF, Sequist TD. Challenges inthe management of positive fecal occult bloodtests. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(3):356-360.
30. Carlson CM, Kirby KA, Casadei MA, Partin MR, Kistler CE, Walter LC. Lack of follow-up after fecaloccult blood testing in older adults: Inappropriatescreening or failure to follow up Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(3):249-256.
31. Fisher DA, Jeffreys A, Coffman CJ, Fasanella K. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecaloccult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(6):1232-1235.
32. Garman KS, Jeffreys A, Coffman C, Fisher DA. Colorectal cancer screening, comorbidity, andfollow-up in elderly patients. Am J Med Sci. 2006;332(4):159-163.
33. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Bradford SC, et al. Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of apositive fecal occult blood test in an integratedhealth care organization. Med Care. 2008;46(9)(suppl 1):S91-S96.
34. Chubak J, Garcia MP, Burnett-Hartman AN, et al; PROSPR consortium. Time to colonoscopyafter positive fecal blood test in four US health caresystems. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(2):344-350.
35. Myers RE, Turner B, Weinberg D, et al. Impactof a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up incolorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2004;38(4):375-381.
36. Singh H, Kadiyala H, Bhagwath G, et al. Using amultifaceted approach to improve the follow-up ofpositive fecal occult blood test results. Am JGastroenterol. 2009;104(4):942-952.
37. Taplin SH, Haggstrom D, Jacobs T, et al. Implementing colorectal cancer screeningin community health centers: Addressing cancerhealth disparities through a regional cancercollaborative. Med Care. 2008;46(9)(suppl 1):S74-S83.
38. Janssen RM, Takach O, Nap-Hill E, Enns RA. Time to endoscopy in patients with colorectalcancer: Analysis of wait-times. Can J GastroenterolHepatol. 2016;2016:8714587.
39. Meester RG, Zauber AG, Doubeni CA, et al. Consequences of increasing time to colonoscopyexamination after positive result from fecalcolorectal cancer screening test. Clin GastroenterolHepatol. 2016;14(10):1445-1451. e8.
40. Lee JK, Jensen CD, Lee A, et al. Developmentand validation of an algorithm for classifyingcolonoscopy indication. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(3):575-582. e4.