Early Adoption of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Volumn 92, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 726-733

  Finney Rutten, Lila J ^a   Jacobson, Robert M ^a   Wilson, Patrick M ^a   Jacobson, Debra J ^a   Fan, Chun ^a   Kisiel, John B ^a   Sweetser, Seth ^a   Tulledge Scheitel, Sidna M ^a   St Sauver, Jennifer L ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA; GENETIC MARKER;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CAUCASIAN; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; INSURANCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL HISTORY; MIDDLE AGED; MINNESOTA; PREDICTION; RACE; STOOL DNA TEST; AGE DISTRIBUTION; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; ETHNIC GROUP; FECES; GENETIC MARKER; GENETICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MASS SCREENING; OCCULT BLOOD; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PROCEDURES; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; DNA, NEOPLASM; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ETHNIC GROUPS; FECES; FEMALE; GENETIC MARKERS; HUMANS; INSURANCE BENEFITS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MINNESOTA; OCCULT BLOOD; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; SEX DISTRIBUTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85018383470     PISSN: 00256196     EISSN: 19425546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.01.019     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 1 U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-Based Report. 2016, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA http://www.cdc.gov/uscs Accessed January 15, 2016.
2. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use—United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62:44 (2013), 881–888.
3. 3 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2016. 2016, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
4. 4 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2010-2011: Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2010, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
5. 5 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. 2014, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
6. 6 Zauber, A.G., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A.B., Wilschut, J., van Ballegooijen, M., Kuntz, K.M., Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 149:9 (2008), 659–669.
7. 7 Vernon, S.W., Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:19 (1997), 1406–1422.
8. 8 Cokkinides, V.E., Chao, A., Smith, R.A., Vernon, S.W., Thun, M.J., Correlates of underutilization of colorectal cancer screening among U.S. adults, age 50 years and older. Prev Med 36:1 (2003), 85–91.
9. 9 Zapka, J.G., Puleo, E., Vickers-Lahti, M., Luckmann, R., Healthcare system factors and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 23:1 (2002), 28–35.
10. 10 Grol, R., Grimshaw, J., From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 362:9391 (2003), 1225–1230.
11. 11 McIlfatrick, S., Keeney, S., McKenna, H., McCarley, N., McElwee, G., Investigating the role of the general practitioner in cancer prevention: a mixed methods study. BMC Fam Pract, 14, 2013, 58.
12. 12 Finney Rutten, L.J., Nelson, D.E., Meissner, H.I., Examination of population-wide trends in barriers to cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective (1987-2000). Prev Med 38:3 (2004), 258–268.
13. 13 Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data-search/Search-the-Data?nid=4054. Accessed July 6, 2016.
14. 14 Imperiale, T.F., Ransohoff, D.F., Itzkowitz, S.H., et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 370:14 (2014), 1287–1297.
15. 15 Ahlquist, D.A., Zou, H., Domanico, M., et al. Next-generation stool DNA test accurately detects colorectal cancer and large adenomas. Gastroenterology 142:2 (2012), 248–256 quiz e225-e246.
16. 16 Lin, J.S., Piper, M.A., Perdue, L.A., et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 315:23 (2016), 2576–2594.
17. 17 Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed., 1995, Free Press, New York.
18. 18 Carboneau, C., Using diffusion of innovations and academic detailing to spread evidence-based practices. J Healthc Qual 27:2 (2005), 48–52.
19. 19 Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 82:4 (2004), 581–629.
20. 20 Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav 27:6 (2002), 989–993.
21. 21 Denis, J.L., Hébert, Y., Langley, A., Lozeau, D., Trottier, L.H., Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Manage Rev 27:3 (2002), 60–73.
22. 22 Rogers, E.M., Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 21:7 (1995), 324–328.
23. 23 Sondik, E.J., Discussion of diffusion of medical innovations. Prog Clin Biol Res 293 (1989), 35–39.
24. 24 Hahm, M.I., Park, E.C., Choi, K.S., Lee, H.Y., Park, J.H., Park, S., Inequalities in adoption of cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective: identification of late adopters. Cancer Epidemiol 35:1 (2011), 90–96.
25. 25 Courtney, R.J., Paul, C.L., Sanson-Fisher, R.W., et al. Individual- and provider-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in accordance with guideline recommendation: a community-level perspective across varying levels of risk. BMC Public Health, 13, 2013, 248.
26. 26 McQueen, A., Vernon, S.W., Meissner, H.I., Klabunde, C.N., Rakowski, W., Are there gender differences in colorectal cancer test use prevalence and correlates?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:4 (2006), 782–791.
27. 27 Carlos, R.C., Fendrick, A.M., Patterson, S.K., Bernstein, S.J., Associations in breast and colon cancer screening behavior in women. Acad Radiol 12:4 (2005), 451–458.
28. 28 Guerrero-Preston, R., Chan, C., Vlahov, D., Mitchell, M.K., Johnson, S.B., Freeman, H., Previous cancer screening behavior as predictor of endoscopic colon cancer screening among women aged 50 and over, in NYC 2002. J Community Health 33:1 (2008), 10–21.
29. 29 Shapiro, J.A., Seeff, L.C., Nadel, M.R., Colorectal cancer-screening tests and associated health behaviors. Am J Prev Med 21:2 (2001), 132–137.
30. 30 Kurland, L.T., Molgaard, C.A., The patient record in epidemiology. Sci Am 245:4 (1981), 54–63.
31. 31 Melton, L.J. III, History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc 71:3 (1996), 266–274.
32. 32 St Sauver, J.L., Grossardt, B.R., Yawn, B.P., Meton, L.J. III, Rocca, W.A., Use of a medical records-linkage system to enumerate a dynamic population over time: The Rochester Epidemiology Project. Am J Epidemiol 173:9 (2011), 1059–1068.
33. 33 Rocca, W.A., Yawn, B.P., St Sauver, J.L., Grossardt, B.R., Melton, L.J. III, History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project: half a century of medical records linkage in a US population. Mayo Clin Proc 87:12 (2012), 1202–1213.
34. 34 Jacobsen, S.J., Jacobson, D.J., McGree, M.E., et al. Sixteen-year longitudinal changes in serum prostate-specific antigen levels: the Olmsted County study. Mayo Clin Proc 87:1 (2012), 34–40.
35. 35 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/. Accessed July 6, 2016.
36. 36 St Sauver, J.L., Grossardt, B.R., Leibson, C.L., Yawn, B.P., Melton, L.J. III, Rocca, W.A., Generalizability of epidemiological findings and public health decisions: an illustration from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc 87:2 (2012), 151–160.
37. 37 Rochester Epidemiology Project. REP Population Overview. http://rochesterproject.org/for-researchers/population-overview/ Accessed October 17, 2016.
38. 38 United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey: Data Profiles—2010-2014 ACS 5-Year Data Profiles. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2014/ Accessed October 17, 2016.
39. 39 Richiardi, L., Pizzi, C., Pearce, N., Commentary: representativeness is usually not necessary and often should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol 42:4 (2013), 1018–1022.
40. 40 Rothman, K.J., Gallacher, J.E., Hatch, E.E., Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol 42:4 (2013), 1012–1014.