BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy screening can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Colonoscopies may achieve maximum benefit when they are performed with high quality and accompanied by follow-up recommendations that adhere to clinical guidelines. This study aimed to determine to what extent endoscopists met targets for colonoscopy quality from 2016 through 2019 (the most recent years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). METHODS: We examined measures of colonoscopy quality and recommended follow-up intervals in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a large nationwide endoscopy registry. The analysis included over 2.5 million outpatient screening colonoscopies in average risk adults aged 50-75 years. RESULTS: At least 90% of endoscopists met performance targets for adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and adenoma detection rate. However, nonadherence to guidelines for follow-up intervals was common. For patients with no colonoscopy findings, 12.0% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 10 years. For patients with 1-2 small tubular adenomas, 13.5% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5-10 years. For patients with small sessile serrated polyps, 30.7% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5 years. Some patients with higher risk findings received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≥5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 3 years, including 18.2% of patients with advanced serrated lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Additional attention may be needed to achieve more consistent adherence to guidelines for colonoscopy follow-up recommendations.

PURPOSE-: National screening estimates mask county-level variations. We aimed to generate county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence estimates for 2018 among adults aged 50-75 years and identify counties with low screening prevalence. METHODS-: We combined individual-level county data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n=204,947) with the 2018 American Community Survey county poverty data as a covariate, and the 2018 U.S. Census county population count data to generate county-level prevalence estimates for being current with any CRC screening test, colonoscopy, and home stool blood test. Because BRFSS is a state-based survey, and because some counties did not have samples for analysis, we used correlation coefficients to test internal consistency between model-based and BRFSS state estimates. RESULTS-: Correlation coefficients tests were ≥0.97. Model-based national prevalence for any test was 69.9% (95% CI, 69.5%-70.4%) suggesting 30% are not current with screening test use. State mean estimates ranged from 62.1% in Alaska and Wyoming to 76.6% in Maine and Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 42.2% in Alaska to 80.0% in Florida and Rhode Island. Most tests were performed with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS-: Estimates across all U.S. counties showed large variations. Estimates may be informative for planning by states and local screening programs.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). CRC screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey data, we examined CRC screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N=10,595). We also examined time trends in CRC screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a CRC screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, CRC testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population CRC screening goals.

Introduction: Safe and accessible transportation options are important for older adults health, safety, mobility, and independence. Ride share services may promote older adult health and well-being. This is the first study that describes ride share services available to older adults (65+ years) in the United States, including factors that may affect use of services. Methods: We analyzed secondary data from two research and administrative databases provided by ITNAmerica, a national non-profit transportation service for older adults: ITNRides, which tracks information on older adults who used ITN in 29 locations across the United States from 1996 to 2019, and Rides in Sight, the largest national data source on ride share services for older adults. We conducted a literature review, and telephone interviews with nine key informants representing ride share services, referral services, and other organizations. We offer a conceptual framework describing factors that may affect older adults use of ride share services. Results: This study identified 917 non-profit ride share services and eleven for-profit ride share services available for older adults in the United States as of August 2018. Services varied by corporate structure, location, use of technology, and business model. The majority of non-profit services served primarily older adults, while the for-profit services served primarily younger adults. Riders from one multi-site non-profit service had a median age of 82. Use of ride share services is affected by individual needs and preferences; social conditions; and business and policy factors. Conclusion: Ride share services may offer a promising alternative to driving for older adults and may help to address negative health consequences associated with driving cessation. Practical applications: These findings may help policy makers, practitioners, and other stakeholders understand older adults needs related to use of ride share services in order to offer solutions that prioritize public health and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Screening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015. METHODS: We collected data from the program's 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists' recommendations for the next test. RESULTS: Overall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%-97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%-99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%-84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%-56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%-47.2%) in less than 3 years. CONCLUSION: Although overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: National guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies. METHODS: The analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent. RESULTS: Of all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate >/=20%. CONCLUSIONS: In 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64years and 65-75years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p<0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p<0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p<0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for colorectal cancer for adults ages 50 to 75 years. We generated small-area estimates for being current with colorectal cancer screening to examine sociogeographic differences among states and counties. To our knowledge, nationwide county-level estimates for colorectal cancer screening are rarely presented.Methods: We used county data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 251,360 adults), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models. We post-stratified the data with the U.S. Census population data to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level screening prevalence estimates nationally and by race/ethnicity, mapped the estimates, and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We evaluated internal consistency of our modeled state-specific estimates with BRFSS direct state estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients.Results: Correlation coefficients were >/=0.95, indicating high internal consistency. We observed substantial variations in current colorectal cancer screening estimates among the states and counties within states. State mean estimates ranged from 58.92% in Wyoming to 75.03% in Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 40.11% in Alaska to 79.76% in Florida. Larger county variations were observed in various race/ethnicity groups.Conclusions: State estimates mask county variations. However, both state and county estimates indicate that the country is far behind the "80% by 2018" target.Impact: County-modeled estimates help identify variation in colorectal cancer screening prevalence in the United States and guide education and enhanced screening efforts in areas of need, including areas without BRFSS direct-estimates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(3); 245-53. (c)2018 AACR.

OBJECTIVES: Annual testing using either a high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HS-gFOBT) or a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended for screening average-risk people for colorectal cancer. We compared the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs (InSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: The study included 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50-75 years, who were scheduled to receive a screening colonoscopy at gastroenterology practices in the Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas. Each participant was asked to complete all three stool tests before their colonoscopy. Each test's performance characteristics were evaluated using the screening colonoscopic results as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT (26.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-40.7), followed by OC FIT-CHEK (15.1%, 95% CI 6.7-26.1) and Hemoccult II SENSA (7.4%, 95% CI 1.9-17.0). InSure FIT was statistically significantly more sensitive than both OC FIT-CHEK (absolute difference in sensitivity=11.2%, 95% CI 0.4-24.2) and Hemoccult II SENSA (difference in sensitivity=18.9%, 95% CI 10.2-32.6). Specificities were relatively high for all tests (between 96.8% and 98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some FITs are more sensitive than the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, but these results need to be confirmed in larger asymptomatic populations. Comparisons between the FITs examined in this study and other FITs are needed to determine the best tests for population screening.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 10 October 2017; doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.285.

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer and the incidence is projected to increase. Many countries are exploring the introduction of organized screening programs, but there is limited information on the resources required and guidance for cost-effective implementation. To facilitate the generating of the economics evidence base for program implementation, we collected and analyzed detailed program cost data from 5 European members of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network. The cost per person screened estimates, often used to compare across programs as an overall measure, varied significantly across the programs. In addition, there were substantial differences in the programmatic and clinical cost incurred, even when the same type of screening test was used. Based on these findings, several recommendations are provided to enhance the underlying methodology and validity of the comparative economic assessments. The recommendations include the need for detailed activity-based cost information, the use of a comprehensive set of effectiveness measures to adequately capture differences between programs, and the incorporation of data from multiple programs in cost-effectiveness models to increase generalizability. Economic evaluation of real-world colorectal cancer-screening programs is essential to derive valuable insights to improve program operations and ensure optimal use of available resources.

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76-84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76-84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76-84 years and 8797 adults ages 50-75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7 % (95 % CI 20.1-25.3) of seniors ages 76-84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9 % (95 % CI 2.0-7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50-75 and 76-84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2 % indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76-84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established and supported a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) from 2005 to 2009 for low-income, under- or uninsured men and women aged 50-64 at 5 sites in the United States. METHODS: A multiple methods evaluation was conducted including 1) a longitudinal, comparative case study of program implementation, 2) the collection and analysis of client-level screening and diagnostic services outcome data, and 3) the collection and analysis of program- and patient-level cost data. RESULTS: Several themes emerged from the results reported in the series of articles in this Supplement. These included the benefit of building on an existing infrastructure, strengths and weakness of both the 2 most frequently used screening tests (colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests), variability in costs of maintaining this screening program, and the importance of measuring the quality of screening tests. Population-level evaluation questions could not be answered because of the small size of the participating population and the limited time frame of the evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation of the program determined overall feasibility of this effort. CONCLUSIONS: Critical lessons learned through the implementation and evaluation of the CDC's CRCSDP led to the development of a larger population-based program, the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2940-6. (c) 2013 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in screening quality in community practice have been well documented. The authors examined recommended indicators of screening quality in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services between 2005 and 2009 for asymptomatic, low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals at 5 sites around the United States. METHODS: For each client screened in the CRCSDP, a standardized set of colorectal cancer clinical data elements was collected. Data regarding client age, screening history, risk level, screening test indication, results, and recommendation for the next test were analyzed. For colonoscopies, data were analyzed regarding whether the cecum was reached, bowel preparation was adequate, and identified lesions were completely removed. RESULTS: Overall, 53% of the fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (2295 tests) distributed were completed and returned. At the 2 sites with adequate numbers of FOBTs, 77% and 97%, respectively, of clients with positive results received follow-up colonoscopies. Site-specific cecal intubation rates ranged from 90% to 98%. Adenoma detection rates were 32% for men and 21% for women. For approximately one-third of colonoscopies, the recommended interval to the next test was shorter than recommended by national guidelines. At some sites, endoscopists failed to report on the adequacy of bowel preparation and completeness of polyp removal. CONCLUSIONS: Cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection rates met recommended levels. The authors identified the need for improvements in the follow-up of positive FOBTs, documentation of important elements in colonoscopy reports, and recommendations for rescreening or surveillance intervals after colonoscopy. Monitoring quality indicators is important to improve screening quality.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among US men and women. Screening rates have been slow to increase, and disparities in screening remain. METHODS: To address the disparity in screening for this high burden but largely preventable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and established a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in 2005 for low-income, under-insured or uninsured men and women aged 50 to 64 years in 5 participating US program sites. In this report, the authors describe the design of the CRCSDP and the overall clinical findings and screening test performance characteristics, including the positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rate; the rates of polyp, adenoma, and cancer detection with FOBTs and colonoscopies; and the positive predicative value for polyps, adenomas, and cancers. RESULTS: In total, 5233 individuals at average risk and increased risk were screened for colorectal cancer across all 5 sites, including 44% who underwent screening FOBT and 56% who underwent screening colonoscopy. Overall, 77% of all individuals screened were women. The FOBT positivity rate was 10%. Results from all screening or diagnostic colonoscopies indicated that 75% had negative results and required a repeat screening colonoscopy in 10 years, 16% had low-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 5 to 10 years, 8% had high-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 3 years, and 0.6% had invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This report documents the successes and challenges in implementing the CDC's CRCSDP and describes the clinical outcomes of this 4-year initiative, the patterns in program uptake and test choice, and the comparative test performance characteristics of FOBT versus colonoscopy. Patterns in final outcomes from the follow-up of positive screening tests were consistent with national registry data.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Before evidence of efficacy, lung cancer screening was being ordered by many physicians. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality among those randomized to receive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), will likely lead to increased screening use. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence of chest X-ray and CT use in the United States using data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Subjects included 15,537 NHIS respondents aged ≥40 years without prior diagnosis of lung cancer. Estimates of the size of the U. S. population by age and smoking status were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression examined predictors of test use adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of adults reported chest X-ray in the previous year and 2.5% reported chest X-ray specifically to check for lung cancer; corresponding numbers for chest CT were 7.5% and 1.3%. Older age, black race, male gender, smoking, respiratory disease, personal history of cancer, and having health insurance were associated with test use. Approximately, 8.7 million adults in the United States would be eligible for LDCT screening according to NLST eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPACT: Monitoring of trends in the use of lung screening tests will be vital to assess the impact of NLST and possible changes in lung cancer screening recommendations and insurance coverage in the future. Education of patients by their physicians, and of the general public, may help ensure that screening is used appropriately, in those most likely to benefit. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(7); 1049-59. (c)2012 AACR.)

The International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network was established in 2003 to promote best practice in the delivery of organized colorectal cancer screening programs. To facilitate evaluation of such programs, we defined a set of universally applicable colorectal cancer screening measures and indicators. To test the feasibility of data collection, we requested data on these variables and basic program characteristics from 26 organized full programs and 9 pilot programs in 24 countries. The size of the target population for each program varied considerably from a few thousand to 36 million. The majority of programs used fecal occult blood tests for primary screening, with more using guaiac than immunochemical tests. There was wide variation in the ability of screening programs to report the requested measures and in the values reported. In general, pilot programs were more likely to provide screening measure values than were full programs. As expected, detection rates for polyps and neoplasia were substantially higher in programs screening with endoscopy than in those using fecal occult blood tests. It is hoped that the screening measures and indicators, once revised in the light of this survey, will be adopted and used by existing programs and those in the early planning stages, allowing international comparison with the goal of improved colorectal cancer screening quality.

BACKGROUND: Recommended CRC screening tests for adults ages 50-75 include home FOBT, sigmoidoscopy with FOBT, and colonoscopy. A newer test, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, has been recommended by some, but not all, national organizations. METHODS: We analyzed 2010 National Health Interview Survey data, including new CT colonography questions, from respondents ages 50-75 (N=8952). We assessed: 1) prevalence of CRC test use overall, by test type, and by sociodemographic and health care access factors, and 2) reported reasons for not having a CRC test. RESULTS: The age-standardized percentage of respondents reporting FOBT, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within recommended time intervals was 58.3% (95% CI, 57.0-59.6). Colonoscopy was the most commonly reported test (within past 10 years: 54.6% (95% CI, 53.2-55.9)). Home FOBT and sigmoidoscopy with FOBT were less frequently used (FOBT within past year: 8.8% (95% CI, 8.1-9.6); sigmoidoscopy within past 5 years with FOBT within past 3 years: 1.3% (95% CI, 1.0-1.6)). CT colonography was rare: 1.3% (95% CI, 1.0-1.7). Increasing age, education, income, having health insurance, and having a usual source of health care were associated with higher CRC test use. Test use within recommended time intervals was particularly low among individuals ages 50-64 without health insurance (21.2% (95% CI, 18.3-24.4)). The most common reason for non-use was "no reason or never thought about it." CONCLUSIONS: About 40% of Americans ages 50-75 do not meet recommendations for having CRC screening tests. Impact: Expanded health care coverage and greater awareness of CRC screening are needed to further decrease CRC mortality.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening use is critical for understanding screening implementation, and whether population groups targeted for screening are receiving it, consistent with guidelines. This study examines recent national trends in CRC test use, including among vulnerable populations. METHODS: We used the 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2008 National Health Interview Survey to examine national trends in CRC screening use overall and for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. We also assessed trends by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, time in the United States, and access to health care. RESULTS: During 2000 to 2008, significant declines in FOBT and sigmoidoscopy use and significant increases in colonoscopy use and in the percentages of adults up-to-date with CRC screening occurred overall and for most population subgroups. Subgroups with consistently lower rates of colonoscopy use and being up-to-date included Hispanics; people with minimal education, low income, or no health insurance; recent immigrants; and those with no usual source of care or physician visits in the past year. Among up-to-date adults, there were few subgroup differences in the type of test by which they were up-to-date (i.e., FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of CRC screening and colonoscopy increased among U.S. adults, including those from vulnerable populations, 45% of adults aged 50 to 75-or nearly 35 million people-were not up-to-date with screening in 2008. IMPACT: Continued monitoring of CRC screening rates among population subgroups with consistently low utilization is imperative. Improvement in CRC screening rates among all population groups in the United States is still needed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(8); 1611-21. (c)2011 AACR.

This paper aimed to assess quality of colonoscopy reports and determine if physicians in practice were already documenting recommended quality indicators, prior to the publication of a standardized Colonoscopy Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) in 2007. We examined 110 colonoscopy reports from 2005-2006 through Maryland Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. We evaluated 25 key data elements recommended by CO-RADS, including procedure indications, risk/comorbidity assessments, procedure technical descriptions, colonoscopy findings, specimen retrieval/pathology. Among 110 reports, 73% documented the bowel preparation quality and 82% documented specific cecal landmarks. For the 177 individual polyps identified, information on size and morphology was documented for 87% and 53%, respectively. Colonoscopy reporting varied considerately in the pre-CO-RADS period. The absence of key data elements may impact the ability to make recommendations for recall intervals. This paper provides baseline data to assess if CO-RADS has an impact on reporting and how best to improve the quality of reporting.

PURPOSE: Among unanswered questions is whether menopausal use of estrogen therapy (ET) or estrogen-plus-progestin therapy (CHT) increases risk of developing fatal breast cancer i.e., developing and dying of breast cancer. Using a population-based case-control design, we estimated incidence rate ratios of fatal breast cancer in postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) users compared to non-users by type, duration, and recency of HT use. METHODS: HT use prior to breast cancer diagnosis in 278 women who died of breast cancer within 6 years of diagnosis (cases) was compared with use in 2224 controls never diagnosed with breast cancer using conditional logistic regression. Measures taken to address potential bias and confounding inherent in case-control studies included collecting and adjusting for detailed data on demographic and other factors potentially associated both with HT use and breast cancer. RESULTS: Fifty-six per cent of cases and 68% of controls reported HT use. Among current 3+ year HT users, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for death were 0.83 (0.50, 1.38) and 0.69 (0.44, 1.09), respectively, for exclusive use of CHT or of ET, and were 0.94 (0.59, 1.48) and 0.70 (0.45, 1.07) for any use of CHT or of ET regardless of other hormone use. CONCLUSION: Point estimates suggest no increased risk of fatal breast cancer with HT use, although 50% increases in risk in longer-term current CHT users cannot be ruled out.

BACKGROUND: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is an important option for colorectal cancer screening that should be available in order to achieve high population screening coverage. However, results from a national survey of clinical practice in 1999-2000 indicated that many primary care physicians used inadequate methods to implement FOBT screening and follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether methods to screen for fecal occult blood have improved, including the use of newer more sensitive stool tests. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey of primary care physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Participants consisted of 1,134 primary care physicians who reported ordering or performing FOBT in the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Cancer Screening. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported data on details of FOBT implementation and follow-up of positive results. RESULTS: Most physicians report using standard guaiac tests; higher sensitivity guaiac tests and immunochemical tests were reported by only 22.0% and 8.9%, respectively. In-office testing, that is, testing of a single specimen collected during a digital rectal examination in the office, is still widely used although inappropriate for screening: 24.9% of physicians report using only in-office tests and another 52.9% report using both in-office and home tests. Recommendations improved for follow-up after a positive test: fewer physicians recommend repeating the FOBT (17.8%) or using tests other than colonoscopy for the diagnostic work-up (6.6%). Only 44.3% of physicians who use home tests have reminder systems to ensure test completion and return. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians continue to use inappropriate methods to screen for fecal occult blood. Intensified efforts to inform physicians of recommended technique and promote the use of tracking systems are needed.