Rutten, Lila J. Finney

AbstractBackgroundGuidelines include several options for average‐risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR).MethodsIAR aged 45–75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true‐positive, true‐negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi‐target stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test.ResultsPreferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt‐sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt‐sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non‐invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.ConclusionsWhile physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt‐sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR.This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Advocacy organizations are poised to ensure that patients' needs and preferences inform the development, planning, and implementation of multicancer early detection technologies. Engaging patients and cancer advocacy organizations throughout the research, development, and implementation of multicancer early detection technologies is critical to optimize public health impact and health equity.

60 Background: Several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options are considered in guidelines for individuals at average-risk (IAR). These options differ in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision that need to be compared and weighed. This study elicited and compared the relative importance that physicians and IAR place on these screening aspects. Methods: Primary care physicians [PCPs] and gastroenterologists [GIs] who recommended/performed ≥1 screening one month prior to study and adult IAR completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants repeatedly chose between screening tests described by type of test, frequency, true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), and adenoma TP (physicians only). The instrument was tested in qualitative (physicians: n=6; IAR: n=6) and quantitative pilots (physicians: n=100; IAR: n=202). A mixed logit model was used to estimate relative attribute importance (RAI) and predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. Generalizability to the population was confirmed. Results: 1,249 IAR and 400 physicians participated. IAR were 46% male and the mean age was 58.9. Physicians were 79% male and their mean age was 53.4. Preferences were most affected by TP rates (IAR RAI=58%; physicians RAI=42%). Physicians also placed high importance (RAI=41%) on adenoma TP rates. TN rates (IAR RAI=33%; physician RAI=9%), frequency (IAR RAI=6%; physician RAI=2%) and type (IAR RAI=4%; physician RAI=6%) were less important. Despite both IAR and physicians placing most importance on precision, preferences for screening modalities differed. On average, physicians preferred colonoscopy, while IAR preferred mt-sDNA over colonoscopy (p<0.001). Both preferred mt-sDNA and colonoscopy over FIT (p<0.001), with a mSEPT9 blood test being least preferred (p<0.001). Preferences of IAR were heterogeneous with individuals who underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy screening preferring colonoscopy and the rest preferring mt-sDNA (p<0.001). Conclusions: While both GI and PCPs overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being preferred on average other modalities. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve screening uptake. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients’ quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. Methods In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to “opt-in” to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to “opt-out” if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P &lt; .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. Conclusions Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.

AbstractObjectiveObesity is stigmatized and people with obesity report experiencing stigmatizing situations when seeking health care. The implications of these experiences are not well understood. This study tests an indirect effects model of negative care experiences as an intermediate variable between obesity and care avoidance/utilization and switching primary care doctors.MethodsA survey was completed by 2380 primary care patients in the Learning Health Systems Network (LHSNet) Clinical Data Research Network with a BMI >25 kg/m2. Measures included scales assessing stigmatizing situations, perceived patient‐centered communication, perceived respect, having delayed needed care, and having looked for a new primary doctor in the past 12 months. Sequential and serial indirect effects of care experiences and respect in the association between BMI and care utilization outcomes was modeled.ResultsThe hypothesized model was supported by findings. The associations between BMI and delaying needed care (OR = 1.06, p < 0.001) and attempting to switch primary doctors (OR = 1.02, p = 0.04) was mediated by both stigmatizing situations experienced in a health care context and lower patient‐centered communication. Lower perceived respect mediated the association between care experiences and utilization outcomes.ConclusionsPeople with higher BMIs may avoid care or switch doctors as a result of stigmatizing experiences and poor communication with doctors. These outcomes may contribute to morbidity in people with obesity if they delay or avoid care for health concerns when symptoms first present.

INTRODUCTION: Significant variability between colonoscopy operators contributes to postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). We aimed to estimate postcolonoscopy colorectal neoplasia (CRN) detection by multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), which has not previously been studied for this purpose. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of patients with +mt-sDNA and completed follow-up colonoscopy, positive predictive value (PPV) for endpoints of any CRN, advanced adenoma, right-sided neoplasia, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and CRC were stratified by the time since previous colonoscopy (0–9, 10, and ≥11 years). mt-sDNA PPV at ≤9 years from previous average-risk screening colonoscopy was used to estimate CRN missed at previous screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 850 studied patients with +mt-sDNA after a previous negative screening colonoscopy, any CRN was found in 535 (PPV 63%). Among 107 average-risk patients having +mt-sDNA ≤9 years after last negative colonoscopy, any CRN was found in 67 (PPV 63%), advanced neoplasia in 16 (PPV 15%), right-sided CRN in 48 (PPV 46%), and SSP in 20 (PPV 19%). These rates were similar to those in 47 additional average risk persons with previous incomplete colonoscopy and in an additional 68 persons at increased CRC risk. One CRC (stage I) was found in an average risk patient who was mt-sDNA positive 6 years after negative screening colonoscopy. DISCUSSION: The high PPV of mt-sDNA 0–9 years after a negative screening colonoscopy suggests that lesions were likely missed on previous examination or may have arisen de novo . mt-sDNA as an interval test after negative screening colonoscopy warrants further study.

AbstractRecommended colorectal cancer screening modalities vary with respect to safety, efficacy, and cost. Better understanding of the factors that influence patient preference is, therefore, critical for improving population adherence to colorectal cancer screening. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a panel survey focused on three commonly utilized colorectal cancer screening options [fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FIT/gFOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and colonoscopy] with a national sample of U.S. adults, ages 40–75 years and at average risk of colorectal cancer, in November 2019. Of 5,097 panelists invited to participate, 1,595 completed the survey (completion rate, 31.3%). Our results showed that when presented a choice between two colorectal cancer screening modalities, more respondents preferred mt-sDNA (65.4%) over colonoscopy, FIT/gFOBT (61%) over colonoscopy, and mt-sDNA (66.9%) over FIT/gFOBT. Certain demographic characteristics and awareness of and/or experience with various screening modalities influenced preferences. For example, uninsured people were more likely to prefer stool-based tests over colonoscopy [OR, 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22–5.65 and OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.13–7.47]. People who had heard of stool-based screening were more likely to prefer mt-sDNA over FIT/gFOBT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.26–3.40). People who previously had a stool-based test were more likely to prefer FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.74–4.41), while people who previously had a colonoscopy were less likely to prefer mt-sDNA or FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.63 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.62). Our survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal cancer screening recommendations.Prevention Relevance:Our national survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal screening recommendations.