Background

Young adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) comprise a growing, yet understudied, patient population. We estimated 5-year relative survival of early-onset CRC and examined disparities in survival by race-ethnicity in a population-based sample.

Methods

We used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of cancer registries to identify patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (20-49 years of age) between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2013. For each racial-ethnic group, we estimated 5-year relative survival, overall and by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. To illustrate temporal trends, we compared 5-year relative survival in 1992-2002 vs 2003-2013. We also used Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the association of race-ethnicity and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, county type (urban vs rural), county-level median household income, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis.

Results

We identified 33,777 patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (58.5% White, 14.0% Black, 13.0% Asian, 14.5% Hispanic). Five-year relative survival ranged from 57.6% (Black patients) to 69.1% (White patients). Relative survival improved from 1992-2002 to 2003-2013 for White patients only; there was no improvement for Black, Asian, or Hispanic patients. This pattern was similar by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. In adjusted analysis, Black (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.49), Asian (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12), and Hispanic (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21) race-ethnicity were associated with all-cause mortality.

Conclusion

Our study adds to the well-documented disparities in CRC in older adults by demonstrating persistent racial-ethnic disparities in relative survival and all-cause mortality in patients with early-onset CRC.

Objective

Colorectal cancer screening programs frequently report problems ensuring adequate follow-up of positive fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). We investigated strategies implemented by ongoing screening programs to improve follow-up for FIT-positive participants, and explored associations between interventions and reported rates of follow-up.

Methods

We submitted an electronic survey to 58 colorectal cancer screening programs or affiliated researchers. Primary outcomes were the proportion of program participants with a positive FIT completing diagnostic colonoscopy, and patient, provider, and system-level interventions used to improve follow-up. We compare mean colonoscopy completion at six months in programs with and without interventions.

Results

Thirty-five programs completed the survey (60% response). The mean proportion of participants with a positive FIT who completed colonoscopy was 79% (standard deviation 16%). Programs used a mean of five interventions to improve follow-up. Programs using patient navigators had an 11% higher rate of colonoscopy completion at six months (p = 0.05). Programs sending reminders to primary care providers when no colonoscopy has been completed had a 12% higher rate of colonoscopy completion (p = 0.03). Other interventions were not associated with significant differences.

Conclusions

Almost all programs employ multiple interventions to ensure timely follow-up of positive FIT. The use of patient navigators and provider reminders is associated with higher rates of colonoscopy completion.

Introduction

The Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy.

Methods

Seventeen semistructured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites.

Results

We identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT-positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers.

Discussion

These results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person precolonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.

Objectives

To determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows.

Methods

We administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1-30, 31-60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout.

Results

Surveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1-30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31-60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for.

Conclusion

Exposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.