An interventional study of FIT Screening Strategy and Colon Screening Strategy in Colorectal Cancer, sponsored by University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 50 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-04-26.
Sponsored by University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Screening
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 2nd leading cause of cancer death in the US, though CRC death can be reduced by screening. However, there is uncertainty as to which screening strategy is most clinically and cost-effective from a population perspective where the aim is to optimize completion of the entire screening process continuum. Modeling studies suggest benefits and harms of colonoscopy and stool blood test strategies are similar, but generally assume 100% participation and subsequent clinically appropriate follow up--something never achieved in clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness studies of testing strategies, including comparisons of specific tests and approaches to optimizing effective test use, are necessary. Safety-net health systems care for populations at increased risk for adverse CRC outcomes, such as the uninsured and minorities, and have more limited resources. Therefore, safety-nets must resolve the uncertainty regarding the most effective screening strategy. The investigators will conduct a system-level, randomized comparative effectiveness trial of the benefits, harms, and costs of 3 screening strategies over 3 years, among 6000 patients age 50-64 years, who are not up-to-date with CRC screening, served by a large safety net health system. The three strategies studied will be: 1) Fecal immunochemical testing, with annual mailed invitation outreach (including a test kit), and a centralized process to promote participation and complete clinical follow up (FIT); 2) Colonoscopy, with annual mailed invitation outreach, and a centralized process to promote participation and complete clinical follow up (Colo); 3) Usual Care, with no mailed invitation outreach, and screening offered at primary care visits. The primary measure of benefit will be an outcome measure that summarizes patient-specific effective screening successes. The primary measure of harm will be screening non-participation. The primary measure of cost will be cost per-patient effectively screened. Our specific aims are to: 1) Compare benefits, harms, and costs of a FIT strategy versus a Colo strategy for CRC screening among patients not up-to-date with screening, and 2) Compare benefits, harms, and costs of a) the FIT strategy vs. Usual Care and b) the Colo strategy vs. Usual Care for CRC screening.
5,599 studies on the registry are indexed under Colorectal Neoplasms; 1,459 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 5,999 is above the median of 77 across 4,123 interventional studies indexed under Colorectal Neoplasms.
Browse Colorectal Neoplasms studies →University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 990 studies on the registry; 201 are open to participants now.
Of its 135 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 100 (74%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Up-to-date with CRC screening, defined by:
* No outreach mailed invitations. * Ordering of colonoscopy or FIT for screening at the discretion of the primary provider. * Follow up of abnormal tests and results reporting to the patient at the discretion of primary and specialty providers.
* Mailed outreach invitation to complete FIT, including a test kit (1-sample FIT, simplified instructions on how to perform the test, and return mailer with prepaid postage). * Two "live" phone reminders from project staff 2 to 3 weeks after the invitation to encourage screening completion. * Centralized processes to promote guideline-based follow up.
Other: FIT Screening Strategy
* Mailed outreach invitation to complete a colonoscopy, including a number to call to schedule a colonoscopy. * Two "live" phone call reminders from project staff 2 to 3 weeks after the mailed invitation to encourage screening completion. * Centralized processes to promote guideline-based follow up.
Other: Colon Screening Strategy
* Mailed outreach invitation to complete FIT, including a test kit (1-sample FIT, simplified instructions on how to perform the test, and return mailer with prepaid postage). * Two "live" phone reminders from project staff 2 to 3 weeks after the invitation to encourage screening completion. * Centralized processes to promote guideline-based follow up.
* Mailed outreach invitation to complete a colonoscopy, including a number to call to schedule a colonoscopy. * Two "live" phone call reminders from project staff 2 to 3 weeks after the mailed invitation to encourage screening completion. * Centralized processes to promote guideline-based follow up.
Benefit: Proportion of patients achieving one of the effective screening "successes."
The primary benefit measure will be defined by the proportion of patients achieving an effective screening "success" defined as: * Invited to colonoscopy (i.e. colo), responded to invite, determined to be too sick to scope by phone triage and clinical review * Screening colo completed, no cancer detected * Screening colo completed, cancer detected, 1st cancer treatment consultation visit completed * FIT screening completed, test normal, FIT repeated annually for 2 years * FIT screening completed, test abnormal, failed phone triage for direct scheduling for colo, and after GI clinic visit, determined to be too sick to scope * FIT screening completed, test abnormal, failed phone triage and clinical review, GI clinic visit, determined to be scopable, colo completed * FIT screening completed, test abnormal, colo completed, no cancer detected * FIT screening completed, test abnormal, colo completed, cancer detected, 1st cancer treatment consultation visit completed
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Harm: Rate of screening non-participation.
The primary measure of harms will be the rate of non-screening because initial test completion is a basic prerequisite for prevention of adverse CRC outcomes by a screening process. It is a readily measurable, basic quality assessment. Processes associated with high rates of non-screening would be expected to result in poor long term CRC outcomes.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Cost: Cost per-patient effectively screened.
The primary measure of costs will be the cost per-patient effectively screened from the health system perspective, with effective screening defined by the proportion of patients achieving an effective screening "success." Follow up time for cost-assessment will start at randomization and end either when a patient reaches an effective screening "success" endpoint, or at the end of the three year-follow up time. This outcome addresses a practical question most health systems will have in assessing our screening strategy: What is the strategy specific cost per-patient effectively screened?
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Benefit: Number of CRCs, advanced adenomas, and adenomas detected.
Number of CRCs, advanced adenomas, and adenomas detected.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Benefit: Number of patients screened.
Number of patients screened, defined by the proportion of patients completing one time FIT or colonoscopy.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Harm: Number of CRCs diagnosed based on symptoms/signs rather than screening.
Number of CRCs diagnosed based on symptoms/signs rather than screening.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Harm: Ineffective screening.
Not achieving an effective screening "success." See definition of effective screening "successes" above.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Harm: Post-colonoscopy bleeding or perforation.
Post-colonoscopy bleeding or perforation.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Harm: Failed colonoscopy due to incomplete bowel prep or inability to reach cecum.
Failed colonoscopy due to incomplete bowel prep or inability to reach cecum.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Cost: Cost per patient screened.
Cost per patient screened.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
Cost: Incremental costs for the FIT and Colo strategies relative to the Usual Care strategy.
Incremental costs for the FIT and Colo strategies relative to the Usual Care strategy.
Time frame: All outcomes will be adjudicated within 3 years.
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center