Printer Friendly

Colorectal cancer test use--Maryland, 2002-2006.

During 2000-2004, Maryland had the thirteenth highest mortality rate for colorectal cancer (CRC) among the 50 states and the District of Columbia (1). The American Cancer Society (ACS), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and other organizations recommend that adults begin CRC screening at age 50 years if they are at average risk for CRC and before age 50 years if they are at increased risk (2,3). For those at average risk, ACS recommends screening with 1) a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, 2) flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, 3) an annual FOBT or FIT combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, * 4) double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) every 5 years, or 5) colonoscopy every 10 years (2). In 2002, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene initiated the Maryland Cancer Survey (MCS) to assess testing prevalence and risk behaviors for seven types of cancer, including CRC. Reducing CRC mortality and disparities in CRC incidence and mortality are goals described in Maryland's Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan (MCCCP) (4). As milestones toward these goals, Maryland set the following targets for 2008 for persons aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years: 1) decrease the percentage of Maryland residents who have never been screened for CRC to [less than or equal to] 15% (from a 2002 baseline of 25.9%); 2) increase the percentage of residents who are up to date with CRC screening (per ACS guidelines) to [greater than or equal to] 73% (from a 2002 baseline of 63.8%); and 3) increase the percentage of residents who have been screened with either colonoscopy in the past 10 years, or FOBT in the past year plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, to [greater than or equal to] 57% (from a baseline of 46.5% in 2002). This report describes trends in CRC test use based on results from MCS surveys completed in 2002, 2004, and 2006.t The results indicated a significant decline (6.1 percentage points) in the percentage of Maryland residents aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years who had never been tested for CRC, a 5.4 percentage-point increase in prevalence of up-to-date testing by any method, and a 13.9 percentage-point increase in prevalence of either colonoscopy in the past 10 years or FOBT in the past year plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years. However, Maryland residents who were neither white nor black (i.e., persons of other races) had a significantly lower prevalence of ever having a CRC test, as did persons without health insurance or those without a recent checkup. Although overall increases in CRC testing reflect substantial progress in Maryland, additional measures are needed to increase CRC testing among racial minority groups and the medically underserved.

MCS is a biennial, population-based, statewide survey of cancer test use and behavioral risk factors among Maryland residents. MCS follows the methodology of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) but focuses on adults aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years, the population most at risk for cancer. ([section]) The survey is conducted by telephone using random-digit dialing with computer-assisted telephone interviewing and list-assisted, disproportionate, stratified sampling. Respondents were eligible to participate in the survey if they were aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years, resided in a private residence in Maryland, and were able to respond to the interview questions. For the purposes of sampling, Maryland was divided into two geographic strata, urban and rural, with oversampling of rural telephone numbers. In 2002 and 2004, the survey was offered only in English. In 2006, participants were able to respond in English or Spanish.

Reported prevalence data were weighted to the Maryland population in the corresponding year according to BRFSS protocol (5). A total of 5,040, 5,004, and 5,149 persons completed the interviews in 2002, 2004, and 2006, respectively. Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) response rates were 38.4% (2002), 38.3% (2004), and 39.7% (2006). Of those persons surveyed in 2002, 2004, and 2006, a total of 3,436, 3,556, and 3,776 respondents, respectively, were aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years.

Respondents first were asked whether they had ever used a home FOBT or blood stool test and how long it had been since the last home test. After hearing a description of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, respondents were asked whether they had ever had either test, which one was the most recent, and how long it had been since the last test. Questions regarding DCBE were not included in the questionnaire because DCBE is not commonly used as a first-line CRC screening test. Persons were considered to have up-to-date CRC testing if they reported any one of the following: an FOBT within the past year, a sigmoidoscopy within the past 5 years, an FOBT in the past year combined with a sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, or a colonoscopy within the past 10 years. Respondents whose responses were outside these parameters were considered not up to date, as were those who did not know when their last test occurred (6.8% of persons categorized as not up to date). The analysis is based on respondents aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years who were able to report whether they had received any CRC tests and were able to distinguish whether their last lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy was a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (3,400 in 2002, 3,506 in 2004, and 3,748 in 2006; 99% of respondents aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years for each year). ([paragraph])

The estimated percentage of adults aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years who had never had a CRC test decreased from 25.9% in 2002 to 19.8% in 2006, a decline of 6.1 percentage points (Figure). The percentage of respondents who were up to date with CRC testing by ACS guidelines increased by 5.4 percentage points during the study period, from 63.8% in 2002 to 69.2% in 2006. On the basis of 2006 MCS data, the percentage of Maryland residents who reported being up to date with colonoscopy or FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy has already exceeded the 2008 target of 57%. The prevalence of self-reported up-to-date colonoscopy (within the past 10 years) increased from 41.2% in 2002 to 58.7% in 2006. Accompanying the increase in colonoscopy during the study period was a decrease in the proportion of adults aged >50 years who were up to date by FOBT (within the past year) and sigmoidoscopy (in the past 5 years). The percentage of adults who were tested but were not up to date remained stable at 10.3%, 10.1%, and 11.0%, respectively, in the three survey years.

[FIGURE OMITTED]

The estimated percentage of Maryland residents never tested for CRC declined significantly (p<0.05, by chi-square test) during the study period by nearly all subject characteristics examined, except for respondents of other race (i.e., nonwhite and nonblack), those who had not had a routine checkup in the past 2 years, and those without health insurance coverage (Table). Persons with lower educational attainment (i.e., high school diploma or less) were significantly less likely to have ever been tested in each study year, but this disparity decreased over time. Persons who reported having a routine checkup within the past 2 years were more likely than those without a recent checkup to have ever been tested. Approximately 55% of the uninsured persons in each survey year had never been tested, compared with 24.7% (2002), 21.1% (2004), and 18.4% (2006) among persons with health insurance.

Editorial Note. MCS results indicate that the percentage of Maryland residents aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years who reported ever being tested for CRC increased by 6.1 percentage points from 2002 to 2006. Extrapolated to the state population aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years (6), this finding translates into an estimated 90,000 previously untested Maryland residents who received CRC testing during that period.

The observed prevalences in MCS of ever having any CRC tests are consistent with those reported in the Maryland BRFSS. The 2006 BRFSS indicated that 77.1% of Maryland residents aged [greater than or equal to] 50 years had ever been tested for CRC, compared with 80.2% in the 2006 MCS. However, MCS, unlike BRFSS, asks respondents to specify which type of lower GI endoscopy was used in their most recent CRC test. Thus, MCS results have been able to highlight a trend toward increasing use of colonoscopy in recent years, with corresponding declines in testing with FOBT and sigmoidoscopy.

The increase in CRC test use in general and colonoscopy in particular likely is attributable to recent changes in health-insurance coverage and to increased knowledge among the general public regarding CRC test procedures. Since July 2001, Medicare has provided payment for all types of CRC screening tests, including colonoscopy, which might account, in part, for the increase in testing among adults aged [greater than or equal to] 65 years. Since 2001, the state of Maryland has required certain health-care insurers, health-maintenance organizations, and nonprofit health-services plans to provide CRC screening in accordance with ACS guidelines (7). In addition, since 2000, 23 of 24 Maryland jurisdictions have used funds from the Cigarette Restitution Fund Program to provide CRC education to health-care providers and the public or to provide CRC testing to qualified, low-income, uninsured residents (8).

The MCS results also indicate that not all segments of the Maryland population have participated equally in these increases. Persons of other races (e.g., Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, multiple race, and unspecified race), the medically underserved (i.e., those without health insurance), and persons without a routine checkup in the past 2 years have a substantially higher prevalence of never having had CRC testing.

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, findings from MCS are based on self-report and are not verified by medical chart review. Therefore, responses might be subject to social-desirability and recall bias. In addition, although the procedures of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are described to survey respondents, certain respondents might not accurately identify their most recent test. Second, response rates in the MCS were low; however, they were comparable to those reported in the Maryland BRFSS (9). For survey years 2002-2006, CASRO rates ranged from 38.3% to 39.7% in the MCS and 36.8% to 44.0% in the Maryland BRFSS. The effect of nonresponse on survey estimates is difficult to determine because it depends on the extent to which nonrespondents differ from respondents and the general population. To reduce potential bias from nonresponse, interviewers made numerous call attempts and, when necessary, arranged appointments with respondents for more convenient times. Third, because MCS is a telephone survey, it excludes persons without landline telephones. The rates of cancer test use from telephone surveys might be overestimated because persons without landline telephones are less likely to have health insurance (10). Finally, the three survey samples consisted nearly entirely of English speakers. In 2002 and 2004, households that were reached by telephone but were unable to respond in English were excluded. However, in 2006, when the survey was offered in Spanish, only 0.4% of respondents chose to respond in Spanish.

MCS elicits from respondents the specific type of lower GI endoscopy used in their most recent CRC test. Knowing whether the most recent endoscopy was a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy allows for better assessment of CRC testing practices. In Maryland, CRC testing rates have increased in recent years, with increases in up-to-date testing and a shift toward use of colonoscopy. Although these changes in CRC testing likely will have a substantial public health impact in Maryland (e.g., via the detection of premalignant lesions and early-stage CRC), additional measures are needed to eliminate remaining disparities in CRC testing and to increase testing among the medically underserved.

References

(1.) Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al, eds. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004.

(2.) Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:90-104.

(3.) US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ 3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm.

(4.) Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The 2004-2008 Maryland Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan: our call to action. Baltimore, MD: Center for Cancer Surveillance and Control; 2004. Available at http://www.fha.state.md.us/cancer/cancerplan/html/ theplan.cfm.

(5.) CDC. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Technical information and data. BRFSS weighting formula. Available at http:// www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/weighting.htm.

(6.) Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Vital statistics annual report, 2002. Baltimore, MD: Vital Statistics Administration; 2003. Available at http://www.vsa.state.md.us/html/reports.html.

(7.) National Conference of State Legislatures. Colorectal cancer screening: what are states doing? Available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ health/colonrectal.htm.

(8.) Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund Program. Available at http:// www.crf.state.md.us/index.cfm.

(9.) CDC. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Technical information and data, summary data quality reports for 2002, 2004, and 2006. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/ quality.htm.

(10.) Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML. Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. Am J Pub Health 2006;96:926-31.

* An annual FOBT or FIT combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years is preferred over either of these options alone.

([dagger]) Results of 2002 and 2004 MCS surveys are available at http://fha.state.md.us/ cancer/surveillance/html/data_reports.cfm. Results of the 2006 survey are in press.

([section] MCS is conducted independendy of the Maryland BRFSS. The Maryland BRFSS is available at http://www.flaa.state.md.us/cphs/html/brfss.cfm.

([paragraph]) In this report, CRC tests performed for screening purposes are not differentiated from those performed for nonscreening reasons (e.g., diagnostic testing as follow-up to another test or because of symptoms). Therefore, the broader term "testing" is used in lieu of "screening" to reflect CRC tests performed for any indication.
TABLE. Estimated percentage * of population aged [greater than or
equal to]50 years never tested for colorectal cancer, by selected
characteristics--Maryland Cancer Survey, 2002-2006

                                                     2002

Characteristic                                    %      (95% CI)
                                                         [dagger]
Overall                                          25.9   (24.1-27.6)
Age group (yrs)
  50-64                                          30.6   (28.1-33.0)
  [greater than or equal to] 65                  19.5   (17.2-21.7)
Sex
  Male                                           26.3   (23.4-29.2)
  Female                                         25.5   (23.4-27.7)
Race
  White                                          23.8   (22.0-25.6)
  Black                                          29.5   (25.2-33.8)
  Other race                                     40.3   (29.0-51.7)
Geographic area
  Urban                                          25.2   (23.1-27.2)
  Rural                                          28.5   (25.6-31.3)
Education level
  High school diploma or less                    32.2   (29.4-35.0)
  Any college or more                            21.1   (18.9-23.3)
Time since last routine checkup ([paragraph])
  <2 yrs                                         24.0   (22.3-25.8)
  [greater than or equal to] 2 yrs               50.3   (42.6-58.0)
Health-insurance coverage **
  Yes                                            24.7   (22.9-26.4)
  No                                             53.8   (44.3-63.2)

                                                      2004

Characteristic                                    %      (95% CI)

Overall                                          22.8   (21.1-24.5)
Age group (yrs)
  50-64                                          26.0   (23.6-28.5)
  [greater than or equal to] 65                  18.1   (15.8-20.3)
Sex
  Male                                           22.1   (19.2-25.1)
  Female                                         23.3   (21.3-25.4)
Race
  White                                          20.2   (18.4-21.9)
  Black                                          27.7   (23.6-31.9)
  Other race                                     44.1   (30.8-57.4)
Geographic area
  Urban                                          22.5   (20.4-24.6)
  Rural                                          23.9   (21.1-26.7)
Education level
  High school diploma or less                    29.5   (26.6-32.4)
  Any college or more                            18.6   (16.5-20.7)
Time since last routine checkup ([paragraph])
  <2 yrs                                         20.7   (18.9-22.4)
  [greater than or equal to] 2 yrs               56.2   (48.0-64.3)
Health-insurance coverage **
  Yes                                            21.1   (19.4-22.8)
  No                                             59.1   (49.1-69.1)

                                                      2006

Characteristic                                     %     (95% CI)

Overall                                          19.8   (18.3-21.4)
Age group (yrs)
  50-64                                          23.8   (21.6-26.0)
  [greater than or equal to] 65                  13.8   (11.6-15.9)
Sex
  Male                                           19.4   (16.8-22.0)
  Female                                         20.2   (18.3-22.2)
Race
  White                                          18.4   (16.8-20.0)
  Black                                          22.3   (18.1-26.4)
  Other race                                     31.4   (21.1-41.7)
Geographic area
  Urban                                          19.2   (17.3-21.1)
  Rural                                          22.3   (19.8-24.7)
Education level
  High school diploma or less                    24.1   (21.2-26.9)
  Any college or more                            17.4   (15.5-19.3)
Time since last routine checkup ([paragraph])
  <2 yrs                                         17.1   (15.5-18.7)
  [greater than or equal to] 2 yrs               50.6   (43.8-57.4)
Health-insurance coverage **
  Yes                                            18.4   (16.9-20.0)
  No                                             52.5   (43.0-62.0)

Characteristic                                   p value ([section])

Overall                                                 <0.001
Age group (yrs)
  50-64                                                 <0.001
  [greater than or equal to] 65                          0.001
Sex
  Male                                                   0.003
  Female                                                 0.001
Race
  White                                                 <0.001
  Black                                                  0.04
  Other race                                             0.31
Geographic area
  Urban                                                 <0.001
  Rural                                                  0.004
Education level
  High school diploma or less                           <0.001
  Any college or more                                    0.04
Time since last routine checkup ([paragraph])
  <2 yrs                                                <0.001
  [greater than or equal to] 2 yrs                       0.50
Health-insurance coverage **
  Yes                                                   <0.001
  No                                                     0.59

* Percentage weighted to Maryland population in each survey year.

([dagger]) Confidence interval.

([section]) Based on chi-square test of significance for differences
across the three survey years.

([paragraph]) Based on response to survey question, "About how long has
it been since you last visited a doctor for a routine checkup?"

** Based on response to survey question, "Do you have any kind of
health-care coverage?"
COPYRIGHT 2007 U.S. Government Printing Office
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Steinberger, E.K.; Poppell, C.F.; Zhan, M.; Shebl, F.; Hopkins, A.; Groves, C.; Bienia, M.; Dwyer, D
Publication:Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 14, 2007
Words:3012
Previous Article:Ocular and respiratory illness associated with an indoor swimming pool--Nebraska, 2006.
Next Article:West Nile virus update--United States, January 1-September 11, 2007.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters