Advertisement

Variation in colorectal cancer testing between primary care physicians: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland

  • Alexander Leonhard Braun
  • Emanuele Prati
  • Yonas Martin
  • Charles Dvořák
  • Kali Tal
  • Nikola Biller-Andorno
  • Jean-Luc Bulliard
  • Jacques Cornuz
  • Kevin Selby
  • Reto AuerEmail author
Original article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the proportion of 50–75-year-old patients who visit a primary care physician’s (PCP) office and were tested for colorectal cancer (CRC) by either colonoscopy within 10 years or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 2 years. To describe the variation in care between PCPs and factors associated with these proportions.

Methods

Cross-sectional data collected between April and December 2017. Participants: PCPs reporting for the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network. Each PCP collected demographic data and CRC testing status from 40 consecutive patients. Measurements: proportions of patients up to date with CRC screening and method used (colonoscopy/FOBT/Other); variation in the outcome measures between PCPs; association of physician-level factors with main outcomes.

Results

91/129 PCPs collected data from 3451 patients; 45% had been tested for CRC within recommended intervals (41% colonoscopy, 4% FOBT). The proportions of patients tested and testing with colonoscopy versus FOBT varied widely between PCPs. Language region was associated with PCPs’ rate of FOBT prescription.

Conclusions

Less than half of patients who visited PCPs in Switzerland were tested for CRC within recommended intervals. PCPs varied widely in their testing practices.

Keywords

Primary care Colorectal cancer Screening Practice variation Decision making 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the funds from the Swiss National Scientific Foundations National Research Plan 74 (NFP74. 407440_167519). The funder played no role in the design or conduct of the study, in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors identified a conflict of interest for this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The ethics committee of the canton of Bern waived ethical approval for the study because of the double irreversible patient-data anonymization process (the FOPH cannot identify the patients, and investigators cannot identify the PCPs), so our study fell outside of the scope of the Swiss Human Research Act (REQ-2017-00,280).

Supplementary material

38_2019_1259_MOESM1_ESM.doc (458 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 457 kb)

References

  1. Auer R, Selby K, Bulliard JL, Nichita C, Dorta G, Ducros C et al (2015) Programme cantonal vaudois de dépistage du cancercolorectal: information et décision partagée. Revue Medicale Suisse 11:2229–2215Google Scholar
  2. Braun AL, Kässner A, Syrogiannouli L, Selby K, Tal K, Del Giovane C, Bulliard J-L, Auer R, Zwahlen M. Association between colorectal cancer testing and insurance status: evidence from the Swiss Health Interview Surveys 2007 and 2012. In: Abstract FM225. Presented at the 2018 Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine (SSGIM). https://primary-hospital-care.ch/fileadmin/content/Supplements/PHC-Suppl_9.pdf
  3. Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M (2014) Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 348:g2467.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen C, Lacke E, Stock C, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H (2017) Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use among older adults in different countries: a systematic review. Prev Med 103:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeCamp M, Pomerantz D, Cotts K et al (2018) Ethical issues in the design and implementation of population health programs. J Gen Intern Med 33:370–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4234-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodou D, de Winter JC (2015) Agreement between self-reported and registered colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 24:286–298.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dominic OG, McGarrity T, Dignan M, Lengerich EJ (2009) American college of gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol 104:2626–2627.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.419 author reply 2628–2629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Statistics Office (2017) Nachhaltige Entwicklung, regionale und internationale Disparitäten/Statistische Grundlagen und ÜbersichtenGoogle Scholar
  9. Fedewa SA, Cullati S, Bouchardy C et al (2015) Colorectal cancer screening in Switzerland: cross-sectional trends (2007–2012) in socioeconomic disparities. PLoS One 10:e0131205.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer R, Collet TH, Zeller A et al (2013) Obesity and overweight associated with lower rates of colorectal cancer screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer Prev 22:425–430.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32835f3b87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gnadinger M, Conen D, Herzig L, Puhan MA, Staehelin A, Zoller M, Ceschi A (2017) Medication incidents in primary care medicine: a prospective study in the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network (Sentinella). BMJ Open 7:e013658.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawley S, Lillie S, Cooper G, Elston Lafata J (2014) Managed care patients’ preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening. Am J Manag Care 20:555–561Google Scholar
  13. Hurlimann D, Limacher A, Schabel M et al (2015) Improvement of antibiotic prescription in outpatient care: a cluster-randomized intervention study using a sentinel surveillance network of physicians. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:602–608.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK et al (2012) Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med 172:575–582.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klabunde C, Blom J, Bulliard JL et al (2015) Participation rates for organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: an international comparison. J Med Screen 22:119–126.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141315584694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM et al (2016) Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 315:2595–2609.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.6828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lauby-Secretan B, Vilahur N, Bianchini F, Guha N, Straif K, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working G (2018) The IARC perspective on colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsr1714643
  18. McPhee SJ, Richard RJ (1980) Solkowitz SN (1986) Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the American Cancer Society Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 1:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Salas D, Vanaclocha M, Ibanez J et al (2014) Participation and detection rates by age and sex for colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Causes Control CCC 25:985–997.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-014-0398-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmutz C, Bless PJ, Mausezahl D, Jost M, Mausezahl-Feuz M, Swiss Sentinel Surveillance N (2017) Acute gastroenteritis in primary care: a longitudinal study in the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network. Sentinella Infection 45:811–824.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-017-1049-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, Schoen RE, Sung JJ, Young GP, Kuipers EJ (2015) Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 64:1637–1649.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Selby K, Cornuz J, Senn N (2015) Establishment of a representative practice-based research network (PBRN) for the monitoring of primary care in Switzerland. J Am Board Fam Med 28:673–675  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2015.05.150110
  23. Selby K, Cornuz J, Gachoud D et al (2016) Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys. BMJ Open 6:e011086.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stock C, Brenner H (2010) Utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and fecal occult blood test in 11 European countries: evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Endoscopy 42:546-556  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1244127
  25. Stock C, Ihle P, Schubert I, Brenner H (2011) Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test use in Germany: results from a large insurance-based cohort. Endoscopy 43:771–781.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1256504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. USPSTF (2016) screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 315:2564–2575  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989
  27. von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N et al (2013) European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 45:51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1325997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weiss JM, Smith MA, Pickhardt PJ et al (2013) Predictors of colorectal cancer screening variation among primary-care providers and clinics. Am J Gastroenterol 108:1159–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2013.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Leonhard Braun
    • 1
  • Emanuele Prati
    • 1
  • Yonas Martin
    • 1
  • Charles Dvořák
    • 2
  • Kali Tal
    • 1
  • Nikola Biller-Andorno
    • 3
  • Jean-Luc Bulliard
    • 4
  • Jacques Cornuz
    • 4
  • Kevin Selby
    • 4
    • 5
  • Reto Auer
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM)University of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.President Sentinella NetworkBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute for Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME)ZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.University General Medicine and Public Health CentreUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  5. 5.Northern California Division of ResearchKaiser PermanenteOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations