colon cancer surveillance evaluation l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Colon Cancer Surveillance & Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Colon Cancer Surveillance & Evaluation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Colon Cancer Surveillance & Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 316 Views
  • Uploaded on

Colon Cancer Surveillance & Evaluation. Lorna Thorpe, Ph.D. NYC DOHMH – Division of Epidemiology CDC - Nat’l Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Objectives. Review cancer surveillance goals Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Colon Cancer Surveillance & Evaluation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Colon CancerSurveillance & Evaluation Lorna Thorpe, Ph.D. NYC DOHMH – Division of Epidemiology CDC - Nat’l Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

    2. Objectives • Review cancer surveillance goals • Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer • Summarize national and local surveillance findings • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of available indicators • Lead group discussion on local surveillance opportunities

    3. Objectives • Review cancer surveillance goals • Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer • Summarize national and local surveillance findings • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of available indicators • Lead group discussion on local surveillance opportunities

    4. Objectives • Review cancer surveillance goals • Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer • Summarize national and local surveillance findings • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of available indicators • Lead group discussion on local surveillance opportunities

    5. Objectives • Review cancer surveillance goals • Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer • Summarize national and local surveillance findings • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of available indicators • Lead group discussion on local surveillance opportunities

    6. Objectives • Review cancer surveillance goals • Identify measurable indicators related to colorectal cancer • Summarize national and local surveillance findings • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of available indicators • Lead group discussion on local surveillance opportunities

    7. Cancer Surveillance Goals • Identify and track trends • Strengthen cancer prevention and control activities • Prioritize use of resources

    8. Where are the Measurable Indicators for Tracking Colorectal Cancer? Monitor Prevalence of Risk Factors Cancer-related death occurs Cancer develops Polyp(s) develop

    9. Where are the Measurable Indicators for Tracking Colorectal Cancer? Monitor Prevalence of Risk Factors Measure Use of Cancer Screening Tests Cancer-related death occurs Cancer develops Polyp(s) develop

    10. Where are the Measurable Indicators for Tracking Colorectal Cancer? Monitor Prevalence of Risk Factors Measure Use of Cancer Screening Tests Track Incidence Of New Cancer Diagnoses Cancer-related death occurs Cancer develops Polyp(s) develop

    11. Where are the Measurable Indicators for Tracking Colorectal Cancer? Monitor Prevalence of Risk Factors Measure Use of Cancer Screening Tests Track Incidence Of New Cancer Diagnoses Assess Cancer- Related Mortality Rates Cancer-related death occurs Cancer develops Polyp(s) develop

    12. Individual Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • An unlikely set of indicators for tracking disease trends • Most behavioral risk factors are non-specific to colorectal cancer • Attributable fraction of highest risk groups is small • Highest risk groups may be adequately educated and/or screened

    13. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    14. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    15. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    16. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    17. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    18. Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer • Age • Diet • Physical activity • History of polyps (familial polyposis) • Personal medical history • Family medical history

    19. Percent of Colorectal Cancer Burden due to Medical Risk Factors Source: CDC

    20. Monitoring Colorectal Cancer Screening Strengths • Highly effective primary and secondary prevention approach • Long lead time (polyp  cancer, cancer  death) • Reduces mortality • Relatively cost-effective • Discrete, measurable event • Can set measurable, attainable, short-tem targets

    21. Colorectal Cancer Screening Weaknesses • Not routinely captured in existing data sources • Not yet a HEDIS measure for health insurance • Not routinely assessed by PROs in Medicare • Not a reportable procedure • Reliant on self-reported prevalence estimates • Complicated screening recommendations menu makes for difficult prevalence assessment

    22. Screening Rates in NYC • Large randomized telephone survey of adults (n=10,000) • Able to look at multiple subgroups • Very timely • Expensive • Difficult to validate • Asked about “ever” sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy

    23. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Ever Colonoscopy or Sigmoidoscopy Screen, by Neighborhood -- NYC 2002

    24. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Ever Colonoscopy or Sigmoidoscopy Screen, by Neighborhood -- NYC 2002

    25. Low Screening Rates Among Groups at Higher Risk for Colorectal Cancer • No groups are being screened enough • Groups at higher risk have lower screening rates • Physically inactive • Smokers

    26. Black and Hispanic New Yorkers Have Lower Rates of Screening than Whites

    27. Screening Questions Planned for 2003 Survey • Ever had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy? • Which type, or both? • Time since last colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy • Ever had a blood stool test (FOBT)? • Time since last FOBT

    28. Other Data Sources for Tracking Screening Trends • Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees (MEDS) • Covers only a small proportion of >65 population • Unstable coverage for many enrollees • 678,000 enrollees, but only 62,000 age 45 and older

    29. Colonoscopy Procedure Rates in NYC Medicaid MCO enrollees, between Jan-June 2002 Age MCO Enrollee Colonoscopies Rate per Pop performed 100,000 pop* 45-64 56,210 943 3355.3 65+ 5,193 112 4313.5 3436.3 = 3.4 per 100 MCO recipients age 45 or older * Annualized rate Source: NYC DOHMH

    30. Other Data Sources for Tracking Screening Trends • Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees (MEDS) • Covers only a small proportion of >65 population • Unstable coverage for many enrollees • 678,000 enrollees, but only 62,000 age 45 and older • Colonoscopy provider surveys

    31. Other Data Sources for Tracking Screening Trends • Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees (MEDS) • Covers only a small proportion of >65 population • Unstable coverage for many enrollees • 678,000 enrollees, but only 62,000 age 45 and older • Colonoscopy provider surveys • SPARCS Ambulatory procedures dataset

    32. Tracking New Diagnoses of Colorectal Cancer (Incidence) Strengths • New York State Cancer Registry • Gold standard quality for completeness and accuracy • Includes incidence, stage at diagnosis, treatment regimen, mortality • National incidence trends, SEER and NPCR • High quality, complete, detailed follow-up

    33. Tracking New Diagnoses of Colorectal Cancer (Incidence) Weaknesses • New York State Cancer Registry • Confidentiality concerns limit the timeliness and accessibility of NYC-specific data • Currently, grouped 1995-1999 data are available • National incidence trends, SEER and NPCR • No local specificity

    34. Avg. Annual Age-Specific Incidence and Mortality Rates by Gender, U.S. 1995-1999

    35. Avg Annual Age-Adjusted Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates, By Borough and Gender – NYC, 1995-1999

    36. Assessing Colorectal Cancer Mortality Rates Strengths • New York City Vital Statistics • Local control allows for timely internal analyses that can inform programs • Currently, 2001 mortality is available • Substantial demographic information

    37. Assessing Colorectal Cancer Mortality Rates Weaknesses • New York City Vital Statistics • No information on medical or behavioral risk factors, stage at diagnosis, or treatment modality • Deaths reflect screening patterns and risk behaviors several years ago • Not rapidly sensitive to interventions

    38. Age-Adjusted Colorectal Cancer Mortality Rates, by Neighborhood – NYC 2001

    39. Colorectal Cancer Death Rates are Highest Among African Americans

    40. Conclusions – Risk Factors • Not appropriate as indicators to track and evaluate impact of interventions

    41. Conclusions - Screening • Timely, population-based measures of screening prevalence in NYC are now available • DOHMH is improving quality of measures as a first-line evaluation measure for screening promotion • Objective measures of screening exams performed are desired

    42. Conclusions - Incidence • Need to improve access to data yet ensure confidentiality • Timeliness • Local specificity • Access to qualitative measures (i.e. stage at diagnosis)

    43. Conclusions - Mortality • Important and ultimate end-point to impact • Reflects a combination of incidence, access to care, and quality of treatment • Not useful for short-term evaluatory purposes

    44. Points for Discussion • What combinations of indicators are best for evaluating media awareness campaigns? • Are there untapped sources of information? • What are some attainable screening targets? • Should different risk groups have different targets?