Article    Table of Contents                    Full Text of this article    PDF of this article (PDFs free after 6 months)    Summary for Patients    Summary for Patients (PDF)    Figures/Tables List    Related articles in Annals  Services    Send comment/rapid response letter    Notify a friend about this article    Alert me when this article is cited    Add to Personal Archive    Download to Citation Manager    ACP Search                            Get Permissions  Google Scholar    Search for Related Content  PubMed Articles in PubMed by Author:    Nadel, M. R.    Ransohoff, D. F.    Related Articles in PubMed    PubMed Citation    PubMed

ARTICLE

A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Methods for Screening for Fecal Occult Blood

Marion R. Nadel, PhD; Jean A. Shapiro, PhD; Carrie N. Klabunde, PhD; Laura C. Seeff, MD; Robert Uhler, MA; Robert A. Smith, PhD; and David F. Ransohoff, MD

18 January 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 2 | Pages 86-94

Background: Screening with the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in randomized, controlled trials. Although the test is simple, implementation requires adherence to specific techniques of testing and follow-up of abnormal results.

Objective: To examine how FOBT and follow-up are conducted in community practice across the United States.

Design: Cross-sectional national surveys of primary care physicians and the public.

Setting: The Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices in Health Care Organizations and the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Participants: 1147 primary care physicians who ordered or performed FOBT and 11 365 adults 50 years of age or older who responded to questions about FOBT use.

Measurements: Self-reported data on details of FOBT implementation and follow-up of positive results.

Results: Although screening guidelines recommend home tests, 32.5% (95% CI, 29.8% to 35.3%) of physicians used only the less accurate method of single-sample in-office testing; another 41.2% (CI, 38.3% to 44.0%) used both types of test. Follow-up of positive test results showed considerable nonadherence to guidelines, with 29.7% (CI, 27.1% to 32.4%) of physicians recommending repeating FOBT. Furthermore, sigmoidoscopy, rather than total colon examination, was commonly recommended to work up abnormal findings. Nearly one third of adults who reported having FOBT said they had only an in-office test, and nearly one third of those who reported abnormal FOBT results reported no follow-up diagnostic procedures.

Limitations: The study was based on self-reports. Data from the National Health Interview Survey may underestimate the prevalence of in-office testing and inadequate follow-up.

Conclusions: Mortality reductions demonstrated with FOBT in clinical trials may not be realized in community practice because of the common use of in-office tests and inappropriate follow-up of positive results. Education of providers and system-level interventions are needed to improve the quality of screening implementation.

Editors' Notes Context Authorities recommend at-home fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), using 2 samples from 3 consecutive bowel movements, as one of several options for colorectal cancer screening. Content The authors asked a national sample of 1147 primary care physicians about their colorectal cancer screening practices. Approximately 33% reported using only a single in-office stool sample for FOBT. To follow up positive results, approximately 30% said that they repeated the FOBT, and about the same percentage recommended sigmoidoscopy rather than total colon examination. Implications Many primary care physicians in the United States may use inadequate methods to screen for colorectal cancer. –The Editors

 

Author and Article Information

From Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Grant Support: By the National Cancer Institute (contract no. N01-PC-85169) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (interagency agreement no. 99FED06571).

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Consultancies: D.F. Ransohoff (EXACT Sciences Corp. until 2002).

Requests for Single Reprints: Marion Nadel, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-55, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717; e-mail, mrn1{at}cdc.gov.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Nadel, Shapiro, and Seeff and Mr. Uhler: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-55, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717.

Dr. Klabunde: National Cancer Institute, EPN 4005, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Dr. Smith: American Cancer Society, 1599 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329-4251.

Dr. Ransohoff: School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#7080, Room 326 Burnett-Womack Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7080.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: M.R. Nadel, J.A. Shapiro, C.N. Klabunde, L.C. Seeff, R. Uhler, D.F. Ransohoff.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: M.R. Nadel, J.A. Shapiro, C.N. Klabunde, L.C. Seeff, R. Uhler, D.F. Ransohoff.

Drafting of the article: M.R. Nadel, J.A. Shapiro, R.A. Smith.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: M.R. Nadel, J.A. Shapiro, C.N. Klabunde, L.C. Seeff, R. Uhler, R.A. Smith, D.F. Ransohoff.

Final approval of the article: M.R. Nadel, J.A. Shapiro, C.N. Klabunde, L.C. Seeff, R.A. Smith, D.F. Ransohoff.

Provision of study materials or patients: C.N. Klabunde.

Statistical expertise: M.R. Nadel, R. Uhler.

Obtaining of funding: M.R. Nadel, C.N. Klabunde.

Administrative, technical, or logistic support: M.R. Nadel, C.N. Klabunde.

Collection and assembly of data: C.N. Klabunde, R. Uhler.

Related articles in Annals:

Letters
Mainstream and Alternative Medicine
Linda L. Isaacs

Annals 2005 142: 875. [Full Text]  

Editorials
Office-Based Testing for Fecal Occult Blood: Do Only in Case of Emergency
Harold C. Sox

Annals 2005 142: 146-148. [Full Text]  

Articles
Accuracy of Screening for Fecal Occult Blood on a Single Stool Sample Obtained by Digital Rectal Examination: A Comparison with Recommended Sampling Practice
Judith F. Collins, David A. Lieberman, Theodore E. Durbin, David G. Weiss, AND and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #380 Group*

Annals 2005 142: 81-85. [ABSTRACT][SUMMARY][Full Text]  

Summaries for Patients
Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Doctors in Practice

Annals 2005 142: I-26. [Full Text]  

Letters
Office-Based Testing for Fecal Occult Blood
Michael L. Wolff

Annals 2005 143: 235. [Full Text]  

Letters
Office-Based Testing for Fecal Occult Blood
Harold C. Sox

Annals 2005 143: 236. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. P. Mahajan and R. H. Brook High-Deductible Health Plans and Better Benefit Design Ann Intern Med, May 6, 2008; 148(9): 704 - 706. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. C. Lindley, A. V. Groom, P. M. Wortley, and G. L. Euler Status of Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Among Older American Indians and Alaska Natives Am J Public Health, May 1, 2008; 98(5): 932 - 938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Levin, D. A. Lieberman, B. McFarland, R. A. Smith, D. Brooks, K. S. Andrews, C. Dash, F. M. Giardiello, S. Glick, T. R. Levin, et al. Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2008; 58(3): 130 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Smith, V. Cokkinides, and O. W. Brawley Cancer Screening in the United States, 2008: A Review of Current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Cancer Screening Issues CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2008; 58(3): 161 - 179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. C. Schneider, M. R. Nadel, A. M. Zaslavsky, and E. A. McGlynn Assessment of the Scientific Soundness of Clinical Performance Measures: A Field Test of the National Committee for Quality Assurance's Colorectal Cancer Screening Measure Arch Intern Med, April 28, 2008; 168(8): 876 - 882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Han, C. T. Liew, H. W. Zhang, S. Chao, R. Zheng, K. T. Yip, Z.-Y. Song, H. M. Li, X. P. Geng, L. X. Zhu, et al. Novel Blood-Based, Five-Gene Biomarker Set for the Detection of Colorectal Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2008; 14(2): 455 - 460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sarfaty and R. Wender How to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Practice CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2007; 57(6): 354 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Allison, L. C. Sakoda, T. R. Levin, J. P. Tucker, I. S. Tekawa, T. Cuff, M. P. Pauly, L. Shlager, A. M. Palitz, W. K. Zhao, et al. Screening for Colorectal Neoplasms With New Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Update on Performance Characteristics J Natl Cancer Inst, October 3, 2007; 99(19): 1462 - 1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Bock and B. M. Kwan Encouragement of Patient Self-management and Adherence through Use of a Computerized Tracking System for Cervical and Colon Cancer Screening J Am Board Fam Med, May 1, 2007; 20(3): 316 - 319. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Smith, V. Cokkinides, and H. J. Eyre Cancer Screening in the United States, 2007: A Review of Current Guidelines, Practices, and Prospects CA Cancer J Clin, March 1, 2007; 57(2): 90 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. K. Roy, V. Backman, and M. J. Goldberg Colon cancer screening: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Arch Intern Med, November 13, 2006; 166(20): 2177 - 2179. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Martinez, S. E. Young, R. E. Hoedema, L. J. Foshag, and A. J. Bilchik Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Current Standards and Future Trends Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2006; 13(6): 768 - 775. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. C. Taylor A 71-Year-Old Woman Contemplating a Screening Colonoscopy JAMA, March 8, 2006; 295(10): 1161 - 1167. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Smith, V. Cokkinides, and H. J. Eyre American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer, 2006 CA Cancer J Clin, January 1, 2006; 56(1): 11 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. E. Brenner and G. Rennert Fecal DNA Biomarkers for the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia: Attractive, but Is It Feasible? J Natl Cancer Inst, August 3, 2005; 97(15): 1107 - 1109. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Wolff Office-Based Testing for Fecal Occult Blood Ann Intern Med, August 2, 2005; 143(3): 235 - 235. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. H. Pham, D. Schrag, J. L. Hargraves, and P. B. Bach Delivery of Preventive Services to Older Adults by Primary Care Physicians JAMA, July 27, 2005; 294(4): 473 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. L. Isaacs Mainstream and Alternative Medicine Ann Intern Med, May 17, 2005; 142(10): 875 - 875. [Full Text] [PDF]

				DRE-Based FOBT: Common but Not Useful Journal Watch Women's Health, February 22, 2005; 2005(222): 8 - 8. [Full Text]

				Digital FOBT Often Used but Very Insensitive Journal Watch Gastroenterology, February 16, 2005; 2005(216): 7 - 7. [Full Text]

				DRE-Based FOBT: Common but Not Useful Journal Watch (General), February 1, 2005; 2005(201): 1 - 1. [Full Text]

				J. F. Collins, D. A. Lieberman, T. E. Durbin, D. G. Weiss, and and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #380 Gr Accuracy of Screening for Fecal Occult Blood on a Single Stool Sample Obtained by Digital Rectal Examination: A Comparison with Recommended Sampling Practice Ann Intern Med, January 18, 2005; 142(2): 81 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. C. Sox Office-Based Testing for Fecal Occult Blood: Do Only in Case of Emergency Ann Intern Med, January 18, 2005; 142(2): 146 - 148. [Full Text] [PDF]