Doctors may begin ordering FITs in greater numbers, increasing the demand on clinical laboratories to process these home tests
All clinical laboratory managers and pathologists know that timely screening for colon cancer is an effective way to detect cancer early, when it is easiest to treat. But, invasive diagnostic approaches such as colonoscopies are not popular with consumers. Now comes news of a large-scale study that indicates the non-invasive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be as effective as a colonoscopy when screening for colon cancer.
FITs performed annually may be as effective as colonoscopies at detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) for those at average risk of developing the disease. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted at the Regenstrief Institute, a private, non-profit research organization affiliated with the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Ind.
The researchers published their findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), a journal published by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The team reviewed data from 31 previous studies. They then analyzed the test results from more than 120,000 average-risk patients who took a FIT and then had a colonoscopy. After comparing the results between the two tests, the researchers concluded that the FIT is a sufficient screening tool for colon cancer.
FIT is Easy, Safe, and Inexpensive
As a medical laboratory test, the FIT is low risk, non-invasive,
and inexpensive. In addition, the FIT can detect most cancers in the first
application, according to the Regenstrief Institute researchers. They recommend
that the FIT be performed on an annual basis for people at average risk for
getting colorectal cancers.
“This non-invasive test for colon cancer screening is available for average risk people,” Imperiale told NBC News. “They should discuss with their providers whether it is appropriate for them.”
FIT is performed in the privacy of the patient’s home. To
use the test, an individual collects a bowel specimen in a receptacle provided
in a FIT kit. They then send the specimen to a clinical laboratory for
evaluation. The FIT requires no special preparations and medicines and food do
not interfere with the test results.
Thomas Imperiale, MD (above), is a Lawrence Lumeng Professor of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Indiana University School of Medicine, and a research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute. He led a study which concluded that FITs are as effective as colonoscopies at detecting cancer in average risk patient populations. Should these conclusions become widely accepted, doctors may begin ordering FITs in greater numbers, increasing the demand on clinical laboratories that process the tests. (Photo copyright: Indiana University School of Medicine.)
‘A Preventative Health Success Story’
The FIT can be calibrated to different sensitivities at the
lab when determining results. Imperiale and his team found that 95% of cancers
were detected when the FIT was set to a higher sensitivity, however, that
setting resulted in 10% false positives. At lower sensitivity the FIT produced
fewer false positives (5%), but also caught fewer cancers (75%). However, when
the FIT was performed every year, the cancer detection rate was similar at both
sensitivities over a two-year period.
“FIT is an excellent option for colon cancer screening only if it is performed consistently on a yearly basis,” Felice Schnoll-Sussman, MD, told NBC News. Sussman is a gastroenterologist and Professor of Clinical Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine. “Colon cancer screening and its impact on decreasing rates of colon cancer is a preventative health success story, although we have a way to go to increase rates to our previous desired goal of 80% screened in the US by 2018.”
The FIT looks for hidden blood in the stool by detecting protein hemoglobin found in red blood cells. A normal result indicates that FIT did not detect any blood in the stool and the test should be repeated annually. If the FIT comes back positive for blood in the stool, other tests, such as a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy should be performed. Cancers in the colon may not always bleed and the FIT only detects blood from the lower intestines.
Patients are Skipping the Colonoscopy
Approximately 35% of individuals who should be receiving colonoscopies do not undergo the test, NBC News noted. The American Cancer Society (ACS) lists the top five reasons people don’t get screened for colorectal cancer are that they:
fear the test will be difficult or painful;
have no family history of the disease and feel
testing is unnecessary;
have no symptoms and think screening is only for
those with symptoms;
are concerned about the costs associated with
screening; and
they are concerned about the complexities of
taking the tests, including taking time off from work, transportation after the
procedure, and high out-of-pocket expenses.
“Colorectal cancer screening is one of the best opportunities to prevent cancer or diagnose it early, when it’s most treatable,” Richard Wender, MD, Chief Cancer Control Officer for the ACS stated in a press release. “Despite this compelling reason to be screened, many people either have never had a colorectal cancer screening test or are not up to date with screening.”
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in both men and women in the United States. The ACS estimates there will be 101,420 new cases of colon cancer and 44,180 new cases of rectal cancer diagnosed this year. The disease is expected to be responsible for approximately 51,020 deaths in 2019.
New cases of the disease have been steadily decreasing over
the past few decades in most age populations, primarily due to early screening.
However, the overall death rate among people younger than age 55 has increased
1% per year between 2007 and 2016. The ACS estimates there are now more than
one million colorectal cancer survivors living in the US.
The ACS recommends that average-risk individuals start
regular colorectal cancer screenings at age 45. The five-year survival rate for
colon cancer patients is 90% when there is no sign that the cancer has spread
outside the colon.
Clinical laboratory professionals may find it unpleasant to
test FIT specimens. Opening the specimen containers and extracting the samples
can be messy and malodorous. However, FITs are essential, critical tests that
can save many lives.
Mobile, wearable, mHealth monitoring devices are a key element of many employer fitness programs and clinical laboratories can play an important role in their success
For years Dark Daily has encouraged clinical laboratories to get involved in corporate wellness programs as a way to support their local communities and increase revenues. Now, leveraging the popularity of mobile health (mHealth) wearable devices, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) has found a new way to incentivize employees participating in the insurer’s Motion walking program. UHC is offering free Apple Watches to employees willing to meet or exceed certain fitness goals.
This is the latest wrinkle in a well-established trend of incentivizing
beneficiaries to meet healthcare goals, such as stopping smoking, losing
weight, reducing cholesterol, and lowering blood pressure.
It’s an intriguing gamble by UHC and presents another opportunity for medical laboratories that are equipped to monitor and validate participants’ progress and physical conditions.
How to Get a Free Apple
Watch and FIT at the Same Time
CNBC reported that UHC’s Motion program participants number in the hundreds of thousands. And, according to a UHC news release, they can earn cash rewards up to $1,000 per year. The idea is that participants pay off the cost of their “free” Apple Watch one day at a time by achieving activity goals set in UHC’s FIT tracking method. Those goals include:
Frequency:
500 steps in seven minutes; six times a day, at least one hour apart;
Intensity:
3,000 steps in 30 minutes; and,
Tenacity:
10,000 steps in one day.
“UnitedHealthcare Motion is part of our consumer-focused strategy that is driving toward a simple, integrated, mobile-centric ecosystem that delivers value to consumers,” said Steve Nelson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in a news release. “Smartwatches and activity trackers stand alongside transparency in physician selection and medical costs, easy virtual visits with healthcare professionals, and digital coaching and online wellness programs, all of which are designed to support consumers in enhancing their health and improving how they navigate the healthcare system.” Clinical laboratories play a key role in this healthcare strategy. (Graphic copyright: UnitedHealthcare.)
Though hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries are eligible to participate in UHC’s Motion program through their employers, only 45% of those eligible have enrolled in Motion, Fox Business reported.
UHC hopes the offer of a free Apple Watch (which has
applications to track minutes of exercise, a heart rate monitor, and more) will
encourage people to sign up and then progress toward the Motion program’s FIT
goals.
As people meet these goals, they earn $4/day toward the cost
of the Apple Watch. Participants, who do not take enough steps in a six-month period
could be required to repay a percentage of the cost of the smartwatch.
Motion participants who already own an Apple Watch can still
earn up to $1,000 per year in cash rewards for achieving the FIT goals.
“UnitedHealthcare Motion’s success affirms that wearables can play an important role in helping people enhance their well-being and supporting and motivating them to stay engaged in their health,” said Rebecca Madsen, Chief Consumer Officer of UnitedHealthcare, in the UHC news release. (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Impact of mHealth
Programs/Technology Not Clear
Chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, annually cost the US healthcare system $190 billion and employers $126 billion in lost productivity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
However, some researchers say it’s too early for mHealth
wearables, medication apps, physician virtual engagement, and other digital tools
(many launched within the past five to seven years) to effect key indicators,
such as obesity, life expectancy, and smoking cessation.
“Some of the benefits of these new tools won’t be realized for a long time. It’s really hard to tease out the impact of digital health. Maybe we’re helping people, but we’re not detecting it,” James Murphy, MD, Associate Professor, University of California San Diego Health and radiation oncologist, told CNBC.
Nevertheless, it behooves medical laboratories to develop
procedures for analyzing and reporting data that could impact people who use
wearable mHealth devices to participate in employer wellness programs.
For example, labs could contact insurance companies with
information about biomarkers that provide views into an individual’s progress
toward personal health goals.
Data-driven recommendations from medical laboratories about
tests for chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes will likely be
welcomed by payers.
As technologies used by fitness wearables mature, medical laboratories will want to develop ways to access and process the flood of data that will become available
Point-of-care testing and remote patient monitoring are two technologies that could be disruptive to the clinical laboratory industry, particularly if use of these devices was to reduce the volume of patient specimen that are referred to the nation’s large, centralized medical laboratories.
This is one reason why savvy pathologists watch the stream of new products designed to allow athletes and consumers to monitor their fitness and other characteristics of good health. These devices are at the very front of the curve for remote monitoring of an athlete’s performance during training and competition, as well as enabling consumers to track different parameters of their health. What’s a toy for today’s sophisticated consumers could later be easily adopted for clinical diagnostic purposes.
One great example of how swiftly technology advances are changing remote diagnostic monitoring involves heart rate monitors. It wasn’t long ago that even basic heart rate monitors were a pricey purchase for consumers. But thanks to strong interest in gathering healthcare data, costs are dropping. (more…)
