Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 24, 2026

Author Spotlight: Exploring the Role of Ion Channels in Cancer: Characterization and Potential Treatment Approaches
Published on: June 16, 2023
Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured
Marion R Nadel1, Janet Royalty2, Djenaba Joseph2
1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop S107-4, Chamblee, GA 30341.
Introduction:
Screening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015.
Methods:
We collected data from the program's 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists' recommendations for the next test.
Results:
Overall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%-97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%-99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%-84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%-56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%-47.2%) in less than 3 years.
Conclusion:
Although overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.
Related Concept Videos
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...
What is Variation?
The range, standard deviation, standard error, and variance are the different measures of variation.
Range: The range is the difference between its maximum and...
Variation
When independent and dependent variables are plotted on a scatter plot, the slope of a line is a value that describes the rate of change between the two...
Conservative Site-specific Recombination and Phase Variation
The recognition sites for Cre recombinase called LoxP...
Variation of Atmospheric Pressure
Assuming the air temperature is constant at a given altitude and that the ideal gas law of thermodynamics describes the atmosphere to a good approximation, one can find the variation of atmospheric pressure with height.
Let p(y) be the atmospheric pressure at...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...

