Racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence are widely documented. There are two potential mechanisms for these disparities: differences in access to screening, including screening follow-up, and differences in underlying risk of colorectal cancer. We reviewed the literature for evidence of these two mechanisms. We show that higher colorectal cancer incidence in blacks relative to whites emerged only after the dissemination of screening and describe evidence of racial disparities in screening rates. In contrast to the strong evidence for differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization, there is limited evidence for racial differences in adenoma prevalence. In general, black and white patients who are screened have similar adenoma prevalence, though there is some evidence that advanced adenomas and adenomas in the proximal colon are somewhat more likely in black than white patients. We conclude that higher rates of colorectal cancer incidence among black patients are primarily driven by lower rates of colorectal cancer screening. Our findings highlight the need to increase black patients' access to quality screening to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality are well known and widely documented. Relative to non-Hispanic whites (“whites”), non-Hispanic blacks (“blacks”) tend to have higher rates of colorectal cancer incidence (1), earlier age at diagnosis (2–4), later stage at diagnosis (5), and worse stage-specific colorectal cancer mortality (6–9). These disparities have resulted in calls for earlier initiation of colorectal cancer screening for black patients (10, 11), especially black men (12).

Colorectal cancer screening first became available in 1967 (13). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, randomized trials demonstrated the effectiveness of screening to reduce mortality (14–16), leading to colorectal cancer screening guidelines in 1995 (17, 18). Currently available colorectal cancer screening tests include stool tests [guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and stool DNA tests], flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and CT colonography. Colonoscopy is both a screening test and a diagnostic test used to evaluate symptoms and follow-up abnormal results from other tests. Screening colonoscopy has been shown to reduce both incidence and mortality, with incidence reductions due to primary prevention via the removal of adenomas (19). As recently as 2008, all average-risk individuals were recommended to begin screening at age 50 (20, 21). In 2009, the American College of Gastroenterology recommended that average-risk African Americans begin screening at age 45 (22), citing the “high incidence and early onset of colorectal cancer in African Americans” (10). The Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement made a similar recommendation in 2010 (23). In 2012, the American College of Physicians recommended that African Americans begin screening at age 40 (23). In 2017, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer suggested that African Americans begin screening at age 45, but noted that the evidence to support this recommendation was of low quality (24). In 2018, the American Cancer Society issued a qualified recommendation that all individuals begin screening at age 45 (25).

Black–white differences in colorectal cancer incidence

Before 1985, blacks and whites had similar overall colorectal cancer incidence rates and similar age-specific colorectal cancer incidence. Figure 1 shows overall colorectal cancer incidence rates for blacks and whites based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Data (estimation details are provided in the Appendix; refs. 26, 27). In 1985, President Ronald Reagan's diagnosis with colorectal cancer raised awareness about colorectal cancer (28). After 1985, colorectal cancer incidence began to decline, especially in whites. The reasons for this decline are uncertain, but may be attributed to both changes in modifiable risk factors and increased screening (29). Figure 2, which is similar to an analyses of SEER data by Murphy and colleagues (30), shows that from 1980 to 1984 blacks and whites had similar age-specific colorectal cancer incidence rates, but in 2013–2017, black/white age-specific colorectal cancer incidence begins to diverge around age 50, the recommended age to initiate colorectal cancer screening.

Figure 1.

Colorectal cancer incidence per 100,000 by race from 1975 to 2017. Datapoints are from the SEER 9 Registry, and the trend line is from a joinpoint regression analysis.

Figure 1.

Colorectal cancer incidence per 100,000 by race from 1975 to 2017. Datapoints are from the SEER 9 Registry, and the trend line is from a joinpoint regression analysis.

Close modal
Figure 2.

Colorectal cancer incidence per 100,000 by race and time period, from the SEER 9 Registry.

Figure 2.

Colorectal cancer incidence per 100,000 by race and time period, from the SEER 9 Registry.

Close modal

Two mechanisms could explain racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence. Disparities could be attributable to differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization (6, 31, 32), or differences in risk (33, 34). Because most colorectal cancer arises through the adenoma–carcinoma pathway (35), we use adenoma prevalence as a proxy for colorectal cancer risk but do not examine mechanisms underlying risk differences. Differences in risk could be driven by racial differences in modifiable risk factors such as diet, smoking, exercise, and obesity (36), by genetic differences (10, 33), or by the interplay between modifiable and genetic risk factors. In this article, we review the literature for evidence of these two mechanisms.

We searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify articles focused on differential risk of colorectal cancer by race and ethnicity or utilization of colorectal cancer screening (details, including search terms, are provided in the Appendix). We also searched for citations to two articles focused on racial differences in risk (37, 38). Our search identified 2,085 articles. This review includes information from 17 articles that reported screening outcomes (16 articles) or behaviors (14 articles) separately for both black and white U.S. study participants and included at least 100 participants of either black or white race. Screening outcomes included adenoma prevalence, screen-detected colorectal cancer rates, interval colorectal cancer rates, and screening behaviors (percent up-to-date with guidelines, percent who received a test, and percent who return for repeat testing). We excluded studies reporting only polyp prevalence, rather than adenoma prevalence, as polyps include lesions that may not harbor malignant potential.

Evidence for racial differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization

Colorectal cancer screening includes multiple steps: initiation of screening, receipt of a follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal referral test (e.g., after an abnormal stool-based test or flexible sigmoidoscopy), repeat screening after a normal test, and colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma detection.

Table 1 compares screening rates of black and white participants at different steps in the screening process. In addition to observed percentages, Table 1 includes unadjusted ORs and relative risks (RR), and adjusted ORs (aOR) and adjusted RRs (aRR). Each study adjusted for somewhat different factors. When multiple adjusted estimates were provided, we focused on estimates that adjusted for factors common across studies: age, sex, income, and education.

Table 1.

Evidence for racial differences in colorectal cancer screening utilization.

Unadjusted percentageORs and RRsa
with the screening behaviorblack relative to white
BlackWhitewith 95% CIs
Outcome/data sourceData typeData collection yearsAge range (years)%N%NUnadjustedAdjustedb
Up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines 
Based on receipt of FOBT 
  NHIS (39)c Survey 1987 ≥50 15.8 — 22.4 — — — 
  NHIS (39)c Survey 1992 ≥50 22.4 — 26.6 — — — 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2000 65–80 — 761 — 6,705 0.56 (0.42–0.74) 0.84 (0.62–1.13) 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2005 65–80 — 636 — 6,023 0.67 (0.45–1.01) 0.80 (0.54–1.20) 
Based on receipt of endoscopy 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2000 65–80 — 761 — 6,705 0.70 (0.57–0.86) 1.06 (0.88–1.30) 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2005 65–80 — 636 — 6,023 0.74 (0.57–0.96) 1.11 (0.86–1.45) 
Based on receipt of FOBT/FIT or endoscopy 
  MEPS (41) Survey 2001–2005 ≥50 48.2 2,809 57.2 14,823 — 0.86 (0.77–0.95) 
  VHA (42) Survey, EHR 2005–2006 50–75 72 328 77 1,827 0.74 0.91 
  BRFSS (43) Survey 2010 50–75 59.0 — 62.0 — 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 
  NHIS (44) Survey 2010–2013 50–75 56.8 3,567 59.8 14,527 — — 
  BRFSS (44) Survey 2012–2014 50–75 67.5 34,191 67.1 362,721 — — 
  Health Center Patient Survey (45) Survey 2014 ≥50 61.3 — 58.6 — 1.07 1.28 (1.02–1.60) 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2008 50–75 60.6 13,830 63.9 157,150 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2010 50–75 64.4 16,871 66.2 180,961 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2012 50–75 65.8 17,978 67.4 180,654 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2014 50–75 67.8 15,943 68.4 180,150 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2016 50–75 66.4 17,518 70.4 186,331 — — 
Receipt of colorectal cancer screening 
Screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 2004–2007 40–69 77.9 245 82.9 240 0.94 (0.86–1.02) 1.03 (0.96–1.11) 
FOBT or endoscopy 
  TRICARE (48)c Claims 2010–2013 50–53 56.5 5,062 53.5 17,258 1.14 (1.06–1.23) 1.20 (1.11–1.29) 
FIT 
  ADVANCE (49) EHR 2012–2013 50–64 10.5 32,101 9.2 76,344 — — 
  ADVANCE (49) EHR 2014–2015 50–64 17.9 32,936 15.4 81,006 — — 
Complete Screening Episode 
  PROSPR (50) EHR 2010–2012 50–75 50.9 157,999 56.2 938,295 — 0.89 (0.88–0.91) 
Follow-up colonoscopy after referral 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31) RCT 1993–2001 55–74 62.6 767 72.4 13,743 — 0.88 (0.83–0.93) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 2009–2011 58–79 76.6 304 83.1 4,183 — 0.90 (0.84–0.96) 
  VHA (52) EHR 2009–2011 50–85 55 13,618 48 49,692 1.33 (1.28–1.39) 1.19 (1.14–1.25) 
  PROSPR (50) EHR 2010–2012 50–75 51.9 9,954 56.2 56,298 — 0.94 (0.88–1.00) 
Repeat screening 
 PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 2009–2011 58–79 60.6 1609 69.2 31,117 — — 
 PROSPR, surveillance colonoscopy (53) EHR 2010–2014 50–89 50.3 — 47.4 — — 1.17 (0.99–1.39) 
Unadjusted percentageORs and RRsa
with the screening behaviorblack relative to white
BlackWhitewith 95% CIs
Outcome/data sourceData typeData collection yearsAge range (years)%N%NUnadjustedAdjustedb
Up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines 
Based on receipt of FOBT 
  NHIS (39)c Survey 1987 ≥50 15.8 — 22.4 — — — 
  NHIS (39)c Survey 1992 ≥50 22.4 — 26.6 — — — 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2000 65–80 — 761 — 6,705 0.56 (0.42–0.74) 0.84 (0.62–1.13) 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2005 65–80 — 636 — 6,023 0.67 (0.45–1.01) 0.80 (0.54–1.20) 
Based on receipt of endoscopy 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2000 65–80 — 761 — 6,705 0.70 (0.57–0.86) 1.06 (0.88–1.30) 
  MCBS (40) Survey 2005 65–80 — 636 — 6,023 0.74 (0.57–0.96) 1.11 (0.86–1.45) 
Based on receipt of FOBT/FIT or endoscopy 
  MEPS (41) Survey 2001–2005 ≥50 48.2 2,809 57.2 14,823 — 0.86 (0.77–0.95) 
  VHA (42) Survey, EHR 2005–2006 50–75 72 328 77 1,827 0.74 0.91 
  BRFSS (43) Survey 2010 50–75 59.0 — 62.0 — 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 
  NHIS (44) Survey 2010–2013 50–75 56.8 3,567 59.8 14,527 — — 
  BRFSS (44) Survey 2012–2014 50–75 67.5 34,191 67.1 362,721 — — 
  Health Center Patient Survey (45) Survey 2014 ≥50 61.3 — 58.6 — 1.07 1.28 (1.02–1.60) 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2008 50–75 60.6 13,830 63.9 157,150 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2010 50–75 64.4 16,871 66.2 180,961 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2012 50–75 65.8 17,978 67.4 180,654 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2014 50–75 67.8 15,943 68.4 180,150 — — 
  BRFSS (46) Survey 2016 50–75 66.4 17,518 70.4 186,331 — — 
Receipt of colorectal cancer screening 
Screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 2004–2007 40–69 77.9 245 82.9 240 0.94 (0.86–1.02) 1.03 (0.96–1.11) 
FOBT or endoscopy 
  TRICARE (48)c Claims 2010–2013 50–53 56.5 5,062 53.5 17,258 1.14 (1.06–1.23) 1.20 (1.11–1.29) 
FIT 
  ADVANCE (49) EHR 2012–2013 50–64 10.5 32,101 9.2 76,344 — — 
  ADVANCE (49) EHR 2014–2015 50–64 17.9 32,936 15.4 81,006 — — 
Complete Screening Episode 
  PROSPR (50) EHR 2010–2012 50–75 50.9 157,999 56.2 938,295 — 0.89 (0.88–0.91) 
Follow-up colonoscopy after referral 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31) RCT 1993–2001 55–74 62.6 767 72.4 13,743 — 0.88 (0.83–0.93) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 2009–2011 58–79 76.6 304 83.1 4,183 — 0.90 (0.84–0.96) 
  VHA (52) EHR 2009–2011 50–85 55 13,618 48 49,692 1.33 (1.28–1.39) 1.19 (1.14–1.25) 
  PROSPR (50) EHR 2010–2012 50–75 51.9 9,954 56.2 56,298 — 0.94 (0.88–1.00) 
Repeat screening 
 PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 2009–2011 58–79 60.6 1609 69.2 31,117 — — 
 PROSPR, surveillance colonoscopy (53) EHR 2010–2014 50–89 50.3 — 47.4 — — 1.17 (0.99–1.39) 

Abbreviations: ADVANCE, Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community health center network; BRFSS, Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System; EHR, Electronic Health Record; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; MCBS, Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey; PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian; PROSPR, Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process; RCT, Randomized Controlled Trial; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; VHA, Veterans Health Affairs.

aRRs are provided in italics to distinguish them from ORs.

bCharacteristics adjusted for in aOR and aRR estimates: MCBS (40): age, sex, education, income, insurance type, usual place of health care, marital status, body mass index (BMI), census division, residence in a metropolitan service area, delayed care due to cost, language of the interview, self-reported general health status, and history of non–skin cancer; MEPS (41): age, sex, education, and income; VHA (Burgess; ref. 42): age, education, income, family history of colorectal cancer, overall health, comorbidities, substance or psychiatric diagnoses; BRFSS (Liss; ref. 43): age, sex, education, income, insurance coverage, usual source of care, checkup in past year; National Colonoscopy Study (31): age, sex, and education; TRICARE (48): sex, marital status, beneficiary category (retired, dependent, active duty, or other), self or sponsor rank (enlisted, officer, or other), type of care facility (military or civilian), self or sponsor service (Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marine, or other), region (South, Midwest, Northeast, or West); PROSPR (Burnett-Hartman; ref. 50): age, sex, income, insurance type, length of prior enrollment, type of residence, comorbidity, and study site; PLCO, first screening (31): age, sex, education, BMI, smoking status, family history of colorectal cancer, history of colorectal cancer within 3 years of enrollment, history of colon polyps, and screening center; PLCO, second screening (51): age, sex, education, BMI, smoking status, family history of colorectal cancer, year of repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy and screening center; VA (Partin; ref. 52): age, comorbidity, prior colonoscopy, personal history of polyps, ordering physician, ordering facility. PROSPR (Chubak; ref. 53): age, sex, index colonoscopy findings, health system, insurance type, comorbidity index.

cPeople of Hispanic ethnicity were included in both black and white groups.

Up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines

Most studies examined whether individuals were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines in place for average-risk individuals at the time of the study, generally defined as having a FOBT or FIT in the last 1 to 3 years, receipt of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the last 5 years, or colonoscopy in the last 10 years.

There is evidence that for many years, blacks were less likely than whites to be up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and that these differences may be narrowing. In 1987, when the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) first asked about colorectal cancer screening, 15.8% of blacks and 22.4% of whites reported having completed a FOBT in the last 3 years (39). Analysis of the 2000, 2003, and 2005 Medicare Current Beneficiary Surveys (MCBS) found that black beneficiaries were less likely than whites to be up-to-date with either FOBT or endoscopic screening, and that these differences could be accounted for by differences in education, income, marital status, type of health insurance, usual place of health care, and self-reported general health status (40). Three studies of colorectal cancer screening in 2001 to 2010 also found that blacks were less likely to be up-to-date with screening than whites, and that these differences could largely be accounted for by differences in education, income, and health insurance (40–43). Analysis of 2010–2013 NHIS data found that the percentage of adults 50 to 75 who were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening was lower for blacks [56.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 54.4%–59.0%] compared with whites (59.8%; 95% CI, 58.8–60.8; ref. 44). Analysis of 2012–2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data found similar rates of being up-to-date with screening for blacks (67.5%; 95% CI, 66.6%–68.5%) and whites (67.1%; 95% CI, 66.8%–67.4%; ref. 44). A 2014 patient survey found that blacks were more likely than whites to be up-to-date with screening (45). In this study, blacks were somewhat more likely to be insured than whites (77.8% vs. 75.5%). Analysis of BRFSS data demonstrates steady increases in the percentage of both blacks and whites who are up-to-date with screening, with black/white differences narrowing until 2014 when increases stalled among blacks but continued among whites (46).

Receipt of colorectal cancer screening

Receipt of colorectal cancer screening is a simpler outcome than being up-to-date with screening, because it is based solely on test completion and not on past testing. Studies examining receipt of screening were based on randomized controlled trials, claims, or electronic health record (EHR) data.

Evidence about black versus white differences in receipt of colorectal cancer screening is mixed. The National Colonoscopy Study (47) found no significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing screening colonoscopy for black and white participants (32). A study of patients insured by TRICARE in 2010–2013 found that blacks were more likely than whites to be screened (48). Analysis of data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community (ADVANCE) network of community health centers found no black/white differences in receipt of FOBT from 2012 to 2015 (49). However, during approximately the same time period the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) study, which focused on members of a managed care organization, found that black patients were significantly less likely than white patients to complete colorectal cancer screening, including follow-up colonoscopy when indicated (50).

Three studies estimated black/white differences in receipt of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal referral test and estimated differences after adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, and personal history of colon polyps (among other factors). The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial used flexible sigmoidoscopy as a referral test and found that black participants were significantly less likely than whites to return for follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year of referral at both the first (31) and second (51) screening rounds. In contrast, among Veterans Health Affairs (VHA) patients in 2009–2011, black patients were significantly more likely than white patients to have follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal stool test (52). Finally, analysis of PROSPR data found that black patients were less likely than whites to have follow-up colonoscopy within 90 days of an abnormal stool test (50).

Repeat screening

We found only two studies that focused on racial differences in repeat screening. Black PLCO study participants were significantly less likely than white participants to return for screening 3 to 5 years after a normal screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (60.6% vs. 69.3%; ref. 51). Another study of patients in a managed care setting found no evidence of black/white differences in return for surveillance colonoscopy within 3.5 years of an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings (53).

Summary

We found evidence that black people have had lower rates of colorectal cancer screening than whites. Survey data, which include repeated cross-sectional sampling of the U.S. population across multiple years, indicate potential narrowing of black/white differences over time. Evidence of black/white differences in screening rates from studies of patient populations, primarily based on claims and EHR data, is mixed. The combined evidence across these studies indicates that at least until the recent past, blacks were less likely to be adequately screened for colorectal cancer than whites and that socioeconomic factors, including health insurance, factor into these disparities. For example, although the PLCO trial covered the cost of the initial screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, it did not cover the cost of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screening test, and this may have contributed to lower rates of follow-up colonoscopy in black study participants (31). Only studies that examined black and white patients who had similar rates of insurance found blacks more likely to be screened than whites (45, 48, 52).

Evidence for racial differences in adenoma prevalence

The existence of racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening utilization does not rule out the potential for racial differences in colorectal cancer risk. If there are racial differences in colorectal cancer risk, then there should be evidence of differences in observable markers of the underlying disease process. These markers include adenoma prevalence and differences in adenoma size or histology, which could indicate differences in the rate of progression from a precursor lesion to cancer.

Table 2 compares findings at screening for black and white participants, including the unadjusted percentages of participants with outcomes of interest and ORs or RRs that estimate the strength of the relationship between race and screening outcomes. We include aORs and aRRs, though each study adjusted for somewhat different factors. Studies generally reported more than one outcome of interest. Findings by outcomes are summarized below. Consistent with the literature, we define advanced adenomas as adenomas that are ≥10 mm or have high-grade dysplasia or villous histology.

Table 2.

Evidence for racial differences in screening outcomes.

Unadjusted percentageORs and RRsa
with the screening outcomeblack relative to white
BlackWhitewith 95% CIs
Outcome/data sourceData typeData collection yearsAge range (years)%N%NUnadjustedAdjustedb
Adenoma prevalence 
At screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 40–69 25.1 191 26.1 199 0.93 (0.67–1.28) 0.86 (0.60–1.25) 
  2004–2007        
  Stony Brook University (57) Survey, chart review 2006–2007 ≥40 35.8 356 35.7 67   
  Kaiser (38) EHR 2006–2008 ≥50 27 892 24 13,266 — 1.15 (0.98–1.35) 
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥50 25.9 591 19.1 3,542  1.76 (1.52–2.04) 
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 50–59 19.4 288 16.7 1,494   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 60–69 28.0 186 17.2 1,168   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥70 38.5 117 24.9 880   
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 42.9 669 38.5 258   
  Nassau University Medical Center (58) Chart review 2007–2011 — 21.8 635 24.0 283 — 0.86 (0.60–1.22) 
  Multitarget Stool DNA (56) Accuracy study 2012–2015 40–80 38.9 265 33.9 495   
  CCPN (59) EHR 2014–2016 45–64 32.2 483 39.5 335 0.73 (0.54–0.99) 0.76 (0.54–1.06) 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 50.8 480 54.2 9,944 — 1.01 (0.92–1.11) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 2009–2011 58–79 37.3 233 41.9 3,477 — 1.06 (0.89–1.26) 
At surveillance colonoscopy 
  Pooled Chemoprevention Study Results (60) Meta-analysis of RCTs 1984–1998 >50 47.7 172 47.4 2,022 — 1.08 (0.92–1.27) 
Advanced adenoma prevalence 
At screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 40–69 7.3 191 5.5 199 1.19 (0.56–2.52) 1.04 (0.39–2.74) 
  2004–2007        
  Stony Brook University (57) Survey, chart review 2006–2007 ≥40 6.0 356 7.3 67   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥50 5.4 591 3.7 3,542  1.91 (1.27–2.86) 
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 6.4 669 7.0 257   
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 5.0 1,681 6.8 1,172 Women:  
        1.23 (0.70–2.18) 1.32 (0.73–2.40) 
        Men:  
        0.59 (0.40–0.88) 0.59 (0.39–0.89) 
  Multitarget Stool DNA (56) Accuracy study 2012–2015 40–80 6.8 265 6.7 495   
  CCPN (59) EHR 2014–2016 45–64 10.9 483 15.5 335   
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 23.1 480 22.3 9,944 — 1.11 (0.94–1.30) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 11.6 233 13.7 3,477 — 1.27 (0.90–1.79) 
At surveillance colonoscopy 
  Pooled Chemoprevention Study Results (60) Meta-analysis of RCTs 1984–1998 >50 13.4 172 14.2 2,022 — 1.05 (0.71–1.56) 
  Boston Medical Center (62) EHR 2005–2012 ≥50 41.9 203 47.4 246 1.18 (0.65–2.16) 1.30 (0.69–2.40) 
Prevalence of proximal adenomas 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Kaiser (38) EHR 2006–2008 ≥50 17.0 892 14.1 13,266 — 1.26 (1.04–1.54) 
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 24.2 669 23.7 258   
  Nassau University Medical Center (58) Chart review 2007–2011 — 16.8 635 20.5 283 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31) RCT 1993–2001 55–74 21.0 480 19.0 9,944 — 1.09 (0.91–1.29) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 1996–2006 58–79 18.8 233 18.9 3,477 — 1.11 (0.84–1.47) 
Prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 2.6 1,681 2.6 1,172 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 8.5 480 5.5 9,944 — 1.56 (1.13–2.14) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 4.4 233 6.4 3,477 — 1.44 (0.84–2.48) 
Screen-detected colorectal cancer 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 0.4 1,681 0.4 1,172 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 2.1 480 1.5 9,944 1.58 (0.80–3.12) — 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 1.3 233 0.5 3,477 — — 
Interval colorectal cancer 
 SEER-Medicare (67) Claims 2002–2013 66–75 — 4,196 — 51,313 — 1.31 (1.13–1.15)f 
Unadjusted percentageORs and RRsa
with the screening outcomeblack relative to white
BlackWhitewith 95% CIs
Outcome/data sourceData typeData collection yearsAge range (years)%N%NUnadjustedAdjustedb
Adenoma prevalence 
At screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 40–69 25.1 191 26.1 199 0.93 (0.67–1.28) 0.86 (0.60–1.25) 
  2004–2007        
  Stony Brook University (57) Survey, chart review 2006–2007 ≥40 35.8 356 35.7 67   
  Kaiser (38) EHR 2006–2008 ≥50 27 892 24 13,266 — 1.15 (0.98–1.35) 
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥50 25.9 591 19.1 3,542  1.76 (1.52–2.04) 
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 50–59 19.4 288 16.7 1,494   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 60–69 28.0 186 17.2 1,168   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥70 38.5 117 24.9 880   
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 42.9 669 38.5 258   
  Nassau University Medical Center (58) Chart review 2007–2011 — 21.8 635 24.0 283 — 0.86 (0.60–1.22) 
  Multitarget Stool DNA (56) Accuracy study 2012–2015 40–80 38.9 265 33.9 495   
  CCPN (59) EHR 2014–2016 45–64 32.2 483 39.5 335 0.73 (0.54–0.99) 0.76 (0.54–1.06) 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 50.8 480 54.2 9,944 — 1.01 (0.92–1.11) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 2009–2011 58–79 37.3 233 41.9 3,477 — 1.06 (0.89–1.26) 
At surveillance colonoscopy 
  Pooled Chemoprevention Study Results (60) Meta-analysis of RCTs 1984–1998 >50 47.7 172 47.4 2,022 — 1.08 (0.92–1.27) 
Advanced adenoma prevalence 
At screening colonoscopy 
  National Colonoscopy Study (32)c RCT 2000–2002 40–69 7.3 191 5.5 199 1.19 (0.56–2.52) 1.04 (0.39–2.74) 
  2004–2007        
  Stony Brook University (57) Survey, chart review 2006–2007 ≥40 6.0 356 7.3 67   
  Columbia University (54) EHR 2006–2010 ≥50 5.4 591 3.7 3,542  1.91 (1.27–2.86) 
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 6.4 669 7.0 257   
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 5.0 1,681 6.8 1,172 Women:  
        1.23 (0.70–2.18) 1.32 (0.73–2.40) 
        Men:  
        0.59 (0.40–0.88) 0.59 (0.39–0.89) 
  Multitarget Stool DNA (56) Accuracy study 2012–2015 40–80 6.8 265 6.7 495   
  CCPN (59) EHR 2014–2016 45–64 10.9 483 15.5 335   
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 23.1 480 22.3 9,944 — 1.11 (0.94–1.30) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 11.6 233 13.7 3,477 — 1.27 (0.90–1.79) 
At surveillance colonoscopy 
  Pooled Chemoprevention Study Results (60) Meta-analysis of RCTs 1984–1998 >50 13.4 172 14.2 2,022 — 1.05 (0.71–1.56) 
  Boston Medical Center (62) EHR 2005–2012 ≥50 41.9 203 47.4 246 1.18 (0.65–2.16) 1.30 (0.69–2.40) 
Prevalence of proximal adenomas 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Kaiser (38) EHR 2006–2008 ≥50 17.0 892 14.1 13,266 — 1.26 (1.04–1.54) 
  Temple University (55) Chart review 2007–2010 50–59 24.2 669 23.7 258   
  Nassau University Medical Center (58) Chart review 2007–2011 — 16.8 635 20.5 283 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31) RCT 1993–2001 55–74 21.0 480 19.0 9,944 — 1.09 (0.91–1.29) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51) RCT 1996–2006 58–79 18.8 233 18.9 3,477 — 1.11 (0.84–1.47) 
Prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 2.6 1,681 2.6 1,172 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 8.5 480 5.5 9,944 — 1.56 (1.13–2.14) 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 4.4 233 6.4 3,477 — 1.44 (0.84–2.48) 
Screen-detected colorectal cancer 
At screening colonoscopy 
  Boston Medical Center (61) Survey, chart review 2005–2012 50–79 0.4 1,681 0.4 1,172 — — 
At follow-up colonoscopy 
  PLCO, 1st screening (31)d RCT 1993–2001 55–74 2.1 480 1.5 9,944 1.58 (0.80–3.12) — 
  PLCO, 2nd screening (51)e RCT 1996–2006 58–79 1.3 233 0.5 3,477 — — 
Interval colorectal cancer 
 SEER-Medicare (67) Claims 2002–2013 66–75 — 4,196 — 51,313 — 1.31 (1.13–1.15)f 

Abbreviations: BRFSS, Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System; CCPN, Colorectal Cancer Prevention Network; EHR, Electronic Health Record; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian; PROSPR, Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process; RCT, Randomized Controlled Trial; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; VA, Veterans Health Administration.

aRRs are provided in italics to distinguish them from ORs.

bCharacteristics adjusted for in aOR and aRR estimates: Columbia University (54): age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, insurance status (Medicaid vs. other), participation of a trainee in exam; Nassau University Medical Center (58): age, sex, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), indication for colonoscopy, alcohol use, dyslipidemia, hypertension; National Colonoscopy Study (32): age, sex, and education; Kaiser (38): age, family history of colorectal cancer; CCPN (59): age, sex, education, rural residence, physician, language spoken; PLCO, first screening (31): age, sex, smoking status, family history of colorectal cancer, BMI, education, history of colorectal cancer within 3 years of enrollment, history of colon polyps, and screening center; PLCO, second screening (51): age, sex, smoking status, family history of colorectal cancer, BMI, education, year of repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy and screening center; Boston Medical Center (61): age, smoking status, BMI, alcohol use, education, insurance type, NSAID use, aspirin use, use of birth control pills, use of hormone replacement therapy, red meat intake, multivitamin use, calcium intake, physical activity, diabetes, previous colonoscopy; Pooled Chemoprevention Studies (60): age, sex, study treatment assignment, and follow-up time; SEER-Medicare (67): age, sex, state of residence, poverty level, urban–rural classification, Charlson comorbidity score, diverticulitis, polyp removal at index colonoscopy, physician specialty, and physician polyp detection rate quartile.

cPeople of Hispanic ethnicity were included in both black and white groups.

dThe PLCO study used flexible sigmoidoscopy as the reference screening test. During the first screening, the percentage of participants with a polyp detected at flexible sigmoidoscopy was 25.5% (N = 3,011) and 23.9% (N = 57,561) in black and white participants, respectively.

eThe PLCO study used flexible sigmoidoscopy as the reference screening test. During the second screening, the percentage of participants with a polyp detected at flexible sigmoidoscopy was 31.2% (N = 975) and 19.4% (N = 21,550) in black and white participants, respectively.

fEstimated HR for interval colorectal cancer up to 59 months after colonoscopy.

Adenoma prevalence

We found mixed evidence that adenoma prevalence differs for black and white people. Of eight studies that described racial differences in adenoma prevalence at screening colonoscopy, four estimated higher adenoma prevalence in blacks than whites (38, 54–56), two estimated similar adenoma prevalence in blacks and whites (32, 57), and two estimated lower adenoma prevalence in blacks than whites (58, 59). The study that found the strongest evidence of higher adenoma risk in blacks relative to whites (aRR = 1.76) estimated that adenoma prevalence was 2.7 percentage points higher in blacks than whites among participants 50 to 59 years old, 10.3 points higher among participants 60 to 69 years old, and a 13.6 points higher among participants 70 and older (54). The PLCO study found no detectable black versus white differences in adenoma prevalence among study participants who underwent follow-up colonoscopy, at either the first (31) or second screen (51), though only patients with abnormal findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy were referred to colonoscopy. Pooled analysis of data from three colorectal cancer chemoprevention studies, each with null findings, found no black versus white differences in adenoma prevalence at surveillance colonoscopy (60).

Advanced adenoma prevalence

We found mixed evidence for racial differences in risk for advanced adenomas. Two of seven studies that described racial differences in advanced adenoma prevalence at screening colonoscopy observed a higher prevalence of advanced adenomas in black patients (32), whereas five found that blacks had similar or lower risk of advanced adenomas than whites (55–57, 59, 61). Two of three studies that reported aRRs (or aOR) of advanced adenomas in black versus white study participants at screening colonoscopy estimated an elevated risk of advanced adenomas in black participants (54), including one study that found black women were at greater risk of advanced adenomas than white women, but black men were at lower risk of advanced adenomas than white men (61). The PLCO study found no racial differences in the prevalence of advanced adenomas detected at the follow-up colonoscopy after the first flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (31), but analysis of the second screening that controlled for screening center found evidence that blacks had a higher prevalence of advanced adenomas than whites (51). Two studies of surveillance colonoscopy each found that blacks were more likely to have advanced adenomas than whites (60, 62).

Proximal adenoma prevalence

The location of adenomas is important because adenomas in the proximal colon may be more difficult to detect (63) and proximal cancers may have a lower 5-year survival rate than distal colon and rectal cancers due to differences in disease characteristics (64, 65). Consistent with the literature, we use proximal location to indicate the transverse colon, hepatic flexure, ascending colon, and cecum.

We found mixed evidence for racial differences in the prevalence of proximal adenomas based on results from three observational studies (38, 55, 58). One study found similar proximal adenoma prevalence in black and white patients (55). Another study found that blacks were significantly more likely to have proximal adenomas compared with whites, adjusting for only age and family history of colorectal cancer (38). The third study found that proximal adenoma prevalence was lower in black patients than in white patients (58). Finally, the PLCO study found that black and white study participants had similar odds of having a proximal adenoma detected at follow-up colonoscopy at both the first and second screening (3 to 5 years later), though only participants with findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy were referred to colonoscopy (31, 51).

Prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas

Evidence about the relationship between race and prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas was limited and mixed. An observational study carried out in Boston Medical Center safety-net clinics found that black and white patients had the same prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas (61). In contrast, the PLCO study found that black participants were more likely to have advanced proximal adenomas than white participants (31, 51). Estimated racial differences were observed at the first and second rounds of screening, but only reached statistical significance at the first round.

Interval colorectal cancer

Interval colorectal cancer refers to colorectal cancer detected after colonoscopy and before the next recommended screening exam (66). Analysis of SEER-Medicare data, based on 66 to 75 year olds who underwent colonoscopy between 2002 and 2011, found that black patients were at significantly greater risk of interval cancer than white patients; the estimated probability of an interval cancer up to 54 months after colonoscopy was 0.071 for black patients and 0.051 for white patients (67). Interval cancers can be attributed to provider characteristics (adenoma detection rates, rates of complete adenoma/serrated polyp resection), patient characteristics (adequate bowel cleansing), and disease characteristics (progression rates). Thus, it is unclear what drives differences in interval cancer rates.

Summary

We found mixed evidence for racial differences in the prevalence of adenomas and limited evidence that black people may be at greater risk for advanced and proximal adenomas compared with whites. Our findings are similar to results from a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies that found no difference in the prevalence of advanced adenomas in black (6.6%) and white (6.2%) people but did find evidence that blacks had a higher prevalence of advanced proximal adenomas than whites (3.3% vs. 2.4%; ref. 68).

It is difficult to draw conclusions about racial differences in adenoma risk in the context of screening disparities. Colonoscopy with polypectomy has long-term effects on adenoma prevalence. If whites are more likely to be screened than blacks, this could result in underestimation of both adenoma and advanced adenoma prevalence in whites compared with blacks, even in studies that focused on screening outcomes. For example, in a study that described black/white differences in adenoma prevalence by age, differences were small before age 60, when people are less likely to be previously screened, and large after age 60 when the chance of previous screening increases, especially among whites (54). On the other hand, if black people receive lower-quality colonoscopy than whites, this could result in underestimation of adenomas and advanced adenomas in blacks compared with whites. Within the PLCO study, racial differences in the prevalence of abnormal findings at the second screening flexible sigmoidoscopy were partly explained by black patients being more likely to have their colonoscopies at centers with lower adenoma detection rates (51).

Understanding what drives racial disparities will better equip us to address them. Disparities that are driven by disparate access to quality care point to the importance of improving access to and uptake of high-quality screening. Disparities that arise from disparate risk point to the need for more aggressive screening in higher-risk groups, including earlier initiation and shorter screening intervals, and further exploration of factors that drive increased risk. Based on available data, we found strong evidence for racial differences in colorectal cancer screening access, but limited evidence for racial differences in adenoma prevalence. In general, black and white patients who are screened have similar adenoma prevalence. Although there is some indication that risk of advanced and proximal adenomas is higher in black than white people, these differences could be driven by differences in screening. Based on this review, we conclude that higher rates of colorectal cancer incidence among black patients are largely due to lower rates of screening.

Screening can reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but black Americans face greater barriers to screening than whites (69). In 2017, black adults younger than 65 were less likely than whites to have health insurance (85.9% vs. 91.5%; ref. 70), and people without health insurance are less likely to participate in colorectal cancer screening (71). Racial barriers persist among the insured, where healthcare systems and physicians within these systems play an important role in promoting colorectal cancer screening. In spite of widespread knowledge that blacks have higher colorectal cancer incidence than whites, blacks are less likely than whites to receive a recommendation for colorectal cancer screening (72, 73). Physicians are less likely to recommend screening based on their perception of a patient's ability to pay (74). Physicians are also less likely to recommend colorectal cancer screening when they identify a shortage of specialists in the region, and blacks may be more likely than whites to live in such regions (75). There is also evidence that black patients receive colonoscopies from physicians with lower adenoma detection rates than white patients (51, 67, 76). From the patient perspective, trust in an individual's primary care provider is the most important factor in the decision to undergo colorectal cancer screening, and the degree to which trust plays a role in the decision varies across different racial and ethnic groups (77).

Our report has several important limitations. This narrative review lacked the rigor of a systematic review, and we do not provide pooled estimates of screening outcomes. We described differences in colorectal cancer screening and risk for black and white patients within the United States and did not address differences across other racial or ethnic groups or in other countries. In addition, because of wide heterogeneity in genetics and ancestry for both “blacks” and “whites” in the United States, comparisons between these groups could mask true risk differences in more homogeneous genetic subgroups. We relied primarily on adenoma prevalence as a proxy for underlying colorectal cancer risk. We did not address racial differences in the molecular characteristics of detected lesions which may be related to differences in disease progression and survival after diagnosis. Nor did we examine differences in the prevalence of sessile serrated polyps, which could be related to differences in the effectiveness of screening, and both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality (78). Finally, there is potential for bias in study estimates, especially from observational studies. In particular, black/white differences in screening uptake could result in differential underestimation of adenoma and advanced adenoma prevalence, and people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to modifiable risk factors, such as smoking, may be underrepresented in studies of screened populations. In spite of these limitations, we feel that the available research, taken together, provides a compelling argument that the higher colorectal cancer incidence observed in blacks relative to whites is primarily due to differences in screening utilization.

It is imperative that we seek ways to reduce racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening, but how? Multilevel solutions are needed, including national and state policies, to improve access to screening and follow-up of abnormal screening tests, health systems solutions to promote screening, and patient education efforts (79). Healthcare organization can ensure that testing is accessible by mailing FITs to all patients (80) and using patient navigators to assist patients (12, 81). Overall, our review suggests that equal access to care can reduce screening disparities.

C.M. Rutter and K.E. Bouskill reports grants from NCI (U01CA199335) during the conduct of the study. A.B. Knudsen reports grants from NCI and grants from American Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. J.S. Lin reports other from AHRQ (contract to support the USPSTF, funds to institution) during the conduct of the study.

The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society.

Research reported in this publication was supported by grant number U01CA199335 (C.M. Rutter, A.B. Knudsen, and K.E. Bouskill) from the NCI as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) and by a Research Scholar Grant from the American Cancer Society under award number RSG-15-002-01-CCE (A.B. Knudsen). We also want to thank Jody Larkin for assistance with literature searches and Claudia Seguin for creating figures showing colorectal cancer incidence by race, age, and time period.

1.
DeSantis
C
,
Naishadham
D
,
Jemal
A
. 
Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2013
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2013
;
63
:
151
66
.
2.
Rahman
R
,
Schmaltz
C
,
Jackson
CS
,
Simoes
EJ
,
Jackson‐Thompson
J
,
Ibdah
JA
. 
Increased risk for colorectal cancer under age 50 in racial and ethnic minorities living in the United States
.
Cancer Med
2015
;
4
:
1863
70
.
3.
DeSantis
CE
,
Miller
KD
,
Goding Sauer
A
,
Jemal
A
,
Siegel
RL
. 
Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2019
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2019
;
69
:
211
33
.
4.
Shavers
VL
. 
Racial/ethnic variation in the anatomic subsite location of in situ and invasive cancers of the colon
.
J Natl Med Assoc
2007
;
99
:
733
48
.
5.
Mandelblatt
J
,
Andrews
H
,
Kao
R
,
Wallace
R
,
Kerner
J
. 
The late-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer: demographic and socioeconomic factors
.
Am J Public Health
1996
;
86
:
1794
7
.
6.
Irby
K
,
Anderson
WF
,
Henson
DE
,
Devesa
SS
. 
Emerging and widening colorectal carcinoma disparities between Blacks and Whites in the United States (1975–2002)
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
792
7
.
7.
Rutter
CM
,
Johnson
EA
,
Feuer
EJ
,
Knudsen
AB
,
Kuntz
KM
,
Schrag
D
. 
Secular trends in colon and rectal cancer relative survival
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
1806
13
.
8.
Williams
R
,
White
P
,
Nieto
J
,
Vieira
D
,
Francois
F
,
Hamilton
F
. 
Colorectal cancer in African Americans: an update
.
Clin Transl Gastroenterol
2016
;
7
:
e185
.
9.
Alexander
DD
,
Waterbor
J
,
Hughes
T
,
Funkhouser
E
,
Grizzle
W
,
Manne
U
. 
African-American and Caucasian disparities in colorectal cancer mortality and survival by data source: an epidemiologic review
.
Cancer Biomarkers
2007
;
3
:
301
13
.
10.
Agrawal
S
,
Bhupinderjit
A
,
Bhutani
MS
,
Boardman
L
,
Nguyen
C
,
Romero
Y
, et al
Colorectal cancer in African Americans
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2005
;
100
:
515
23
;
discussion 514
.
11.
Lansdorp-Vogelaar
I
,
van Ballegooijen
M
,
Zauber
AG
,
Boer
R
,
Wilschut
J
,
Winawer
SJ
, et al
Individualizing colonoscopy screening by sex and race
.
Gastrointest Endosc
2009
;
70
:
96
108
,
108 e101–124
.
12.
Kwaan
MR
,
Jones-Webb
R
. 
Colorectal cancer screening in black men: recommendations for best practices
.
Am J Prev Med
2018
;
55
:
S95
S102
.
13.
Winawer
SJ
. 
A quarter century of colorectal cancer screening: progress and prospects
.
J Clin Oncol
2001
;
19
:
6S
12S
.
14.
Hardcastle
JD
,
Chamberlain
JO
,
Robinson
MH
,
Moss
SM
,
Amar
SS
,
Balfour
TW
, et al
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer
.
The Lancet
1996
;
348
:
1472
7
.
15.
Kronborg
O
,
Fenger
C
,
Olsen
J
,
Jorgensen
OD
,
Sondergaard
O
. 
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test
.
Lancet
1996
;
348
:
1467
71
.
16.
Mandel
JS
,
Bond
JH
,
Church
TR
,
Snover
DC
,
Bradley
GM
,
Schuman
LM
, et al
Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota colon cancer control study
.
N Engl J Med
1993
;
328
:
1365
71
.
17.
US Preventive Services Task Force, United States. Office of Disease Prevention, Health Promotion. Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the US Preventive Services Task Force
.
Washington, DC
:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
; 
1996
.
18.
Levin
B
,
Bond
JH
. 
Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations of the U.S. preventive services task force
.
Gastroenterology
1996
;
111
:
1381
4
.
19.
Zauber
AG
,
Winawer
SJ
,
O'Brien
MJ
,
Lansdorp-Vogelaar
I
,
van Ballegooijen
M
,
Hankey
BF
, et al
Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
687
96
.
20.
Levin
B
,
Lieberman
DA
,
McFarland
BG
,
Andrews
KS
,
Brooks
D
,
Bond
J
, 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
.
Gastroenterology
2008
;
134
:
1570
95
.
21.
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force
. 
Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
Ann Intern Med
2008
;
149
:
627
37
.
22.
Rex
DK
,
Johnson
DA
,
Anderson
JC
,
Schoenfeld
PS
,
Burke
CA
,
Inadomi
JM
. 
American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2009
;
104
:
739
50
.
23.
Qaseem
A
,
Denberg
TD
,
Hopkins
RH
 Jr
,
Humphrey
LL
,
Levine
J
,
Sweet
DE
, et al
Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians
.
Ann Intern Med
2012
;
156
:
378
86
.
24.
Rex
DK
,
Boland
RC
,
Dominitz
JA
,
Giardiello
FM
,
Johnson
DA
,
Kaltenbach
T
, et al
Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2017
;
112
:
1016
.
25.
Wolf
AM
,
Fontham
ET
,
Church
TR
,
Flowers
CR
,
Guerra
CE
,
LaMonte
SJ
, et al
Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2018
;
68
:
250
81
.
26.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER Research Data, 9 Registries, Nov 2019 Sub (1975–2017) - Linked To County Attributes - Time Dependent (1990–2017) Income/Rurality, 1969–2017 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released April 2020, based on the November 2019 submission.
27.
Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.8.0.1 - April 2020
;
Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute
.
28.
Sorensen
RH
,
Farnsworth
GS
,
Roberts
JE
,
Welling
DR
,
Rich
NM
. 
President Reagan's life saving colectomy and subsequent historical implications
.
Mil Med
2014
;
179
:
704
7
.
29.
Edwards
BK
,
Ward
E
,
Kohler
BA
,
Eheman
C
,
Zauber
AG
,
Anderson
RN
, et al
Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975‐2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates
.
Cancer
2010
;
116
:
544
73
.
30.
Murphy
CC
,
Sandler
RS
,
Sanoff
HK
,
Yang
YC
,
Lund
JL
,
Baron
JA
. 
Decrease in incidence of colorectal cancer among individuals 50 years or older after recommendations for population-based screening
.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2017
;
15
:
903
9
.
31.
Laiyemo
AO
,
Doubeni
C
,
Pinsky
PF
,
Doria-Rose
VP
,
Bresalier
R
,
Lamerato
LE
, et al
Race and colorectal cancer disparities: health-care utilization vs different cancer susceptibilities
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2010
;
102
:
538
46
.
32.
Mendelsohn
RB
,
Winawer
SJ
,
Jammula
A
,
Mills
G
,
Jordan
P
,
O'Brien
MJ
, et al
Adenoma prevalence in blacks and whites having equal adherence to screening colonoscopy: the national colonoscopy study
.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2017
;
15
:
1469
70
.
33.
Carethers
JM
. 
Screening for colorectal cancer in African Americans: determinants and rationale for an earlier age to commence screening
.
Dig Dis Sci
2015
;
60
:
711
21
.
34.
Coughlin
SS
,
Blumenthal
DS
,
Seay
SJ
,
Smith
SA
. 
Toward the elimination of colorectal cancer disparities among African Americans
.
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities
2016
;
3
:
555
64
.
35.
Rex
DK
,
Ahnen
DJ
,
Baron
JA
,
Batts
KP
,
Burke
CA
,
Burt
RW
, et al
Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2012
;
107
:
1315
29
.
36.
Kauh
JB
,
Otis
W
,
Berger Mitchell
Z
. 
Racial disparities in colorectal cancer
.
Curr Probl Cancer
2007
;
31
:
123
33
.
37.
Sonnenberg
A
,
Turner
KO
,
Genta
RM
. 
Ethnic variations in the occurrence of colonic neoplasms
.
United European Gastroenterol J
2017
;
5
:
424
31
.
38.
Corley
DA
,
Jensen
CD
,
Marks
AR
,
Zhao
WK
,
de Boer
J
,
Levin
TR
, et al
Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: implications for screening and quality programs
.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2013
;
11
:
172
80
.
39.
Anderson
LM
,
May
DS
. 
Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States?
Am J Public Health
1995
;
85
:
840
42
.
40.
Doubeni
CA
,
Laiyemo
AO
,
Reed
G
,
Field
TS
,
Fletcher
RH
. 
Socioeconomic and racial patterns of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees in 2000 to 2005
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2009
;
18
:
2170
5
.
41.
Jerant
AF
,
Fenton
JJ
,
Franks
P
. 
Determinants of racial/ethnic colorectal cancer screening disparities
.
Arch Intern Med
2008
;
168
:
1317
24
.
42.
Burgess
DJ
,
van Ryn
M
,
Grill
J
,
Noorbaloochi
S
,
Griffin
JM
,
Ricards
J
, et al
Presence and correlates of racial disparities in adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines
.
J Gen Intern Med
2011
;
26
:
251
8
.
43.
Liss
DT
,
Baker
DW
. 
Understanding current racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the United States: the contribution of socioeconomic status and access to care
.
Am J Prev Med
2014
;
46
:
228
36
.
44.
Sauer
AG
,
Liu
B
,
Siegel
RL
,
Jemal
A
,
Fedewa
SA
. 
Comparing cancer screening estimates: behavioral risk factor surveillance system and national health interview survey
.
Prev Med
2018
;
106
:
94
100
.
45.
Lee
DC
,
Liang
H
,
Chen
N
,
Shi
L
,
Liu
Y
. 
Cancer screening among racial/ethnic groups in health centers
.
Int J Equity Health
2020
;
19
:
43
.
46.
May
FP
,
Yang
L
,
Corona
E
,
Glenn
BA
,
Bastani
R
. 
Disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the United States before and after implementation of the Affordable Care Act
.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2020
;
18
:
1796
804
.
47.
Shaukat
A
,
Church
TR
,
Shanley
R
,
Kauff
ND
,
O'Brien
MJ
,
Mills
GM
, et al
Development and validation of a clinical score for predicting risk of adenoma at screening colonoscopy
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2015
;
24
:
913
20
.
48.
Changoor
NR
,
Pak
LM
,
Nguyen
LL
,
Bleday
R
,
Trinh
Q-D
,
Koehlmoos
T
, et al
Effect of an equal-access military health system on racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening
.
Cancer
2018
;
124
:
3724
32
.
49.
Huguet
N
,
Angier
H
,
Rdesinski
R
,
Hoopes
M
,
Marino
M
,
Holderness
H
, et al
Cervical and colorectal cancer screening prevalence before and after Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion
.
Prev Med
2019
;
124
:
91
7
.
50.
Burnett-Hartman
AN
,
Mehta
SJ
,
Zheng
Y
,
Ghai
NR
,
McLerran
DF
,
Chubak
J
, et al
Racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening across healthcare systems
.
Am J Prev Med
2016
;
51
:
e107
15
.
51.
Laiyemo
AO
,
Doubeni
C
,
Pinsky
PF
,
Doria-Rose
VP
,
Bresalier
R
,
Hickey
T
, et al
Occurrence of distal colorectal neoplasia among whites and blacks following negative flexible sigmoidoscopy: an analysis of PLCO Trial
.
J Gen Intern Med
2015
;
30
:
1447
53
.
52.
Partin
MR
,
Gravely
AA
,
Burgess
JF
,
Haggstrom
DA
,
Lillie
SE
,
Nelson
DB
, et al
Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow‐up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results
.
Cancer
2017
;
123
:
3502
12
.
53.
Chubak
J
,
McLerran
D
,
Zheng
Y
,
Singal
AG
,
Corley
DA
,
Doria-Rose
VP
, et al
Receipt of colonoscopy following diagnosis of advanced adenomas: an analysis within integrated healthcare delivery systems
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2019
;
28
:
91
8
.
54.
Lebwohl
B
,
Capiak
K
,
Neugut
AI
,
Kastrinos
F
. 
Risk of colorectal adenomas and advanced neoplasia in Hispanic, black and white patients undergoing screening colonoscopy
.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2012
;
35
:
1467
73
.
55.
Friedenberg
FK
,
Singh
M
,
George
NS
,
Sankineni
A
,
Shah
S
. 
Prevalence and distribution of adenomas in black Americans undergoing colorectal cancer screening
.
Dig Dis Sci
2012
;
57
:
489
95
.
56.
Cooper
GS
,
Markowitz
SD
,
Chen
Z
,
Tuck
M
,
Willis
JE
,
Berger
BM
, et al
Performance of multitarget stool DNA testing in African American patients
.
Cancer
2018
;
124
:
3876
80
.
57.
Stein
B
,
Anderson
JC
,
Rajapakse
R
,
Alpern
ZA
,
Messina
CR
,
Walker
G
. 
Body mass index as a predictor of colorectal neoplasia in ethnically diverse screening population
.
Dig Dis Sci
2010
;
55
:
2945
52
.
58.
Zheng
XiE
,
Li
T
,
Lipka
S
,
Levine
E
,
Vlacancich
R
,
Takeshige
U
, et al
Location-dependent ethnic differences in the risk of colorectal adenoma: a retrospective multiethnic study
.
J Clin Gastroenterol
2014
;
48
:
e1
7
.
59.
Eberth
JM
,
Thibault
A
,
Caldwell
R
,
Josey
MJ
,
Qiang
B
,
Peña
E
, et al
A statewide program providing colorectal cancer screening to the uninsured of South Carolina
.
Cancer
2018
;
124
:
1912
20
.
60.
Wallace
K
,
Burke
CA
,
Ahnen
DJ
,
Barry
EL
,
Bresalier
RS
,
Saibil
F
, et al
The association of age and race and the risk of large bowel polyps
.
Cancer Epidem Biomar
2015
;
24
:
448
53
.
61.
Schroy
PC
 3rd
,
Coe
A
,
Chen
CA
,
O'Brien
MJ
,
Heeren
TC
. 
Prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in white and black patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in a safety-net hospital
.
Ann Intern Med
2013
;
159
:
13
20
.
62.
Kwah
J
,
Schroy
PC
,
Jacobson
BC
,
Calderwood
AH
. 
Whites and blacks have similar risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia
.
Dig Dis Sci
2014
;
59
:
2264
71
.
63.
Brenner
H
,
Niedermaier
T
,
Chen
H
. 
Strong subsite‐specific variation in detecting advanced adenomas by fecal immunochemical testing for hemoglobin
.
Int J Cancer
2017
;
140
:
2015
22
.
64.
Chan
JCY
,
Diakos
CI
,
Engel
A
,
Chan
DLH
,
Pavlakis
N
,
Gill
A
, et al
Tumor sidedness is not an independent prognostic marker of colorectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a retrospective cohort study
.
PLoS One
2019
;
14
:
15
.
65.
Missiaglia
E
,
Jacobs
B
,
D'Ario
G
,
Di Narzo
AF
,
Soneson
C
,
Budinska
E
, et al
Distal and proximal colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features
.
Ann Oncol
2014
;
25
:
1995
2001
.
66.
Sanduleanu
S
,
le Clercq
CMC
,
Dekker
E
,
Meijer
GA
,
Rabeneck
L
,
Rutter
MD
, et al
Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature
.
Gut
2015
;
64
:
1257
67
.
67.
Fedewa
SA
,
Flanders
WD
,
Ward
KC
,
Lin
CC
,
Jemal
A
,
Goding Sauer
A
, et al
Racial and ethnic disparities in interval colorectal cancer incidence: a population-based cohort study
.
Ann Intern Med
2017
;
166
:
857
66
.
68.
Imperiale
TF
,
Abhyankar
PR
,
Stump
TE
,
Emmett
TW
. 
Prevalence of advanced, precancerous colorectal neoplasms in black and white populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Gastroenterology
2018
;
155
:
1776
86
.
69.
Warren Andersen
S
,
Blot
WJ
,
Lipworth
L
,
Steinwandel
M
,
Murff
HJ
,
Zheng
W
. 
Association of race and socioeconomic status with colorectal cancer screening, colorectal cancer risk, and mortality in Southern US adults
.
JAMA Network Open
2019
;
2
:
e1917995
.
70.
2017 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
. Content last reviewed July 2019.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
,
Rockville, MD
. https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr17/index.html.
71.
de Moor
JS
,
Cohen
RA
,
Shapiro
JA
,
Nadel
MR
,
Sabatino
SA
,
Yabroff
KR
, et al
Colorectal cancer screening in the United States: trends from 2008 to 2015 and variation by health insurance coverage
.
Prev Med
2018
;
112
:
199
206
.
72.
Wallace
K
,
Hill
EG
,
Lewin
DN
,
Williamson
G
,
Oppenheimer
S
,
Ford
ME
, et al
Racial disparities in advanced-stage colorectal cancer survival
.
Cancer Causes Control
2013
;
24
:
463
71
.
73.
May
FP
,
Almario
CV
,
Ponce
N
,
Spiegel
BM
. 
Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2015
;
110
:
1388
.
74.
Meissner
HI
,
Klabunde
CN
,
Breen
N
,
Zapka
JM
. 
Breast and colorectal cancer screening: US primary care physicians' reports of barriers
.
Am J Prev Med
2012
;
43
:
584
9
.
75.
Zapka
J
,
Klabunde
CN
,
Taplin
S
,
Yuan
G
,
Ransohoff
D
,
Kobrin
S
. 
Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians
.
J Gen Intern Med
2012
;
27
:
1150
8
.
76.
David
Y
,
Ottaviano
L
,
Park
J
,
Iqbal
S
,
Likhtshteyn
M
,
Kumar
S
, et al
Confounders in adenoma detection at initial screening colonoscopy: a factor in the assessment of racial disparities as a risk for colon cancer
.
J Cancer Ther
2019
;
10
:
269
89
.
77.
Gupta
S
,
Brenner
AT
,
Ratanawongsa
N
,
Inadomi
JM
. 
Patient trust in physician influences colorectal cancer screening in low-income patients
.
Am J Prev Med
2014
;
47
:
417
23
.
78.
Nouraie
M
,
Ashktorab
H
,
Atefi
N
,
Azam
S
,
Tarjoman
T
,
Lee
E
, et al
Can the rate and location of sessile serrated polyps be part of colorectal cancer disparity in African Americans?
BMC Gastroenterol
2019
;
19
:
8
.
79.
Gupta
S
,
Sussman
DA
,
Doubeni
CA
,
Anderson
DS
,
Day
L
,
Deshpande
AR
, et al
Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2014
;
106
:
dju032
.
80.
O'Connor
EA
,
Vollmer
WM
,
Petrik
AF
,
Green
BB
,
Coronado
GD
. 
Moderators of the effectiveness of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening through mailed fecal immunochemical test kits: results from a pragmatic randomized trial
.
Trials
2020
;
21
:
1
12
.
81.
Percac-Lima
S
,
López
L
,
Ashburner
JM
,
Green
AR
,
Atlas
SJ
. 
The longitudinal impact of patient navigation on equity in colorectal cancer screening in a large primary care network
.
Cancer
2014
;
120
:
2025
31
.
82.
Doubeni
CA
. 
The impact of colorectal cancer screening on the US population: is it time to celebrate?
Cancer
2014
;
120
:
2810
3
.

Supplementary data