Introduction National guidelines support the discussion of cancer patients by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB). We researched whether early pre-diagnosis multidisciplinary tumor board discussions are associated with shorter times to staging in lung cancer. Methods We reviewed our institution's lung cancer and MTB registries to retrospectively study if an early discussion at pre-diagnostic MTB (pd-MTB) influenced the timeliness of diagnostic evaluation. Over 14 months, 161 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer were included. Fiftyfive patients were presented at pd-MTB while 106 (controls) patients were not. The primary outcome was the difference in the time interval from suspicious imaging (Ix) to completion of staging (Sx). Outcomes were adjusted for key confounders with a multiple regression analysis. Results For stages I, II, and III lung cancer, where time to therapy matters, early discussion of patients with nodules suspicious for malignancy at pd-MTB was associated with no time delays when compared to patients who were not discussed in pd-MTB. The mean time intervals for imaging to staging (with standard deviations) are 65 days in controls (sd = 42.67) and 75 days (sd = 58.27) in tumor board cases (p=0.39). Adjusting for confounders with a multiple regression analysis among all stages revealed a similar lack of difference in time intervals to diagnosis, staging, and therapy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

1569 Background: Despite the widespread acceptance of colonoscopy as the gold standard for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening, compliance rates with recommended CRC screening lag far behind screening for breast and cervical cancers. Patients often delay or forgo screening colonoscopy due to associated discomfort, inconvenience, anxiety, and high cost. In addition, recent data have casted doubt on its effectiveness, especially in detecting right-sided colon neoplasia. Stool-based DNA (sDNA) testing is an emerging CRC screening tool that is convenient, noninvasive, and effective in detecting both right and left sided colon cancer. The goal of this study was to evaluate patient attitudes towards sDNA testing, identify preferences in CRC screening tools, and assess racial differences in these attitudes and preferences. Methods: In a colonoscopy-based case-control study, 100 patients of average CRC risk were asked to complete (1) sDNA testing (LabCorp ColoSure test), (2) screening colonoscopy, and (3) a patient satisfaction survey. Results: Eighty patients completed the study, including 55 (69%) White, 22 (27%) African American, and 3 (4%) Others. Overall, patients rated sDNA testing favorably in all preparation and test related features, except for perceived accuracy. Patients reporting a preferred screening method favored sDNA testing (78%) to FOBT (12%) or colonoscopy (10%), and 83% of all patients reported that they are likely to repeat sDNA testing. Non-Caucasians rated sDNA testing less favorably than Caucasians – reporting more discomfort (ANOVA, p<0.004), more anxiety (ANOVA, p<0.001), and less suitability (Chi-Squared, p<0.0035). Of those patients reporting a preferred screening test, 82% of Caucasians and 64% of non-Caucasians selected sDNA testing. Conclusions: Although sDNA testing was ranked less favorably by non-Caucasians, it was well received overall as the preferred CRC screening test, as compared to FOBT and colonoscopy. The differences between racial groups may reflect the generally lower uptake of CRC screening among non-Caucasians, regardless of the test. In conclusion, sDNA testing may be an effective means to increase CRC screening in African Americans, hence preventing CRC and closing the racial disparity gap.