Screening for colorectal cancer: using data to set prevention priorities

Urban-Rural Disparities in Access to Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Missouri and Illinois

Introduction

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended for current and former smokers who meet eligibility criteria. Few studies have quantitatively examined disparities in access to LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to examine relationships between 1) rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and access to LDCT lung cancer screening and 2) screening access and lung cancer mortality.

Methods

We used census block group and county-level data from Missouri and Illinois. We defined access to screening as presence of an accredited screening center within 30 miles of residence as of May 2019. We used mixed-effects logistic models for screening access and county-level multiple linear regression models for lung cancer mortality.

Results

Approximately 97.6% of metropolitan residents had access to screening, compared with 41.0% of nonmetropolitan residents. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, the odds of having access to screening in rural areas were 17% of the odds in metropolitan areas (95% CI, 12%–26%). We observed no association between screening access and lung cancer mortality. Southeastern Missouri, a rural and impoverished area, had low levels of screening access, high smoking prevalence, and high lung cancer mortality.

Conclusion

Although access to LDCT is lower in rural areas than in urban areas, lung cancer mortality in rural residents is multifactorial and cannot be explained by access alone. Targeted efforts to implement rural LDCT screening could reduce geographic disparities in access, although further research is needed to understand how increased access to screening could affect uptake and rural disparities in lung cancer mortality.

Patients' self-reported barriers to colon cancer screening in federally qualified health center settings

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite evidence that screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality, only about 60% of age-eligible adults are up-to-date on CRC screening. This analysis aims to identify self-reported barriers to CRC screening among patients in a safety-net healthcare setting.

Participants were recruited from safety-net primary care sites that were participating in a trial to increase CRC screening. At baseline, patients (n = 483) completed self-report surveys that assessed demographics, healthcare and CRC screening. Barriers to CRC screening were assessed through an open-ended question. Using a basic text analysis, data were coded and organized into key topics.

Overall, 65.2% ever had CRC screening; 46.4% were up-to-date. Of those who described barriers (n = 198), 22.9% said they were not due for screening or their provider had not recommended it. Other common barriers included fear or worry about the procedure or outcome, financial challenges such as lack of insurance or cost of testing, and logistic challenges such as transportation and time. Fewer said that screening was of low importance or mentioned discomfort with the procedure or colonoscopy preparation.

In this safety-net setting, CRC screening rates were lower than national rates. These qualitative results are similar to quantitative findings reported in the literature but the qualitative data add to our understanding of patient-reported concerns and challenges faced by safety-net patients. These results may be applied to developing targeting communication or intervention strategies to improve CRC screening rates within safety-net health centers.

Accelerating the Pace of Cancer Prevention- Right Now

As a nation, we underinvest in prevention and fail to implement strategies that ensure all population groups equitably share in the return on investment in prevention research and the benefits of prevention effectiveness. There is significant evidence indicating that by applying knowledge that we already have to reduce tobacco, inactivity, and obesity (known modifiable causes of cancer), we can prevent more than 50% of cancers. Vaccination against HPV, aspirin and selective estrogen receptor modulators, and screening programs further reduce risk. Evidence-based prevention strategies are inconsistently implemented across the United States. Substantial variation across States indicates that there is much room for improvement in implementation of prevention. Implementation science applies innovative approaches to identifying, understanding, and developing strategies for overcoming barriers to the adoption, adaptation, integration, scale-up, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions, tools, policies, and guidelines that will prevent cancer through application of evidence-based interventions. When we get implementation of prevention programs right and at scale, we achieve substantial population benefits. Although many efforts are underway to maximize our knowledge about the causes and treatments of cancer, we can achieve reductions in the cancer burden right now by doing what we already know. The time to start is now. Cancer Prev Res; 11(4); 171-84. ©2018 AACR.

Multilevel Small-Area Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for colorectal cancer for adults ages 50 to 75 years. We generated small-area estimates for being current with colorectal cancer screening to examine sociogeographic differences among states and counties. To our knowledge, nationwide county-level estimates for colorectal cancer screening are rarely presented.Methods: We used county data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 251,360 adults), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models. We post-stratified the data with the U.S. Census population data to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level screening prevalence estimates nationally and by race/ethnicity, mapped the estimates, and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We evaluated internal consistency of our modeled state-specific estimates with BRFSS direct state estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients.Results: Correlation coefficients were ≥0.95, indicating high internal consistency. We observed substantial variations in current colorectal cancer screening estimates among the states and counties within states. State mean estimates ranged from 58.92% in Wyoming to 75.03% in Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 40.11% in Alaska to 79.76% in Florida. Larger county variations were observed in various race/ethnicity groups.Conclusions: State estimates mask county variations. However, both state and county estimates indicate that the country is far behind the "80% by 2018" target.Impact: County-modeled estimates help identify variation in colorectal cancer screening prevalence in the United States and guide education and enhanced screening efforts in areas of need, including areas without BRFSS direct-estimates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(3); 245-53. ©2018 AACR.

Contextual effects and cancer outcomes in the United States: a systematic review of characteristics in multilevel analyses

PURPOSE

There is increasing call for the utilization of multilevel modeling to explore the relationship between place-based contextual effects and cancer outcomes in the United States. To gain a better understanding of how contextual factors are being considered, we performed a systematic review.

METHODS

We reviewed studies published between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2016 and assessed the following attributes: (1) contextual considerations such as geographic scale and contextual factors used; (2) methods used to quantify contextual factors; and (3) cancer type and outcomes. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and initially identified 1060 studies. One hundred twenty-two studies remained after exclusions.

RESULTS

Most studies utilized a two-level structure; census tracts were the most commonly used geographic scale. Socioeconomic factors, health care access, racial/ethnic factors, and rural-urban status were the most common contextual factors addressed in multilevel models. Breast and colorectal cancers were the most common cancer types, and screening and staging were the most common outcomes assessed in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for future research include deriving contextual factors using more rigorous approaches, considering cross-classified structures and cross-level interactions, and using multilevel modeling to explore understudied cancers and outcomes.

Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer among both males and females in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Although largely preventable through screening, early detection and removal of polyps, screening rates are considered sub-optimal. Perceived barriers to screening have been reported to influence screening rates. This paper examines variations in the extent to which uninsured patients identified barriers to CRC screening using colonoscopy based on race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, gender, marital status and prior colonoscopy. Multivariate analyses showed that compared to Caucasians, African Americans had an increased likelihood of identifying lack of transportation as a barrier [odds ratio (OR) 2.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.35-5.32] while Hispanics were more likely to identify fear of finding cancer as a barrier (OR 2.09; 95 % CI 1.19-3.66). Compared to those with more than a high school education, there was increased likelihood of identifying lack of knowledge as a barrier among individuals with high school education (OR 3.51; 95 % CI 1.94-6.36) or less than a high school education (OR 2.16; 95 % CI 1.04-4.50). Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at increasing colonoscopy screening rates among underserved populations should take into consideration race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, and prior colonoscopy experience when developing education and outreach plans to reduce barriers to colonoscopy.

Using small-area analysis to estimate county-level racial disparities in obesity demonstrating the necessity of targeted interventions

Data on the national and state levels is often used to inform policy decisions and strategies designed to reduce racial disparities in obesity. Obesity-related health outcomes are realized on the individual level, and policies based on state and national-level data may be inappropriate due to the variations in health outcomes within and between states. To examine county-level variation of obesity within states, we use a small-area analysis technique to fill the void for county-level obesity data by race. Five years of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data are used to estimate the prevalence of obesity by county, both overall and race-stratified. A modified weighting system is used based on demographics at the county level using 2010 census data. We fit a multilevel reweighted regression model to obtain county-level prevalence estimates by race. We compare the distribution of prevalence estimates of non-Hispanic Blacks to non-Hispanic Whites. For 25 of the 26 states included in our analysis there is a statistically significant difference between within-state county-level average obesity prevalence rates for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks. This study provides information needed to target disparities interventions and resources to the local areas with greatest need; it also identifies the necessity of doing so.