Forward. The reach and health impacts of the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program

Educational Strategies to Achieve Equitable Breast Imaging Care

As the population of the United States becomes increasingly diverse, radiologists must learn to both understand and mitigate the impact of health disparities. Significant health disparities persist in radiologic care, including breast imaging. Racial and ethnic minorities, women from lower socioeconomic status, those living in rural areas, and the uninsured bear a disproportionate burden of breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is no centralized radiology curriculum focusing on breast health disparities available to residents, breast imaging fellows, or practicing breast radiologists. While patient-, provider-, and system-level initiatives are necessary to overcome disparities, our purpose is to describe educational strategies targeted to breast imaging radiologists at all levels to provide equitable care to a diverse population. These strategies may include, but are not limited to, diversifying the breast imaging workforce, understanding the needs of a diverse population, cultural sensitivity and bias training, and fostering awareness of the existing issues in screening mammography access, follow-up imaging, and clinical care.

Insurance Status Predicts Survival in Women with Breast Cancer: Results of Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program in California

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program (BCCTP) Act, passed by Congress in 2000, provides time-limited coverage to uninsured breast or cervical cancer patients. We examine survival differences between BCCTP cases and insured controls.

METHODS

Stage I-III breast cancer patients, covered under California's BCCTP from 2005 to 2009 (N = 6343), were 1:1 matched with California Cancer Registry controls on age, race/ethnicity, and cancer stage. Overall and disease-specific (OS and DSS) survival were compared using multivariate regression.

RESULTS

BCCTP cases were more often unmarried [odds ratio (OR) 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-2.66], with poorly/undifferentiated tumors (OR 1.26, CI 1.13-1.40), classified as ER negative (OR 1.10, CI 1.02-1.20) and/or PR negative (OR 1.09, CI 1.01-1.17). Cases were more likely to undergo mastectomy (OR 1.13, CI 1.05-1.21) or no surgery (OR 1.64, CI 1.31-2.05) versus lumpectomy. Cases were also more likely to undergo radiation (OR 1.11, CI 1.03-1.19). Endocrine therapy rates were marginally lower in cases (OR 0.93, CI 0.86-1.00). OS and DSS were shorter in BCCTP cases on multivariate analysis (HR 1.29, CI 1.17-1.42 and HR 1.27, CI 1.14-1.42, respectively). When stratified by socioeconomic status (SES), cases had significantly shorter OS and DSS except in the lowest quintile. When stratified by stage, cases had significantly shorter OS and DSS, except for stage I.

CONCLUSIONS

The BCCTP provides uninsured breast cancer patients with comprehensive and timely care. Although our results suggest that BCCTP delivers quality care, BCCTP patients have shorter survival rates, even after accounting for SES and stage differences. Further assistance to vulnerable populations is warranted, including longer duration of treatment coverage, and surveillance adhering to NCCN compliant surveillance programs.

Assessing Knowledge Sharing in Cancer Screening Among High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries: Insights From the International Cancer Screening Network

PURPOSE

As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P = .048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P = .002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P = .518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P = .122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P = .507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P = .063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P = .695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P = .259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P = .425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P = .695).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally.

County-level outcomes of a rural breast cancer screening outreach strategy: a decentralized hub-and-spoke model (BSPAN2)

Rural mammography screening remains suboptimal despite reimbursement programs for uninsured women. Networks linking non-clinical community organizations and clinical providers may overcome limited delivery infrastructure in rural areas. Little is known about how networks expand their service area. To evaluate a hub-and-spoke model to expand mammography services to 17 rural counties by assessing county-level delivery and local stakeholder conduct of outreach activities. We conducted a mixed-method evaluation using EMR data, systematic site visits (73 interviews, 51 organizations), 92 patient surveys, and 30 patient interviews. A two-sample t test compared the weighted monthly average of women served between hub- and spoke-led counties; nonparametric trend test evaluated time trend over the study period; Pearson chi-square compared sociodemographic data between hub- and spoke-led counties. From 2013 to 2014, the program screened 4603 underinsured women. Counties where local "spoke" organizations led outreach activities achieved comparable screening rates to hub-led counties (9.2 and 8.7, respectively, p = 0.984) and did not vary over time (p = 0.866). Qualitative analyses revealed influence of program champions, participant language preference, and stakeholders' concerns about uncompensated care. A program that leverages local organizations' ability to identify and reach rural underserved populations is a feasible approach for expanding preventive services delivery.

Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas- United States, 1999-2014

PROBLEM/CONDITION

Higher rates of death in nonmetropolitan areas (often referred to as rural areas) compared with metropolitan areas have been described but not systematically assessed.

PERIOD COVERED

1999-2014 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Mortality data for U.S. residents from the National Vital Statistics System were used to calculate age-adjusted death rates and potentially excess deaths for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas for the five leading causes of death. Age-adjusted death rates included all ages and were adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population by the direct method. Potentially excess deaths are defined as deaths among persons aged <80 years that exceed the numbers that would be expected if the death rates of states with the lowest rates (i.e., benchmark states) occurred across all states. (Benchmark states were the three states with the lowest rates for each cause during 2008-2010.) Potentially excess deaths were calculated separately for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas. Data are presented for the United States and the 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services public health regions.

RESULTS

Across the United States, nonmetropolitan areas experienced higher age-adjusted death rates than metropolitan areas. The percentages of potentially excess deaths among persons aged <80 years from the five leading causes were higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. For example, approximately half of deaths from unintentional injury and chronic lower respiratory disease in nonmetropolitan areas were potentially excess deaths, compared with 39.2% and 30.9%, respectively, in metropolitan areas. Potentially excess deaths also differed among and within public health regions; within regions, nonmetropolitan areas tended to have higher percentages of potentially excess deaths than metropolitan areas.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with metropolitan areas, nonmetropolitan areas have higher age-adjusted death rates and greater percentages of potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death, nationally and across public health regions.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION

Routine tracking of potentially excess deaths in nonmetropolitan areas might help public health departments identify emerging health problems, monitor known problems, and focus interventions to reduce preventable deaths in these areas.