Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening

Negative spillover due to constraints on care delivery: a potential source of bias in pragmatic clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials evaluate the effectiveness of health interventions in real-world settings. Negative spillover can arise in a pragmatic trial if the study intervention affects how scarce resources are allocated across patients in the intervention and comparison groups.

MAIN BODY

Negative spillover can lead to overestimation of treatment effect and harm to patients assigned to usual care in trials of diverse health interventions. While this type of spillover has been addressed in trials of social welfare and public health interventions, there is little recognition of this source of bias in the medical literature. In this commentary, I examine what causes negative spillover and how it may have led clinical trial investigators to overestimate the effect of patient navigation, AI-based physiological alarms, and elective induction of labor. Trials discussed here are a convenience sample and not the result of a systematic review. I also suggest ways to detect negative spillover and design trials that avoid this potential source of bias.

CONCLUSION

As new clinical practices and technologies that affect care delivery are considered for widespread adoption, well-designed trials are needed to provide valid evidence on their risks and benefits. Understanding all sources of bias that could affect these trials, including negative spillover, is a critical part of this effort. Future guidance on clinical trial design should consider addressing this form of spillover, just as current guidance often discusses bias due to lack of blinding, differential attrition, or contamination.

Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving.

OBJECTIVE

Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

DESIGN

A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts.

MAIN MEASURES

Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.

Harmonizing data across the accelerating colorectal cancer screening and follow-up through implementation science (ACCSIS) program to enhance data quality and promote data sharing

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) Program, a Cancer Moonshot℠ Initiative, is to support research to build the evidence base on multilevel interventions that increase rates of colorectal cancer screening, follow-up, and referral to care to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. The National Cancer Institute funded eight Research Projects to implement multilevel interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening among communities who traditionally have been medically underserved. To analyze the impact of ACCSIS across Research Projects, the consortium developed a set of common data elements. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing the common data elements to facilitate analysis of ACCSIS data as well as support and inform implementation science research studies.

METHODS

The ACCSIS Data, Design, and Analysis Work Group was tasked with designing common data elements through a review of existing data collection instruments, examination of data elements proposed by the ACCSIS Research Projects, and deliberations on the data required to compare across the Research Projects. ACCSIS Consortium members drafted, revised, and finalized a common data elements document consisting of variables to collect and surveys to administer to evaluate ACCSIS implementation activities and outcomes in a standardized manner across the Research Projects.

RESULTS

The ACCSIS Consortium decided to collect the following categories of common data elements: characteristics across multiple levels of the multicomponent interventions, implementation climate, and determinants; interventions and strategies; implementation outcome constructs and definitions; colorectal cancer screening episodes (screening, diagnostic testing follow-up, cancer detection, and cancer treatment); and cost measures. To assess implementation climate, the consortium prioritized constructs from five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCSIS common data elements offer a set of harmonization data for future implementation efforts. The consortium is conducting a systematic assessment using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess data quality and approaches to improve and sustain data collection. Lessons learned from these ongoing activities will offer additional insights to tailor the ACCSIS common data elements and support efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening for populations experiencing disparities.

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings

BACKGROUND

Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up.

METHODS

We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines.

RESULTS

Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities.

IMPACT

There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Screening Beyond the Evidence: Patterns of Age and Comorbidity for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Little evidence exists to guide continuation of screening beyond the recommended ages of national guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, although increasing age and comorbidity burden is likely to reduce the screening benefit of lower mortality.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize screening after recommended stopping ages, by age and comorbidities in a large, diverse sample.

DESIGN

Serial cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS

All individuals in the PROSPR-I consortium cohorts from 75 to 89 years of age for breast cancer screening, 66-89 years of age for cervical cancer screening, and 76-89 years of age for colorectal cancer screening from 2011 to 2013. The lower age thresholds were based on the guidelines for each respective cancer type.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportion of annual screening by cancer type in relation to age and Charlson comorbidity score and median years of screening past guideline age. We estimated the likelihood of screening past the guideline-based age as a function of age and comorbidity using logistic regression.

KEY RESULTS

The study cohorts included individuals screening for breast (n = 33,475); cervical (n = 459,318); and colorectal (n = 556,356) cancers. In the year following aging out, approximately 30% of the population was screened for breast cancer, 2% of the population was screened for cervical, and almost 5% for colorectal cancer. The median number of years screened past the guideline-based recommendation was 5, 3, and 4 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Of those screening  > 10 years past the guideline-based age,15%, 46%, and 25% had  ≥ 3 comorbidities respectively. Colorectal cancer screening had the smallest decline in the likelihood of screening beyond the age-based recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

The odds of screening past guideline-based age decreased with comorbidity burden for breast and cervical cancer screening but not for colorectal. These findings suggest the need to evaluate shared decision tools to help patients understand whether screening is appropriate and to generate more evidence in older populations.

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity

Population models of cancer reflect the overall US population by drawing on numerous existing data resources for parameter inputs and calibration targets. Models require data inputs that are appropriately representative, collected in a harmonized manner, have minimal missing or inaccurate values, and reflect adequate sample sizes. Data resource priorities for population modeling to support cancer health equity include increasing the availability of data that 1) arise from uninsured and underinsured individuals and those traditionally not included in health-care delivery studies, 2) reflect relevant exposures for groups historically and intentionally excluded across the full cancer control continuum, 3) disaggregate categories (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and their intersections that conceal important variation in health outcomes, 4) identify specific populations of interest in clinical databases whose health outcomes have been understudied, 5) enhance health records through expanded data elements and linkage with other data types (eg, patient surveys, provider and/or facility level information, neighborhood data), 6) decrease missing and misclassified data from historically underrecognized populations, and 7) capture potential measures or effects of systemic racism and corresponding intervenable targets for change.

A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results.

Objective

To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021.

Intervention

Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk.

Results

Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result.

Conclusions and Relevance

A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation

Objectives

To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual’s eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation.

Study Design

Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019.

Methods

We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics.

Results

Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates.

Conclusions

We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

The burden of breast, cervical, and colon and rectum cancer in the Balkan countries, 1990-2019 and forecast to 2030

BACKGROUND

Despite effective prevention and control strategies, in countries of the Balkan region, cancers are the second leading cause of mortality, closely following circulatory system diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in the burden of breast, cervical, and colon and rectum cancer in the Balkan region and per country between 1990 and 2019, including a forecast to 2030.

METHODS

We described the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates for breast, cervical, and colon and rectum cancers in eleven Balkan countries over the period 1990-2019, including incidence, years lived with disability (YLD), years of life lost (YLL), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates per 100,000 population and accompanied 95% uncertainty interval. With the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average, we forecasted these rates per country up to 2030.

RESULTS

In the Balkan region, the highest incidence and DALYs rates in the study period were for colon and rectum, and breast cancers. Over the study period, the DALYs rates for breast cancer per 100,000 population were the highest in Serbia (reaching 670.84 in 2019) but the lowest in Albania (reaching 271.24 in 2019). In 2019, the highest incidence of breast cancer (85 /100,000) and highest YLD rate (64 /100,000) were observed in Greece. Romania had the highest incidence rates, YLD rates, DALY rates, and YLL rates of cervical cancer, with respective 20.59%, 23.39% 4.00%, and 3.47% increases for the 1990/2019 period, and the highest forecasted burden for cervical cancer in 2030. The highest incidence rates, YLD rates and DALY rates of colon and rectum cancers were continuously recorded in Croatia (an increase of 130.75%, 48.23%, and 63.28%, respectively), while the highest YLL rates were in Bulgaria (an increase of 63.85%). The YLL rates due to colon and rectum cancers are forecasted to progress by 2030 in all Balkan countries.

CONCLUSION

As most of the DALYs burden for breast, cervical, and colon and rectum cancer is due to premature mortality, the numerous country-specific barriers to cancer early detection and quality and care continuum should be a public priority of multi-stakeholder collaboration in the Balkan region.

Provider- and Facility-Level Variation in Precancerous Cervical Biopsy Diagnoses

OBJECTIVES

Reproducibility of cervical biopsy diagnoses is low and may vary based on where the diagnostic test is performed and by whom. Our objective was to measure multilevel variation in diagnoses across colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities.

METHODS

We cross-sectionally examined variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses within the 5 sites of the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium within levels defined by colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. Patients aged 18 to 65 years with a colposcopy with biopsy performed were included, with diagnoses categorized as normal, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1), grade 2 (CIN2), and grade 3 (CIN3). Using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo methods, we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for biopsy diagnoses and presented median odds ratios (MORs), which reflect the variability within each level. Median odds ratios can be interpreted as the average increased odds a patient would have for a given outcome (e.g., CIN2 or CIN3 vs normal or CIN1) when switching to a provider with higher odds of diagnosing that outcome. The MOR is always 1 or greater, and a value of 1 indicates no variation in outcome for that level, with higher values indicating greater variation.

RESULTS

A total of 130,110 patients were included who received care across 82 laboratory facilities, 2,620 colposcopists, and 489 pathologists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses was found at each level, with the most occurring between laboratory facilities, followed by pathologists and colposcopists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses of CIN2 or CIN3 (vs normal or CIN1) was present between laboratory facilities (MOR: 1.26; 95% credible interval = 1.19-1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving consistency in cervical biopsy diagnoses is needed to reduce underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment resulting from variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses.

Gaps in the screening process for women diagnosed with cervical cancer in four diverse US health care settings

BACKGROUND

Potential care gaps in the cervical cancer screening process among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in an era with increased human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have not been extensively evaluated.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 21 and 65 at four study sites between 2010 and 2014 were included. Screening histories were ascertained from 0.5 to 4 years prior to cervical cancer diagnosis. We identified potential care gaps in the screening history for each woman and classified them into one of three mutually exclusive types: lack of a screening test, screening test failure, and diagnostic/treatment care gap. Distributions of care gaps were tabulated by stage, histology, and study site. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to examine the associations between demographic and cancer characteristics and type of care gap.

RESULTS

Of 499 women evaluated, 46% lacked a screening test in the time window examined, 31% experienced a screening test failure, and 22% experienced a diagnostic/treatment care gap. More than half of the women with advanced cancer and squamous cell carcinoma lacked a screening test compared to 31% and 24% of women with localized cancer and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Women aged 21-29 at diagnosis were more likely to experience screening test failure and diagnostic/treatment care gap, while those aged 50-65 were more likely to lack a screening test, compared to women aged 30-39.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate a continuing need to develop interventions targeting unscreened and under-screened women and improve detection and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in women undergoing cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up.

Factors associated with timely colposcopy following an abnormal cervical cancer test result

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

DESIGN

Review of guidelines.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type.

RESULTS

Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type.

LIMITATIONS

This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Primary Care Practitioner Perceptions on the Follow-up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results

Importance

Health care systems focus on delivering routine cancer screening to eligible individuals, yet little is known about the perceptions of primary care practitioners (PCPs) about barriers to timely follow-up of abnormal results.

Objective

To describe PCP perceptions about factors associated with the follow-up of abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening test results.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Survey study of PCPs from 3 primary care practice networks in New England between February and October 2020, prior to participating in a randomized clinical trial to improve follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Participants were physicians and advanced practice clinicians from participating practices.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Self-reported process, attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction about the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results.

Results

Overall, 275 (56.7%) PCPs completed the survey (range by site, 34.9%-71.9%) with more female PCPs (61.8% [170 of 275]) and general internists (73.1% [201 of 275]); overall, 28,7% (79 of 275) were aged 40 to 49 years. Most PCPs felt responsible for managing abnormal cancer screening test results with the specific cancer type being the best factor (range, 63.6% [175 of 275] for breast to 81.1% [223 of 275] for lung; P < .001). The PCPs reported limited support for following up on overdue abnormal cancer screening test results. Standard processes such as automated reports, reminder letters, or outreach workers were infrequently reported. Major barriers to follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results across all cancer types included limited electronic health record tools (range, 28.5% [75 of 263]-36.5%[96 of 263]), whereas 50% of PCPs felt that there were major social barriers to receiving care for abnormal cancer screening test results for colorectal cancer. Fewer than half reported being very satisfied with the process of managing abnormal cancer screening test results, with satisfaction being greatest for breast cancer (46.9% [127 of 271]) and lowest for cervical (21.8% [59 of 271]) and lung cancer (22.4% [60 of 268]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of PCPs, important deficiencies in systems for managing abnormal cancer screening test results were reported. These findings suggest a need for comprehensive organ-agnostic systems to promote timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results using a primary care-focused approach across the range of cancer screening tests.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings.

METHODS

We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on &gt;9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities.

RESULTS

Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal).

CONCLUSIONS

PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators.

IMPACT

PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Organized Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: Attendance and Determinants in Rural China

To evaluate the attendance and determinants of organized cervical and breast cancer (two-cancer) screening, especially higher-level factors, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in central China from June 2018 to November 2019 among 1949 women (age ≥ 35 years). We examined organizer-level factors, provider-level factors, receiver-lever factors and attendance and participation willingness of screening. The results indicate that the attendance and participation willingness of organized two-cancer screening was 61.19% and 77.15%, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, women who received screening notification were more likely to have greater participation willingness and higher attendance than those who received no notification (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-1.99; aOR = 98.03, 95% CI: 51.44-186.82, respectively). Compared with being notified about screening by GPs, being notified by community women's leaders and other community leaders were more likely to lead to greater willingness to participate again (aOR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.13-7.24; aOR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.26-8.48, respectively) and recommending screening to others (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.02-4.65; aOR = 4.14, 95% CI: 1.84-9.30, respectively). The results suggest that notification of women about screening by community leaders is an important organizer-level factor. As a part of public health services, the design and implementation of optimal cancer screening strategies may require public-sector involvement at the organizer level instead of a one-man show by the health sector.

A History of Health Economics and Healthcare Delivery Research at the National Cancer Institute

With increased attention to the financing and structure of healthcare, dramatic increases in the cost of diagnosing and treating cancer, and corresponding disparities in access, the study of healthcare economics and delivery has become increasingly important. The Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was formed in 2015 to provide a hub for cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics research. However, the roots of this program trace back much farther, at least to the formation of the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in 1983. The creation of a division focused on understanding and explaining trends in cancer morbidity and mortality was instrumental in setting the direction of cancer-related healthcare delivery and health economics research over the subsequent decades. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of health economics and healthcare delivery research at NCI, describing the organizational structure and highlighting key initiatives developed by the division, and also briefly discuss future directions. HDRP and its predecessors have supported the growth and evolution of these fields through the funding of grants and contracts; the development of data, tools, and other research resources; and thought leadership including stimulation of research on previously understudied topics. As the availability of new data, methods, and computing capacity to evaluate cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics expand, HDRP aims to continue to support this growth and evolution.

Barriers to Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Multicenter Cohort

Importance

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is underused in clinical practice, which may be owing to patient and clinician barriers.

Objective

To characterize HCC surveillance barriers and associations with clinical outcomes in a multicenter cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included 5 medical centers in the United States. Patients with cirrhosis and newly diagnosed HCC treated from 2014 to 2018 were included. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to February 2022.

Exposure

Surveillance completion in the 36-month period prior to HCC diagnosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Surveillance receipt was classified as semiannual, annual, or no surveillance. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with semiannual surveillance. We conducted multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses to characterize associations between surveillance completion with curative treatment and overall survival.

Results

A total 629 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 63.6 [56.2-71.0] years; 491 [78.1%] men) were assessed, including 7 American Indian or Alaska Native patients (1.1%), 14 Asian patients (2.2), 176 Black patients (28.0%), 86 Hispanic patients (13.1%), and 340 White patients (54.1%). Nearly two-thirds of the cohort had no surveillance prior to HCC diagnosis (mean [range by site] 63.7% [37.9%-80.4%]), with a mean (range by site) of 14.0% (5.3%-33.3%) of patients having received semiannual surveillance and 22.3% (14.3%-28.8%) of patients having received annual surveillance. The most common reasons for no surveillance were lack of surveillance orders or nonadherence (mean [range by site], 82.4% [66.7%-92.4%], although a mean (range by site) of 17.6% (10.2%-22.1%) of patients had unrecognized cirrhosis at HCC presentation. Semiannual surveillance was associated with hepatitis B infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.06 [95% CI, 1.24-7.23]) and inversely associated with Black race (OR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.20-0.80]) and lack of cirrhosis recognition (OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.02-0.46]). Semiannual HCC surveillance was significantly associated with curative treatment receipt (OR, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.60-4.70]) but not overall survival (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.55-1.18]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patients with cirrhosis, HCC surveillance was underused in more than 80% of patients and associated with failures across the screening process. Dedicated programs to improve cirrhosis detection and HCC surveillance attainment are needed.

Effect of Chronic Comorbidities on Follow-up Colonoscopy After Positive Colorectal Cancer Screening Results: A Population-Based Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are colorectal cancer screening tests used to identify individuals requiring further investigation with colonoscopy. Delayed colonoscopy after positive FOBT (FOBT+) is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. We assessed the effect of comorbidity on colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+.

METHODS

Population-based healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble a cohort of 50-74-year-old individuals with FOBT+ results between 2008 and 2017. The associations between comorbidities and colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+ were examined using multivariable cause-specific hazard regression models.

RESULTS

Of 168,701 individuals with FOBT+, 80.5% received colonoscopy within 12 months. In multivariable models, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.82), heart failure (HR 0.77, CI 0.75-0.80), and serious mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.85-0.92) were associated with the lowest colonoscopy rates, compared with not having each condition. The number of medical conditions was inversely associated with colonoscopy uptake (≥4 vs 0: HR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.69; 3 vs 0: HR 0.75, CI 0.72-0.78; and 2 vs 0: HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.89). Having both medical and mental health conditions was associated with a lower colonoscopy uptake relative to no comorbidity (HR 0.88, CI 0.87-0.90).

DISCUSSION

Persons with medical and mental health conditions had lower colonoscopy rates after FOBT+ than those without these conditions. Better strategies are needed to optimize colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in individuals with comorbidities.

Coordinating Centers as a Strategy for Accelerating Cancer Epidemiology Consortia: Best Practices

Purposeof Review

This review highlights six "best practices" for cancer epidemiology coordinating centers to facilitate the success of a research consortium.

Recent Findings

Evidence from emerging literature regarding the Science of Team Science suggests that coordinating centers can more effectively foster collaborative cancer epidemiology research in consortia by (1) establishing collaboration as a shared goal at the start, (2) providing scientific expertise complementary to the research sites that adapts over the course of the project, (3) enacting anti-racist and inclusive approaches in all consortium decisions and activities, (4) fostering early-stage investigator career development, (5) engaging stakeholders including cancer survivors as peers, and (6) delivering reliable logistical support and technology tools with planned process evaluation so that researchers can collaboratively focus on the science.

Summary

By drawing on the Science of Team Science, coordinating centers can accelerate research progress and increase the impact of cancer epidemiology consortia.

Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.

Conceptual Model for the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Continuum: Current Status and Research Agenda

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to have a dismal prognosis, with 5-year survival below 20%. This poor prognosis can be in part attributed to failures along the cancer screening process continuum such as underuse of screening in at risk patients and appropriate treatments for patients with HCC. Better understanding these process failures, and how they compare to those seen in other cancer types, can help inform potential intervention targets and strategies to reduce HCC-related mortality. Herein, we outline a conceptual model with several discrete steps in the HCC screening process continuum including risk assessment, screening initiation, follow-up of screening results, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment evaluation. The conceptual model illustrates how each step in the screening process is prone to delays or failure, resulting in worse outcomes such as late stage diagnosis or poor survival, and how factors at the patient, provider, and health care system levels can contribute to these failures. We compare cancer screening processes for HCC with those employed in breast and colorectal cancer screening to identify opportunities for improvement. The Translational Liver Cancer consortium was recently established by the National Cancer Institute with the goal of improving early detection of HCC. Studies designed to address failures in the HCC screening process continuum will help accomplish this goal.

Protocol for the models of primary osteoporosis screening in men (MOPS) cluster randomized trial

Current guidelines recommend primary osteoporosis screening for at-risk men to reduce the morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with osteoporotic fractures. However, analyses in a national Veterans Health Administration cohort of over 4,000,000 men demonstrated that primary osteoporosis screening as it is currently operationalized does not benefit most older Veterans due to inefficient targeting and low subsequent treatment and adherence rates. The overall objective of this study is to determine whether a new model of primary osteoporosis screening reduces fracture risk compared to usual care. We are conducting a pragmatic group randomized trial of 38 primary care teams assigned to usual care or a Bone Health Service (BHS) screening model in which screening and adherence activities are managed by a centralized expert team. The study will: 1) compare the impact of the BHS model on patient-level outcomes strongly associated with fracture rates (eligible proportion screened, proportion meeting treatment criteria who receive osteoporosis medications, medication adherence, and femoral neck bone mineral density); 2) quantify the impact on provider and facility-level outcomes including change in DXA volume, change in metabolic bone disease clinic volume, and PACT provider time and satisfaction; and 3) estimate the impact on health system and policy outcomes using Markov models of screening program cost per quality adjusted life year based from health system and societal perspectives.

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Periodic screening for breast and cervical cancer in women with diabetes: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

Diabetes is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. Screening for breast and cervical cancer is recommended by clinical guidelines; however, utilization of these tests in people with diabetes has been unclear due to methodological limitations in the evidence base. We used administrative data to determine the association between diabetes and the rates of becoming up-to-date with periodic breast and cervical cancer screening over a 20-year period.

METHODS

Healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble two population-based cohorts of 50-70 and 21-70 year-olds between 1994 and 2011, eligible for breast and cervical cancer screening, respectively. Using age as the time scale, multivariable recurrent events models were implemented to examine the association between the presence of diabetes and the rates of becoming up-to-date with the recommended cancer screenings.

RESULTS

In each of the breast and cervical cancer screening cohorts, there were, respectively, 1,516,302 (16% had diabetes at baseline) and 4,751,220 (9.5% had diabetes at baseline) screen-eligible women. In multivariable models, prevalent diabetes (duration ≥ 2 years) was associated with lower rates of becoming up-to-date with cervical (hazard ratio, HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.85) and breast (HR 0.94, CI 0.93-0.94) cancer screening, compared to no diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Having diabetes is associated with decreased rates of becoming up-to-date with two recommended periodic cancer screenings, with a bigger reduction in the rates of becoming up-to-date with cervical cancer screening. Greater attention to cervical cancer preventive services is needed in women with diabetes.

Multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS): Protocol for a multilevel intervention to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results

INTRODUCTION

While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels.

METHODS

In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.

Cancer screening in the U.S. through the COVID-19 pandemic, recovery, and beyond

COVID-19 has proved enormously disruptive to the provision of cancer screening, which does not just represent an initial test but an entire process, including risk detection, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. Successful delivery of services at all points in the process has been negatively affected by the pandemic. There is a void in empirical high-quality evidence to support a specific strategy for administering cancer screening during a pandemic and its resolution phase, but several pragmatic considerations can help guide prioritization efforts. Targeting guideline-eligible people who have never been screened, or those who are significantly out of date with screening, has the potential to maximize benefits now and into the future. Disruptions to care due to the pandemic could represent an unparalleled opportunity to reassess early detection programs towards an explicit, thoughtful, and just prioritization of populations historically experiencing cancer disparities. By focusing screening services on populations that have the most to gain, and by careful and deliberate planning for the period following the pandemic, we can positively affect cancer outcomes for all.

Patient, provider, and clinic factors associated with the use of cervical cancer screening

Cervical cancer screening delivery remains suboptimal. Understanding the multiple influences on use of screening is important to designing interventions. We describe the influence of patient, primary care provider (PCP), and clinic characteristics on whether a woman is up-to-date with cervical screening as of December 2016. PCPs (n = 194) and their female screen-eligible patients age 21-65 years (n = 32,115) were included in this cross-sectional analysis of patients from two primary care networks linked to a contemporaneous PCP survey. Principal independent variables for patients included: age, race, insurance, continuity of care; for PCP included: overall satisfaction with the practice of medicine, gender, hours worked per week, financial support for achieving clinical targets; and for clinic included: routine receipt of data on preventive care performance and language translation resources. Overall, 66.6% of women were up-to-date. Women were less likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening if they were younger and were more likely to be screened if they were Black, Hispanic or Asian vs. White. Women with greater continuity of primary care or with a female PCP were more likely to be up-to-date (1.52; 1.33-1.75); those who received care in a clinic that was less prepared to manage language translation were less likely to be up-to-date (0.78; 0.65-0.95). Patient, provider, and clinic factors all influence use of cervical cancer screening. Systems interventions like improving continuity of care, promoting translation services, or enhanced efforts to track screening among patients of male PCPs may improve delivery.

Experiential QI Activity for Residents to Improve Women's Preventive Services

INTRODUCTION

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires family medicine residents to complete a quality improvement (QI) project. There is a need for more QI training activities to be shared to meet this requirement. Our objective was to describe an activity for residents to improve women's preventive health services in an underserved clinic. Specific aims were to determine: (1) how women's receipt of preventive services compared to benchmarks, (2) physician and staff knowledge of the process and barriers to receiving services, and (3) whether an intervention to increase awareness among physicians and staff improved preventive services.

METHODS

Residents (N=30) evaluated charts (N=505) to determine receipt of mammograms, pap tests, colon cancer screenings, and pneumonia vaccines. We compared estimates to existing clinic benchmarks. We presented initial (preintervention) results to physicians and staff at clinic team meetings. We collected perceptions of processes and barriers to preventive services. Preintervention methods were replicated (N=100) and results were compared (postintervention).

RESULTS

Preintervention, mammograms (72%) and Pap tests (65%) were lower than clinic benchmarks. Most (81%) women ages 65 and older received a pneumonia vaccine; however, this was lower than the national Healthy People 2020 goal. Fear, knowledge, and scheduling were identified as top barriers. Post-intervention, there was a statistically significant increase in Pap tests (P=.0013).

CONCLUSION

This activity trained residents how to impact their practice through QI methods and can be used in other programs as a foundation for developing basic QI initiatives. Future efforts should focus on evaluating barriers to preventive services from the patient perspective.

Influence of chronic comorbidities on periodic colorectal cancer screening participation: A population-based cohort study

Guidelines recommend regular screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the effects of chronic comorbidities on periodic CRC testing. Using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, we assembled a population-based cohort of 50-74-year olds overdue for guideline-recommended CRC screening between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2016. We implemented multivariable recurrent events models to determine the association between comorbidities and the rate of becoming up-to-date with periodic CRC tests. The cohort included 4,642,422 individuals. CRC testing rates were significantly lower in persons with renal disease on dialysis (hazard ratio, HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.63 to 0.68), heart failure (HR 0.75, CI 0.75 to 0.76), respiratory disease (HR 0.84, CI 0.83 to 0.84), cardiovascular disease (HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85), diabetes (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.87) and mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.87 to 0.88). There was an inverse association between the number of medical conditions and the rate of CRC testing (5 vs. none: HR 0.30, CI 0.25 to 0.36; 4 vs. none: HR 0.48, CI 0.47 to 0.50; 3 vs. none: HR 0.59, CI 0.58 to 0.60; 2 vs. none: HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72; 1 vs. none: HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85). Having both medical and mental comorbidities was associated with lower testing rates than either type of comorbidity alone (HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72). In summary, chronic comorbidities present a barrier to periodic guideline-recommended CRC testing. Exploration of cancer prevention gaps in these populations is warranted.

Cervical cancer screening in the United States: Challenges and potential solutions for underscreened groups

Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States are generally high, yet certain groups demonstrate disparities in screening and surveillance. Individuals at greatest risk for cervical cancer are often from marginalized or underserved groups who do not participate in regular screening for a variety of reasons. Using the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Trans-Organ Conceptual Model, including concepts of individual-, provider-, facility-, system-, or policy-level factors, we provide a commentary to highlight reasons for low screening participation among subgroups in the U.S. These include racial and ethnic minorities, rural residents, sexual and gender minorities, those with limited English proficiency, those with particular religious beliefs, and various health conditions. We describe barriers and offer potential solutions for each group. In addition, we discuss cross-cutting barriers to screening including difficulty interacting with the healthcare system (limited knowledge and health literacy, lack of provider recommendation/contact), financial (cost, lack of insurance), and logistical barriers (e.g., lack of usual source of care, competing demands, scheduling issues). Solutions to address these barriers are needed to improve screening rates across all underscreened groups. Changes at state and national policy levels are needed to address health insurance coverage. Mobile screening, ensuring that interpreters are available for all visits, and targeted in reach at non-gynecological visits can further overcome barriers. Employing community outreach workers can increase community demand for screening, and patient navigators can improve adherence to both screening and follow-up diagnostic evaluation. HPV self-sampling can address multiple barriers to cervical cancer screening.

How vision and leadership shaped the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 50-year journey to advance the evidence base of cancer control and cancer care delivery research

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, landmark legislation that reorganized the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Act included a new focus on cancer control, including the requirement that the NCI award research grants and contracts, in collaboration with other public agencies and private industry, to conduct cancer control activities related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. The requirement placed the NCI at the nexus of a rapidly changing science and a complex and dynamic healthcare delivery system and involved an evolutionary transformation to advance cancer control and cancer care delivery research along the cancer care continuum. Analysis is based on a qualitative ethnographic approach using historical records, oral histories, and targeted interviews. The multimethod approach provided the opportunity to describe the vision, leadership, and struggle to build an infrastructure, expand expertise, and forge collaboration with the NCI and a complex and changing healthcare system. As the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act approaches in 2021, the process and these achievements are at risk of being taken for granted or lost in the flow of history. Documenting the process, milestones, and key players provides insight and guidance for continuing to improve cancer care, advance research, and reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer care is a microcosm of the larger healthcare system providing insight and lessons on the importance of developing and maintaining a research infrastructure and the role of multi-level collaboration and partnerships involving both the private and public sectors.

•

Fifty years ago the U.S. National Cancer Act mandated Cancer Control activities.

•

Vision and leadership at the NCI were critical to advance cancer control on a global scale.

•

Cancer care is a microcosm of challenges facing health policy globally.

•

Evidence based strategies and infrastructure are important building blocks.

•

Public-private collaboration is essential for meeting future challenges.

Screening for occult cancer: where are we in 2020?

The relationship between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer has become an area of intense debate due to the importance and the potential benefits of the identification of occult cancer following the diagnosis of unprovoked VTE. At present, extended screening is not recommended in patients with unprovoked VTE. However, if we were able to identify a group at greater risk of presenting cancer during follow-up, these patients would benefit from extended screening. The creation of a trans-organ screening model enables the unification of metrics of quality in the screening of cancer in different localizations. Likewise, it can incorporate cancer screening for other localizations or other specific situations of risk such as unprovoked VTE. This study summarizes the contribution of the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) initiative aimed at improving the cancer screening process. Likewise, we have carried out an updated review of unprovoked VTE and occult cancer. Finally, we discuss the studies currently ongoing aimed at identifying the population at greatest risk of presenting cancer during follow-up. The identification of this population at high risk could help to determine the following steps to undertake in order to implement screening in this population.

Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.

METHODS

We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.

RESULTS

The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice.

Changes in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening After Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act

INTRODUCTION

Medicaid expansions following the Affordable Care Act have improved insurance coverage in low-income adults, but little is known about its impact on cancer screening. This study examined associations between Medicaid expansion timing and colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) screening.

METHODS

Up-to-date and past 2-year CRC (n=95,400) and BC (women, n=43,279) screening prevalence were computed among low-income respondents aged 50-64 years in 2012, 2014, and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. Respondents were grouped according to Medicaid expansion timing as: very early ([VE] six states expanding March 1, 2010-April 14, 2011), early (21 states expanding January 1, 2014-August 15, 2014), late (five states expanding January 1, 2015-July 1, 2016), and non-expansion states (19 states). Absolute adjusted difference-in-differences (aDDs) were computed in 2018-2019 (ref, non-expansion states).

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, absolute up-to-date CRC screening increased by 8.8%, 2.9%, 2.4%, and 3.8% among low-income adults in VE, early, late, and non-expansion states, respectively. Past 2-year CRC screening increased by 8.0% in VE and 2.8% in non-expansion states, with an aDD of 4.9% (p=0.041). In 2012-2016, up-to-date BC screening increased by 5.1%, 4.9%, and 3.7% among low-income women in VE, early, and non-expansion states, respectively, but aDDs were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of CRC and BC screening among low-income adults rose in Medicaid expansion states, though increases were significantly higher than those in non-expansion states only for recent CRC screening in VE expansion states. Large-scale improvements in cancer screening may take several years following expansion in access to care.

Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.

Understanding Patients' Perspectives and Information Needs Following a Positive Home Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kit Result

OBJECTIVE

We explored patient perspectives after a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling result to describe experiences and information needs for this home-based screening modality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited women who tested high-risk (hr) HPV positive during a pragmatic trial evaluating mailed hrHPV self-sampling kits as an outreach strategy for women overdue for Pap screening in a U.S. integrated health care system. Telephone interviews were conducted from 2014 to 2017. Five independent coders analyzed transcripts using iterative content analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-six women (61% of invited; median age 55.5 years) completed a semistructured interview. Six themes emerged: (1) convenience of home-based screening, (2) intense feelings and emotions after receiving positive kit results, (3) importance of seeing provider and discussing kit results, (4) information seeking from various sources, (5) confusion about purpose and meaning of HPV versus Pap tests, and (6) concern that HPV self-sampling is inaccurate when the subsequent Pap test is normal.

CONCLUSIONS

Although women liked the kit's convenience, discussion about discordant home HPV and in-clinic Pap results led them to question the accuracy of HPV self-sampling. Patient-provider communication around home HPV kits is more complex than for reflex or cotesting because clinician-collected Pap results are unknown at the time of the positive kit result. Patients need education about differences between HPV and Pap tests and how they are used for screening and follow-up. To reassure patients and keep them interested in self-sampling, education should be provided at multiple time points during the screening process.

Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population

Background: U.S. women of ages 50-74 years are recommended to receive screening mammography at least biennially. Our objective was to evaluate multilevel predictors of nonadherence among screened women, as these are not well known. Materials and Methods: A cohort study was conducted among women of ages 50-74 years with a screening mammogram in 2011 with a negative finding (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) within Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium research centers. We evaluated the association between woman-level factors, radiology facility, and PROSPR research center, and nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines, defined as not receiving breast imaging within 27 months of an index screening mammogram. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Nonadherence to guideline-recommended screening interval was 15.5% among 51,241 women with a screening mammogram. Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander women, women of other races, heavier women, and women of ages 50-59 years had a greater odds of nonadherence. There was no association with ZIP code median income. Nonadherence varied by research center and radiology facility (variance = 0.10, standard error = 0.03). Adjusted radiology facility nonadherence rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.5%. One research center evaluated radiology facility communication practices for screening reminders and scheduling, but these were not associated with nonadherence. Conclusions: Breast cancer screening interval nonadherence rates in screened women varied across radiology facilities even after adjustment for woman-level characteristics and research center. Future studies should investigate other characteristics of facilities, practices, and health systems to determine factors integral to increasing continued adherence to breast cancer screening.

Receipt of Colonoscopy Following Diagnosis of Advanced Adenomas: An Analysis within Integrated Healthcare Delivery Systems

BACKGROUND

To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval.

METHODS

We describe patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan-Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%-27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%-65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60-74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas.

IMPACT

Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program

BACKGROUND

Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community.

METHODS

The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

RESULTS

Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Multi-level Influences on Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Use of breast cancer screening is influenced by factors associated with patients, primary care providers, practices, and health systems.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the relative effects of these nested levels on four breast cancer screening metrics.

DESIGN

A web-based survey was completed at 15 primary care practices within two health systems representing 306 primary care providers (PCPs) serving 46,944 women with a primary care visit between 1/2011-9/2014. Analyses occurred between 1/2017 and 5/2017.

MAIN MEASURES

Across four nested levels (patient, PCP, primary care practice, and health system), frequency distributions and adjusted rates of primary care practice characteristics and survey results for four breast screening metrics (percent screened overall, and percent screened age 40-49, 50-74, and 75+) were reported. We used hierarchical multi-level mixed and random effects analysis to assess the relative influences of PCP, primary care practice, and health system on the breast screening metrics.

KEY RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of women undergoing breast cancer screening was 73.1% (73.4% for ages 40-49, 76.5% for 50-74, and 51.1% for 75+). Patient ethnicity and number of primary care visits were strongly associated with screening rates. After adjusting for woman-level factors, 24% of the overall variation among PCPs was attributable to the primary care practice level, 35% to the health system level, and 41% to the residual variation among PCPs within practice. No specific provider-level characteristics were found to be statistically significant determinants of screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

After accounting for woman-level characteristics, the remaining variation in breast cancer screening was largely due to provider and health system variation.

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.

Effects of program scale-up on time to resolution for patients with abnormal screening mammography results

PURPOSE

Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties.

METHODS

We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services.

RESULTS

TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.

Cervical cancer screening among HIV-infected women in an urban, United States safety-net healthcare system

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about cervical cancer screening and results patterns among HIV-infected (HIV+) women in real-world healthcare settings. We characterized two periods of screening opportunity.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

US safety-net healthcare system in Dallas County, Texas.

PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed data from electronic medical records (EMR) of 1490 HIV+ women receiving care 2010-2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

At baseline, we categorized a woman's Pap status 15 months prior to index date as under-screened (vs. screened), and cytology result (normal vs. abnormal). Then, we examined screening completion and results, and colposcopy uptake and results after an abnormal screen, in the subsequent 15-month period.

RESULTS

More than half of women (56%) had no evidence of a Pap test (i.e. under-screened) at baseline. Under-screened women were more likely to be older (50-64 years), have diabetes, and unknown viral load; they were less likely to be Black, Hispanic, have Medicaid, recently pregnant, have a HIV clinic visit, or a CD4 cell count at least 200 cells/μl. Nearly half of under-screened women (46%, n = 383) remained under-screened in the subsequent 15 months. Among women under-screened at baseline who later completed screening and follow-up during the study period, 21 high-grade dysplasia and three cancers were diagnosed. Overall, 40% of women did not receive colposcopy when needed, with most failures to follow-up occurring in women who were under-screened at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Most HIV+ women receiving care in a safety-net system did not receive sufficient screening for cervical cancer and remained at exceptionally high risk of developing high-grade dysplasia.