Social Determinants of Health in Imaging-based Cancer Screening: A Case-based Primer with Strategies for Care Improvement

Health disparities, preventable differences in the burden of disease and disease outcomes often experienced by socially disadvantaged populations, can be found in nearly all areas of radiology, including emergency radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, image-guided interventions, and imaging-based cancer screening. Disparities in imaging-based cancer screening are especially noteworthy given the far-reaching population health impact. The social determinants of health (SDoH) play an important role in disparities in cancer screening and outcomes. Through improved understanding of how SDoH can drive differences in health outcomes in radiology, radiologists can effectively provide patient-centered, high-quality, and equitable care. Radiologists and radiology practices can become active partners in efforts to assist patients along their imaging journey and overcome existing barriers to equitable cancer screening care for traditionally marginalized populations. As radiology exists at the intersection of diagnostic imaging, image-guided diagnostic intervention, and image-guided treatment, radiologists are uniquely positioned to design these strategies. Cost-effective and socially conscious strategies that address barriers to equitable care can improve both public health and equitable health outcomes. Potential strategies include championing supportive health policy, reducing out-of-pocket costs, increasing price transparency, improving education and outreach efforts, ensuring that appropriate language translation services are available, providing individualized assistance with appointment scheduling, and offering transportation assistance and childcare. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Mobile Mammography Services and Underserved Women

Breast cancer, the second most common cause of cancer in women, affects people across different ages, ethnicities, and incomes. However, while all women have some risk of breast cancer, studies have found that some populations are more vulnerable to poor breast cancer outcomes. Specifically, women with lower socioeconomic status and of Black and Hispanic ethnicity have been found to have more advanced stages of cancer upon diagnosis. These findings correlate with studies that have found decreased use of screening mammography services in these underserved populations. To alleviate these healthcare disparities, mobile mammography units are well positioned to provide convenient screening services to enable earlier detection of breast cancer. Mobile mammography services have been operating since the 1970s, and, in the current pandemic, they may be extremely helpful. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted necessary screening services, and reinstatement and implementation of accessible mobile screenings may help to alleviate the impact of missed screenings. This review discusses the history and benefits of mobile mammography, especially for underserved women.

Retrospective Review of a Mobile Mammography Screening Program in an Underserved Population within a Large Metropolitan Area

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Mobile mammography units provide preventive health care to patients facing barriers to annual screening. This study reviews the outcomes of a mobile mammography service during a recent 5-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the examinations by mobile mammography during a 5-year period (9327 examinations). The patients recalled, biopsies performed, and cancers detected were tallied. The race, age, breast cancer size, lymph node involvement, and metastases were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate metrics were calculated as outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas.

RESULTS

The program identified cancer in 14 cases (cancer detection rate = 1.5 per 1000 examinations [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.5]) with 11 being invasive. The majority of these cancers were small and of low stage. Lymph node status was determined in 11 of the 14 cases (1 as N1mi, 5 as N0, 4 as N1,1 as N2a). Abnormalities led to 1686 examinations recalled (Recall Rate = 17.8%; PPV 1 = 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%]). One hundred and one were recommended for biopsy (PPV 2 = 13.9% [95% CI, 8.4%-21.9%]), and 98 pursued biopsy (PPV 3 = 14.3% [95% CI, 8.7%-22.6%]). Patient age ranged from 41 to 67 years with an average of 50.6 years.

CONCLUSION

The program detected many cancers in an asymptomatic population facing barriers to breast cancer screening. These findings are underscored by the cancers detected at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and support the need for the development of similar programs.

Electronic Worklist Improves Timeliness of Screening Mammogram Interpretation in an Urban Underserved Population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of an electronic workflow update on screening mammography turnaround time and time to diagnostic imaging for mammography performed on our urban mobile mammography van and at an urban community health center.

METHOD

Prior to 10/15/2019, screening exams for the mammography van and urban community health center were made available for interpretation to a single designated radiologist via a manually generated paper list. On 10/15/2019, screening exams were routed electronically onto PACS for any breast radiologist across our Network to interpret. Screening mammogram turnaround time (defined as time form image acquisition to report finalization), time to diagnostic imaging, and time to tissue sampling were collected for pre- and post-implementation periods (6/1-9/30/2019 and 11/1/2019-2/29/2020, respectively) and compared via student t-test and statistical process control analyses.

RESULTS

The number of screening exams in the pre- and post-implementation periods were 851 and 728 exams, respectively. Patients were predominately Black and/or African American (400/1579, 25%), non-English speaking (858/1579, 54%) and insured by Medicaid (751/1579, 48%). After implementation of the electronic workflow, turnaround time decreased from 101.0 to 36.4 hours (63.9%, P <0.001) and statistical process control analyses showed sustained decrease in mean turnaround time. However, mean time to diagnostic imaging and tissue sampling were unchanged after implementation (39 vs 45, days; P = 0.330 and 43 vs 59; P = 0.187, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Electronic workflow management can reduce screening mammography turnaround time for underserved populations, but additional efforts are warranted to improve time to imaging follow-up for abnormal screening mammograms.

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Importance

Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty.

Findings

Thirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions and Relevance

Interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

Do mobile units contribute to spatial accessibility to mammography for uninsured women?

Limited spatial accessibility to mammography, and socioeconomic barriers (e.g., being uninsured), may contribute to rural disparities in breast cancer screening. Although mobile mammography may contribute to population-level access, few studies have investigated this relationship. We measured mammography access for uninsured women using the variable two-step floating catchment area (V2SFCA) method, which estimates access at the local level using estimated potential supply and demand. Specifically, we measured supply with mammography machine certifications in 2014 from FDA and brick-and-mortar and mobile facility data from the community-based Breast Screening and Patient Navigation (BSPAN) program. We measured potential demand using Census tract-level estimates of female residents aged 45-74 from 5-year 2012-2016 American Community Survey data. Using the sign test, we compared mammography access estimates based on 3 facility groupings: FDA-certified, program brick-and-mortar only, and brick-and-mortar plus mobile. Using all mammography facilities, accessibility was high in urban Dallas-Ft. Worth, low for the ring of adjacent counties, and high for rural counties outlying this ring. Brick-and-mortar-based estimates were lower for the outlying ring, and mobile-unit contribution to access was observed more in urban tracts. Weak mobile-unit contribution across the study area may indicate suboptimal dispatch of mobile units to locations. Geospatial methods could identify the optimal locations for mobile units, given existing brick-and-mortar facilities, to increase access for underserved areas.

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

[Breast cancer screening: modeling improvement of access using mobile mammography unitsSeguimiento del cáncer de mama: modelo de mejora del acceso con el uso de mamógrafos móviles]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of combined use of fixed and mobile mammography units to rationalize the management of breast cancer screening programs and increase population coverage.

METHODS

An observational study was performed using agents-based modeling. The model was used to simulate breast cancer screening coverage in a specific region in the state of Rio de Janeiro (região serrana) where 22 fixed mammography units are installed. The number and distribution of fixed and mobile units, as well as the required number of daily exams, were estimated considering a population coverage of 100% and 60% in the region for the 2015-2016 biennium.

RESULTS

For the two-year period, a 60% population coverage could be reached with eight mammography units (five fixed and three mobile). Considering a scenario in which 100% of the eligible population would undergo screening, 11 units would be required (seven fixed and four mobile units). The actual coverage in the region for the 2015-2016 biennium was 36.4%, with 22 mammography units performing four exams daily.

CONCLUSIONS

The present simulation showed that it would be possible to reduce by half the number of mammography units in the region, ensuring 100% coverage. Adding more mobile units would facilitate access by the population from cities without installed mammography units and from rural areas.

Reflections of Homeless Women and Women with Mental Health Challenges on Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Decisions: Power, Trust, and Communication with Care Providers

This study conducted in Toronto, Canada, explored the perceptions of women living in homeless shelters and women with severe mental health challenges about the factors influencing their decision-making processes regarding breast and cervical cancer screening. Twenty-six in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted. The objectives of this research were (i) to provide new insights about women's decision-making processes, (ii) to describe the barriers to and facilitators for breast and cervical cancer screening, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future outreach, education, and screening initiatives developed specifically for under/never-screened marginalized women living in urban centers. This exploratory study utilized thematic analysis to broaden our understanding about women's decision-making processes. A constructed ontology was used in an attempt to understand and describe participants' constructed realities. The epistemological framework was subjective and reflected co-created knowledge. The approach was hegemonic, values-based, and context-specific. The aim of the analysis was to focus on meanings and actions with a broader view to identify the interplay between participants' narratives and social structures, medical praxis, and policy implications. Results from 26 qualitative interviews conducted in 2013-2014 provided insights on both positive and negative prior cancer screening experiences, the role of power and trust in women's decision-making, and areas for improvement in health care provider/patient interactions. Outcomes of this investigation contribute to the future development of appropriately designed intervention programs for marginalized women, as well as for sensitivity training for health care providers. Tailored and effective health promotion strategies leading to life-long cancer screening behaviors among marginalized women may improve clinical outcomes, decrease treatment costs, and save lives.

Mammography screening in less developed countries

Less developed countries (LDCs) are struggling with an increasing burden of breast cancer. It is important to identify what interventions might be most effective and feasible in reducing overall breast cancer mortality in a resource constrained settings. Mammography screening (MS) utilized in developed countries cannot be equally applied to LDCs. We provide a summary of the status of existing and past MS program attempts in LDCs, and try to determine the prerequisites under which any developing country is ready to benefit from a MS program. We make the case for a “mixed” portfolio of tools to reduce breast cancer mortality with MS reserved only for those sub-populations that meet the criteria. We hope our review will provide a background for policy makers to apply rigorous criteria before attempting to implement costly MS program and before judiciously evaluating additional competed programs in their countries.