Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates-Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a 'One Stop' Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic: Acceptability Testing

Cancer screenings aid in the early detection of cancer and can help reduce cancer-related mortality. The current model of care for cancer screening is often siloed, based on the targeted cancer site. We tested the acceptability of a new model of care, called the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic, that centralizes cancer screenings and offers patients the option to complete all their recommended cancer screenings within one to two visits. We administered surveys to 59 community members and 26 healthcare providers to gather feedback about the One-Stop-Shop model of care. Both community members and providers identified potential benefits (e.g., decreased patient burden, increased completion of cancer screenings) and also potential challenges (e.g., challenges with workflow and timing of care) of the model of care. The results of the study support the acceptability of the model of care. Of the community members surveyed, 89.5% said, if offered, they would be interested in participating in the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic. Future studies are needed to formally evaluate the impact and cost effectiveness of the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic.

Beyond lung cancer screening, an opportunity for early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening programs concern smokers at risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The LUMASCAN (LUng Cancer Screening, MArkers and low-dose computed tomography SCANner) study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of screening for these 3 diseases in a community population with centralized organization and to determine low-dose computed tomography (CT) markers associated with each disease.

METHODS

This cohort enrolled participants meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (v1.2014) in an organized lung cancer-screening program including low-dose CT scans; spirometry; evaluations of coronary artery calcifications (CACs); and a smoking cessation plan at inclusion, 1, and 2 years; then telephone follow-up. Outcomes were the participation rate and the proportion of participants affected by lung cancer, obstructive lung disease, or CVD events. Logistic-regression models were used to identify radiological factors associated with each disease.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 302 participants were enrolled: 61% men; median age 58.8 years; 77% active smoker; 11% diabetes; 38% hypertension; and 27% taking lipid-lowering agents. Inclusion, 1-year, and 2-year participation rates were 99%, 81%, 79%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 5.81 years, screenings detected 12 (4%) lung cancer, 9 of 12 via low-dose CT (78% localized) and 3 of 12 during follow-up (all stage IV), 83 (27%) unknown obstructive lung disease, and 131 (43.4%) moderate to severe CACs warranting a cardiology consultation. Preexisting COPD and moderate to severe CACs were associated with major CVD events with odds ratios of 1.98 (95% confident interval [CI] = 1.00 to 3.88) and 3.27 (95% CI = 1.72 to 6.43), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LUMASCAN study demonstrated the feasibility of combined screening for lung cancer, COPD, and CVD in a community population. Its centralized organization enabled high participation and coordination of healthcare practitioners.

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.

Combined Breast and Lung Cancer Screening Among Dual-Eligible Women: A Descriptive Study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is consistently the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, yet lung cancer screening (LCS) rates remain low. By contrast, screening mammography rates are reliably high, suggesting that screening mammography can be a "teachable moment" to increase LCS uptake among dual-eligible women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective survey study conducted at two academic institutions. Patients undergoing screening mammography were evaluated for LCS eligibility and offered enrollment in a pilot dual-cancer screening program. A series of surveys was administered to characterize participants' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes about LCS before and after undergoing dual screening. Data were descriptively summarized.

RESULTS

Between August 2022 and July 2023, 54 LCS-eligible patients were enrolled. The study cohort was 100% female and predominantly White (81%), with a median age of 57 y and median of 36 pack-y of smoking. Survey results showed that 98% felt they were at risk for lung cancer, with most (80%) motivated by early detection of potential cancer. Regarding screening barriers, 58% of patients lacked knowledge about LCS eligibility and 47% reported concerns about screening cost. Prior to undergoing LCS, 87% of patients expressed interest in combined breast and lung screening. Encouragingly, after LCS, 84% were likely or very likely to undergo dual screening again and 93% found the shared decision-making visit helpful or very helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Pairing breast and LCS is a feasible, acceptable intervention that, along with increasing patient and provider education about LCS, can increase LCS uptake and reduce lung cancer mortality.

Individuals With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer Warrant Tailored Interventions to Address Patient-Reported Barriers to Screening

INTRODUCTION

Population health interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates often exclude individuals with a family history of CRC, and interventions to increase screening in this high-risk group are rare. We aimed to determine the screening rate and barriers and facilitators to screening in this population to inform interventions to increase screening participation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey of patients excluded from mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach because of a family history of CRC in a large health system. We used χ 2 , Fisher exact, and Student t tests to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients overdue and not overdue for screening. We then administered a survey (mailed and telephone) to overdue patients to assess barriers and facilitators to screening.

RESULTS

There were 296 patients excluded from mailed FIT outreach, and 233 patients had a confirmed family history of CRC. Screening participation was low (21.9%), and there were no significant demographic or clinical differences between those overdue and not overdue for screening. There were 79 survey participants. Major patient-reported barriers to screening colonoscopy were patient forgetfulness (35.9%), fear of pain during colonoscopy (17.7%), and hesitancy about bowel preparation (29.4%). To facilitate screening colonoscopy, patients recommended reminders (56.3%), education about familial risk (50%), and colonoscopy education (35.9%).

DISCUSSION

Patients with a family history of CRC who are excluded from mailed FIT outreach have low screening rates and report multiple mutable barriers to screening. They warrant targeted efforts to increase screening participation.

Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Women living in rural areas have lower rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compared with women living in urban settings.

Objective

To assess the comparative effectiveness of (1) a mailed, tailored digital video disc (DVD) intervention; (2) a DVD intervention plus telephonic patient navigation (DVD/PN); and (3) usual care with simultaneously increased adherence to any breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that was not up to date at baseline and to assess cost-effectiveness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial recruited and followed up women from rural Indiana and Ohio (community based) who were not up to date on any or all recommended cancer screenings. Participants were randomly assigned between November 28, 2016, and July 1, 2019, to 1 of 3 study groups (DVD, DVD/PN, or usual care). Statistical analyses were completed between August and December 2021 and between March and September 2022.

Intervention

The DVD interactively assessed and provided messages for health beliefs, including risk of developing the targeted cancers and barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy for obtaining the needed screenings. Patient navigators counseled women on barriers to obtaining screenings. The intervention simultaneously supported obtaining screening for all or any tests outside of guidelines at baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of any or all needed cancer screenings from baseline through 12 months, including breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the randomized groups on being up to date for all and any screenings at 12 months.

Results

The sample included 963 women aged 50 to 74 years (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [6.3] years). The DVD group had nearly twice the odds of those in the usual care group of obtaining all needed screenings (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.43; P = .048), and the odds were nearly 6 times greater for DVD/PN vs usual care (OR, 5.69; 95% CI, 3.24-10.5; P < .001). The DVD/PN intervention (but not DVD alone) was significantly more effective than usual care (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.60-6.28; P < .001) for promoting at least 1 (ie, any) of the needed screenings at 12 months. Cost-effectiveness per woman who was up to date was $14 462 in the DVD group and $10 638 in the DVD/PN group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of rural women who were not up to date with at least 1 of the recommended cancer screenings (breast, cervical, or colorectal), an intervention designed to simultaneously increase adherence to any or all of the 3 cancer screening tests was more effective than usual care, available at relatively modest costs, and able to be remotely delivered, demonstrating great potential for implementing an evidence-based intervention in remote areas of the midwestern US.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02795104.

Data From a One-Stop-Shop Comprehensive Cancer Screening Center

PURPOSE

Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. However, by implementing evidence-based prevention strategies, 30%-50% of cancers can be detected early with improved outcomes. At the integrated cancer prevention center (ICPC), we aimed to increase early detection by screening for multiple cancers during one visit.

METHODS

Self-referred asymptomatic individuals, age 20-80 years, were included prospectively. Clinical, laboratory, and epidemiological data were obtained by multiple specialists, and further testing was obtained based on symptoms, family history, individual risk factors, and abnormalities identified during the visit. Follow-up recommendations and diagnoses were given as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2019, 8,618 men and 8,486 women, average age 47.11 ± 11.71 years, were screened. Of 259 cancers detected through the ICPC, 49 (19.8%) were stage 0, 113 (45.6%) stage I, 30 (12.1%) stage II, 25 (10.1%) stage III, and 31(12.5%) stage IV. Seventeen cancers were missed, six of which were within the scope of the ICPC. Compared with the Israeli registry, at the ICPC, less cancers were diagnosed at a metastatic stage for breast (none v 3.7%), lung (6.7% v 11.4%), colon (20.0% v 46.2%), prostate (5.6% v 10.5%), and cervical/uterine (none v 8.5%) cancers. When compared with the average stage of detection in the United States, detection was earlier for breast, lung, prostate, and female reproductive cancers. Patient satisfaction rate was 8.35 ± 1.85 (scale 1-10).

CONCLUSION

We present a proof of concept study for a one-stop-shop approach to cancer screening in a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic. We successfully detected cancers at an early stage, which has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality as well as offer substantial cost savings.

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST): protocol for a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Kidney cancer (renal cell cancer (RCC)) is the seventh most common cancer in the UK. As RCC is largely curable if detected at an early stage and most patients have no symptoms, there is international interest in evaluating a screening programme for RCC. The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) will assess the feasibility of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for RCC and other abdominal pathology within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), a randomised trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In YLST, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds have been randomised to a Lung Health Check assessment, including a thoracic low-dose CT (LDCT) for those at high risk of lung cancer, or routine care. YLST participants randomised to the Lung Health Check arm who attend for the second round of screening at 2 years without a history of RCC or abdominal CT scan within the previous 6 months will be invited to take part in YKST. We anticipate inviting 4700 participants. Those who consent will have an abdominal CT immediately following their YLST thoracic LDCT. A subset of participants and the healthcare workers involved will be invited to take part in a qualitative interview. Primary objectives are to quantify the uptake of the abdominal CT, assess the acceptability of the combined screening approach and pilot the majority of procedures for a subsequent randomised controlled trial of RCC screening within lung cancer screening.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

YKST was approved by the North West-Preston Research Ethics Committee (21/NW/0021), and the Health Research Authority on 3 February 2021. Trial results will be disseminated at clinical meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and to policy-makers. Findings will be made available to participants via the study website (www.YKST.org).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT05005195 and ISRCTN18055040.

Correlates of non-adherence to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among screen-eligible women: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers are cancers that can be detected early through screening. Despite organized cancer screening programs in Ontario, Canada participation remains low among marginalized populations. Although extensive research has been done about factors contributing to under-screening by cancer site, the predictors of under/never screened conjointly for all three types of cancer remain unknown.

METHODS

Using provincial-level linked administrative data sets, we examined Ontario women who were screen-eligible for all three types of cancer over a 36-month period (i.e., April 2014-March 2017) and determined how many were up to date on 0, 1, 2, and all three types of screenings. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to examine individual and structural predictors of screening with the group overdue for all screening being the reference group.

RESULTS

Of the 1,204,551 screen-eligible women, 15% were overdue for all. Living in the lowest income neighborhoods (AOR 0.46 [95% CI 0.45-0.47]), being recent immigrants (AOR 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55]), having no primary care provider (AOR 0.17 [95% CI 0.16-0.17]), and having no contact with health care services (AOR 0.09 [95% CI 0.09-0.09]) significantly increased the likelihood of being overdue for all versus no screening type.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that more than 15% of screen-eligible women in Ontario were overdue for all types of cancer screening, it is imperative to address structural barriers such as lack of a primary care provider. Innovative interventions like "one-stop shopping" where screening for different cancers can be offered at the same time could promote screening uptake.

Current evidence on screening for renal cancer

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) incidence is increasing worldwide. A high proportion of individuals are asymptomatic at diagnosis, but RCC has a high mortality rate. These facts suggest that RCC meets some of the criteria for screening, and a new analysis shows that screening for RCC could potentially be cost-effective. Targeted screening of high-risk individuals is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy to maximize the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. However, the size of the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment and the overall cost-effectiveness of screening remains uncertain. The optimal screening modality and target population is also unclear, and uncertainties exist regarding the specification and implementation of a screening programme. Before moving to a fully powered trial of screening, future work should focus on the following: developing and validating accurate risk prediction models; developing non-invasive methods of early RCC detection; establishing the feasibility, public acceptability and potential uptake of screening; establishing the prevalence of RCC and stage distribution of RCC detected by screening; and evaluating the potential harms of screening, including the impact on quality of life, overdiagnosis and over-treatment.

Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey

BACKGROUND

Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme.

METHODS

We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45-77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test.

RESULTS

Most participants stated that they would be 'very likely' or 'likely' to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ≤ 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43-0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38-0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14-0.27)].

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes.

Comparative analysis of the access to health-care services and breast cancer therapy in 10 Eastern European countries

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare the differences in breast cancer therapy, health-care service practices, and their availability in ten European countries-Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia, and Republic of Serbia.

METHODS

An inquire survey was conducted among oncologists in the participating countries. The questionnaire was of qualitative character and focused on several key areas as screening practices, diagnosing, treatment, and health-care procedures utilization. The results were processed through comparative and percentage analysis.

RESULTS

All of the observed countries have national registries for breast cancer, but only in five, a mechanism of controlled action of early detection is implemented. Ninety percent of the countries have implemented in the national guidelines the European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, while National Comprehensive Cancer Network is considered in only 50%. In all countries, digital mammography is a universal diagnostic method. Pathohistological analysis, including HER2 receptor expression and determination of the level of progesterone and estrogen receptors, is routinely performed in all countries prior to therapy. Some differences are observed in terms of FISH/CISH methods, determination of Ki-67 volume, and prognostic molecular assays. Trastuzumab is used as neo-adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive disease in all countries, while in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, only pertuzumab is used. Psychological support is integrated into the professional guidelines for treatment and monitoring in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

CONCLUSIONS

The international guidelines should be followed strictly, and some improvements in the health policies should be made in order to decrease the differences and inequalities in the availability of the breast cancer (BC) health services in the Central and Eastern European countries.

The impact of socioeconomic deprivation on the uptake of colorectal cancer screening in London

OBJECTIVE

Screening programmes based on the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) can reduce mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, a significant variation exists in uptake of the test within the UK. Disproportionate uptake risks increasing inequity during staging at diagnosis and survival from CRC. This study aims to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on the uptake of CRC screening (FOBT) in London.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the "Vanguard RM Informatics" database was performed to identify eligible individuals for CRC screening across all general practices across London over 30 months (2014-2017). The postcodes of the general practices were used to obtain the deprivation data via the "Indices of Deprivation" database. A Spearman's rho correlation was performed to quantify the impact of the deprivation variables on FOBT uptake.

RESULTS

Overall, 697,402 individuals were eligible for screening across 1359 London general practices, within 5 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs); 48.4% (range: 13%-74%) participated in CRC screening with the lowest participation rates in North West (46%) and North East (47%) London CCGs. All indices of deprivation had a significant correlation with the uptake of FOBT (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study across London to date demonstrating a significant positive correlation between deprivation indices and FOBT uptake, highlighting areas of particular risk. Further studies are imperative to quantify the impact of deprivation on CRC morbidity and mortality, together with focused strategies to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in screening in these high risk areas.

Patient perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and the role of general practice

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cause of cancer death in Australia. Early detection can reduce incidence and mortality. General practice-based initiatives have been proposed to improve CRC screening rates but to date have had modest impact. As there is limited research into the patient experience of CRC screening decision making, this study explored patient perspectives on CRC screening and the potential role for general practice.

Methods

Ten participants, aged between 50 and 74, from a general practice in South Australia were recruited by practice staff. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Concurrent data collection and analysis were performed, guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Results

Two key themes were evident: attitudes toward screening and potential roles for general practice. Participants structured the experience of screening in terms of being proactive, ambivalent or avoidant. Roles for general practice centred on tasks as educators, trusted advisors, monitors and screeners. Mixed views on whether general practice involvement was necessary prompted consideration of additional sources of health information and motivation around screening.

Conclusions

Exploration of the patient experience provides insight into how participants make sense of screening and perceived roles for general practice (or other agents) in screening. There is satisfaction with current Government-driven processes but perceived value in general practice playing a complementary part in increasing screening rates. A multifaceted strategy, accounting for attitudes, is required to improve screening and population health outcomes.