How Have Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Changed Since the 2009 USPSTF Guideline Update?

Background: Beginning in 2009, the U.S. Preventives Services Task Force (USPSTF) breast cancer screening guidelines recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50–74 years, and shared-decision making for women aged 40–49 years. We evaluated changes in screening interval after release of the 2009 recommendations. Methods: We compared screening intervals over the period between 2006 and 2012, expecting that the screening interval would lengthen over this time period, using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium on 909,972 screening mammograms among 351,271 women aged 40–89 years. We stratified intervals based on whether the exam at the end of the interval occurred before or after the 2009 USPSTF decision. Differences in mean interval length by woman-level characteristics were compared using linear regression. Results: Contrary to expectations, the mean interval length (in months) minimally decreased after the 2009 USPSTF guideline compared to prior. Among women aged 40–49 years, the mean interval length decreased from 17.3 months to 17.1 months (difference −0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to -0.01). Similar small reductions were seen for most age groups. The largest decreases in interval length in the post-USPSTF period were observed among women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (difference −0.68, 95% CI, −0.82–−0.54) or a 5-year breast cancer risk ≥ 2.5% (difference −0.58, 95% CI, −0.73–−0.44). Conclusions: The 2009 USPSTF guideline update did not lengthen the average mammography screening interval among women routinely participating in mammography screening. Future studies should evaluate whether breast cancer screening intervals lengthen towards biennial intervals following new national 2015 breast cancer screening recommendations, particularly among women under 50 years.

Prioritizing Measures that Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Background

Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS.

Methods

A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities.

Results

Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients).

Conclusions

The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.

From active treatment to surveillance: How the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients

Purpose

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of: a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, b) a broader survey of clinicians, and c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors.

Results

Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely: 1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care; 2) lack of mental health services; 3) lack of side effect education; 4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans; 5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect; and 6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that telehealth has potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.