Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). DESIGN: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY RESULTS: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.

Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment. Methods: The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts. Results: We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed. Conclusion: Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings.

PURPOSE: To characterize the inter- and intraobserver variability of qualitative, non-disk contour degenerative findings of the lumbar spine at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The case accrual method used to perform this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was the random selection of 111 interpretable MR examination cases of subjects from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. The subjects were aged 18-87 years (mean, 53 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]). Four independent readers rated the cases according to defined criteria. A subsample of 40 MR examination cases was selected for reevaluation at least 1 month later. The following findings were assessed: spondylolisthesis, disk degeneration, marrow endplate abnormality (Modic changes), posterior anular hyperintense zone (HIZ), and facet arthropathy. Inter- and intraobserver agreement in rating the data was summarized by using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was good (kappa = 0.66) in rating disk degeneration and moderate in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.55), Modic changes (kappa = 0.59), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.54), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.44). Interobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate: kappa Values were 0.43 for determining superior anteroposterior extent, 0.47 for determining superior craniocaudal extent, 0.57 for determining inferior anteroposterior extent, and 0.48 for determining inferior craniocaudal extent. Intraobserver agreement was good in rating spondylolisthesis (kappa = 0.66), disk degeneration (kappa = 0.74), Modic changes (kappa = 0.64), facet arthropathy (kappa = 0.69), and posterior HIZ (kappa = 0.67). Intraobserver agreement in rating the extent of Modic changes was moderate, with kappa values of 0.54 for superior anteroposterior, 0.60 for inferior anteroposterior, 0.50 for superior craniocaudal, and 0.60 for inferior craniocaudal extent determinations. CONCLUSION: The interpretation of general lumbar spine MR characteristics has sufficient reliability to warrant the further evaluation of these features as potential prognostic indicators.

Considering Spine Surgery: A Web-Based Calculator for Communicating Estimates of Personalized Treatment Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of an informational web-based calculator for communicating estimates of personalized treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usability, effectiveness in communicating benefits and risks, and impact on decision quality of a calculator tool for patients with intervertebral disc herniations, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis who are deciding between surgical and nonsurgical treatments. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The decision to have back surgery is preference-sensitive and warrants shared decision making. However, more patient-specific, individualized tools for presenting clinical evidence on treatment outcomes are needed. METHODS: Using Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial data, prediction models were designed and integrated into a web-based calculator tool: http://spinesurgerycalc.dartmouth.edu/calc/. Consumer Reports subscribers with back-related pain were invited to use the calculator via email, and patient participants were recruited to use the calculator in a prospective manner following an initial appointment at participating spine centers. Participants completed questionnaires before and after using the calculator. We randomly assigned previously validated questions that tested knowledge about the treatment options to be asked either before or after viewing the calculator. RESULTS: A total of 1256 consumer reports subscribers and 68 patient participants completed the calculator and questionnaires. Knowledge scores were higher in the postcalculator group compared to the precalculator group, indicating that calculator usage successfully informed users. Decisional conflict was lower when measured following calculator use, suggesting the calculator was beneficial in the decision-making process. Participants generally found the tool helpful and easy to use. CONCLUSION: Although the calculator is not a comprehensive decision aid, it does focus on communicating individualized risks and benefits for treatment options. Moreover, it appears to be helpful in achieving the goals of more traditional shared decision-making tools. It not only improved knowledge scores but also improved other aspects of decision quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory and epidemiologic data suggest that aspirin has an antineoplastic effect in the large bowel. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial of aspirin as a chemopreventive agent against colorectal adenomas. We randomly assigned 1121 patients with a recent history of histologically documented adenomas to receive placebo (372 patients), 81 mg of aspirin (377 patients), or 325 mg of aspirin (372 patients) daily. According to the protocol, follow-up colonoscopy was to be performed approximately three years after the qualifying endoscopy. We compared the groups with respect to the risk of one or more neoplasms (adenomas or colorectal cancer) at least one year after randomization using generalized linear models to compute risk ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals. RESULTS: Reported adherence to study medications and avoidance of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were excellent. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed at least one year after randomization in 1084 patients (97 percent). The incidence of one or more adenomas was 47 percent in the placebo group, 38 percent in the group given 81 mg of aspirin per day, and 45 percent in the group given 325 mg of aspirin per day (global P=0.04). Unadjusted relative risks of any adenoma (as compared with the placebo group) were 0.81 in the 81-mg group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.96) and 0.96 in the 325-mg group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13). For advanced neoplasms (adenomas measuring at least 1 cm in diameter or with tubulovillous or villous features, severe dysplasia, or invasive cancer), the respective relative risks were 0.59 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.92) and 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.55 to 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin has a moderate chemopreventive effect on adenomas in the large bowel.

Folic acid for the prevention of colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial.

CONTEXT: Laboratory and epidemiological data suggest that folic acid may have an antineoplastic effect in the large intestine. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of folic acid supplementation for preventing colorectal adenomas. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-factor, phase 3, randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 clinical centers between July 6, 1994, and October 1, 2004. Participants included 1021 men and women with a recent history of colorectal adenomas and no previous invasive large intestine carcinoma. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg/d of folic acid (n = 516) or placebo (n = 505), and were separately randomized to receive aspirin (81 or 325 mg/d) or placebo. Follow-up consisted of 2 colonoscopic surveillance cycles (the first interval was at 3 years and the second at 3 or 5 years later). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was occurrence of at least 1 colorectal adenoma. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of advanced lesions (> or =25% villous features, high-grade dysplasia, size > or =1 cm, or invasive cancer) and adenoma multiplicity (0, 1-2, or > or =3 adenomas). RESULTS: During the first 3 years, 987 participants (96.7%) underwent colonoscopic follow-up, and the incidence of at least 1 colorectal adenoma was 44.1% for folic acid (n = 221) and 42.4% for placebo (n = 206) (unadjusted risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.20; P = .58). Incidence of at least 1 advanced lesion was 11.4% for folic acid (n = 57) and 8.6% for placebo (n = 42) (unadjusted RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.90-1.92; P = .15). A total of 607 participants (59.5%) underwent a second follow-up, and the incidence of at least 1 colorectal adenoma was 41.9% for folic acid (n = 127) and 37.2% for placebo (n = 113) (unadjusted RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.93-1.37; P = .23); and incidence of at least 1 advanced lesion was 11.6% for folic acid (n = 35) and 6.9% for placebo (n = 21) (unadjusted RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.00-2.80; P = .05). Folic acid was associated with higher risks of having 3 or more adenomas and of noncolorectal cancers. There was no significant effect modification by sex, age, smoking, alcohol use, body mass index, baseline plasma folate, or aspirin allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid at 1 mg/d does not reduce colorectal adenoma risk. Further research is needed to investigate the possibility that folic acid supplementation might increase the risk of colorectal neoplasia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00272324.

The association of physical activity and body mass index with the risk of large bowel polyps.

PURPOSE AND METHOD: Several studies have suggested that physical inactivity and obesity increase the risk for colorectal neoplasia. In this study, we investigated the association of physical activity and body mass index (BMI) with the risk of different types of large bowel polyps. We did an observational analysis nested within a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled chemoprevention trial among patients with one or more recently resected histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma. Nine hundred thirty patients were randomized to calcium (1,200 mg/d, as carbonate) or placebo. Follow-up colonoscopies were conducted approximately 1 and 4 years after the qualifying examination. At study entry, we obtained each subject's current body weight and height, which we used to calculate BMI. After the second study colonoscopy, we asked subjects questions about their leisure time physical activity. Seven hundred eighty-seven subjects completed at least part of the physical activity questionnaire. RESULTS: We found no association between measures of physical activity or BMI and tubular adenomas or hyperplastic polyps. However, among men, there were strong inverse associations observed between physical activity and advanced neoplastic polyps. Compared with men whose total daily energy expenditure was in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile had a risk ratio of 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 17-0.72); there was no similar reduction observed among women (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-4.03; P for interaction = 0.04). DATA INTERPRETATIONS: We found a significant inverse relationship between several measures of physical activity and risk of advanced colorectal neoplasms, particularly among men. No associations were found between BMI and hyperplastic polyps, tubular adenomas, or advanced neoplastic polyps.

Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A reliability assessment of standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations and measurements. OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-reader reliability of MRI features of lumbar spinal stenosis (SPS), including severity of central, subarticular, and foraminal stenoses, grading of nerve root impingement, and measurements of cross-sectional area of the spinal canal and thecal sac. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MRI is commonly used to assess patients with spinal stenosis. Although a number of studies have evaluated the reliability of certain MRI characteristics, comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of MRI readings in spinal stenosis is lacking. METHODS: Fifty-eight randomly selected MR images from patients with SPS enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were evaluated. Qualitative ratings of imaging features were performed according to defined criteria by 4 independent readers (3 radiologists and 1 orthopedic surgeon). A sample of 20 MRIs was reevaluated by each reader at least 1 month later. Weighted kappa statistics were used to characterize intra- and inter-reader reliability for qualitative rating data. Separate quantitative measurements were performed by 2 other radiologists. Intraclass correlation coefficients and summaries of measurement error were used to characterize reliability for quantitative measurements. RESULTS: Intra-reader reliability was higher than inter-reader reliability for all features. Inter-reader reliability in assessing central stenosis was substantial, with an overall kappa of 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77). Foraminal stenosis and nerve root impingement showed moderate to substantial agreement with overall kappa of 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.63) and 0.51 (95% CI 0.42-0.59), respectively. Subarticular zone stenosis yielded the poorest agreement (overall kappa 0.49; 95% CI 0.42-0.55) and showed marked variability in agreement between reader pairs. Quantitative measures showed inter-reader intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.58 to 0.90. The mean absolute difference between readers in measured thecal sac area was 128 mm (13%). CONCLUSION: The imaging characteristics of spinal stenosis assessed in this study showed moderate to substantial reliability; future studies should assess whether these findings have prognostic significance in SPS patients.

Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging readings for lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

STUDY DESIGN: Assessment of the reliability of standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations and measurements. OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-reader reliability of MRI parameters relevant to patients with intervertebral disc herniation (IDH), including disc morphology classification, degree of thecal sac compromise, grading of nerve root impingement, and measurements of cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, thecal sac, and disc fragment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MRI is increasingly used to assess patients with sciatica and IDH, but the relationship between specific imaging characteristics and patient outcomes remains uncertain. Although other studies have evaluated the reliability of certain MRI characteristics, comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of readings of herniated disc features on MRI is lacking. METHODS: Sixty randomly selected MR images from patients with IDH enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were each rated according to defined criteria by 4 independent readers (3 radiologists and 1 orthopedic surgeon). Quantitative measurements were performed separately by 2 other radiologists. A sample of 20 MRIs was re-evaluated by each reader at least 1 month later. Agreement for rating data were assessed with kappa statistics using linear weights. Reliability of the quantitative measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and summaries of measurement error. RESULTS: Inter-reader reliability was substantial for disc morphology [overall kappa 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 0.85)], moderate for thecal sac compression [overall kappa 0.54 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.68)], and moderate for grading nerve root impingement [overall kappa 0.47 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.56)]. Quantitative measures showed high ICCs of 0.87 to 0.96 for spinal canal and thecal sac cross-sectional areas. Measures of disc fragment area had moderate ICCs of 0.65 to 0.83. Mean absolute differences between measurements ranged from approximately 15% to 20%. CONCLUSION: Classification of disc morphology showed substantial intra- and inter-reader agreement, whereas thecal sac and nerve root compression showed more moderate reader reliability. Quantitative measures of canal and thecal sac area showed good reliability, whereas measurement of disc fragment area showed more modest reliability.

Effect of calcium supplementation on the risk of large bowel polyps.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that calcium supplementation modestly decreases the risk of colorectal adenomas. However, few studies have examined the effect of calcium on the risk of different types of colorectal lesions or dietary determinants of this effect. METHODS: Our analysis used patients from the Calcium Polyp Prevention Study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled chemoprevention trial among patients with a recent colorectal adenoma. Nine hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned to calcium carbonate (1200 mg/day) or placebo. Follow-up colonoscopies were conducted approximately 1 and 4 years after the qualifying examination. We used general estimating equation (GEE) and generalized linear regression analyses to compute risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effect of calcium treatment versus placebo on the risk of hyperplastic polyps, tubular adenomas, and more advanced lesions. Additionally, we used GEE analyses to compare the calcium treatment effects for various types of polyps with that for tubular adenomas. We also examined the interaction between calcium treatment and baseline intake of dietary calcium, fat, and fiber. All P values were obtained using Wald tests based on the corresponding models. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided. RESULTS: The calcium risk ratio for hyperplastic polyps was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.00), that for tubular adenomas was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.77 to 1.03), and that for histologically advanced neoplasms was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.46 to 0.93) compared with patients assigned to placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between the risk ratio for tubular adenomas and that for other types of polyps. The effect of calcium supplementation on adenoma risk was most pronounced among individuals with high dietary intakes of calcium and fiber and with low intake of fat, but the interactions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that calcium supplementation may have a more pronounced antineoplastic effect on advanced colorectal lesions than on other types of polyps.