Hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance may be associated with potential psychological harms in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The value of HCC surveillance is determined by the balance between benefits and harms; however, no studies have enumerated psychological harms. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We fielded surveys measuring psychological harms to patients with cirrhosis in a multicenter randomized trial of HCC surveillance outreach. All patients with positive or indeterminate surveillance results and matched patients with negative results were invited to complete surveys measuring (1) depression through the Patient Health Questionnaire-ninth version, (2) anxiety through State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, (3) HCC-specific worry through Psychological Consequences Questionnaire, and (4) decisional regret. Patients were classified into 4 groups: true positive (TP), false positive (FP), indeterminate, and true negative (TN). Multivariable longitudinal regression analysis using the generalized estimating equation method was performed to compare the means of measures across groups. We conducted 89 semistructured interviews in a subset of patients stratified by health system and test results. Of 2872 patients in the trial, 311 completed 1+ follow-up survey (63 FP, 77 indeterminate, 38 TP, and 133 TN). Moderate depression decreased in TN patients, increased in TP, and had intermittent but mild increases in those with FP and indeterminate results. High anxiety temporarily increased in patients with TP results but resolved over time and was stable in those with FP and indeterminate results. Decisional regret was low and did not differ across groups. In semistructured interviews, patients reported apprehension, anxiety, emotional distress, and coping related to HCC surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological harms of HCC surveillance appear mild but differ by test result. Future research should determine the impact of psychological harms on the value of HCC surveillance programs.

Financial Burden of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening in Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma screening is defined by the balance of benefits and harms. Studies have only reported physical harms with none describing financial harms. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial of hepatocellular carcinoma screening outreach among 2872 patients with cirrhosis from March 2018 to April 2021. Patients with positive or indeterminate results and matched patients with negative results completed surveys at baseline and at follow-up measuring financial harms via Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire and financial burden via Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. Univariable and multivariable longitudinal regression analyses were performed to compare changes in financial harms across groups: true positive, true negative, false positive, and indeterminate. Semistructured interviews were conducted in a subset of patients, sampled by center and test result. RESULTS: Of 311 patients who completed at least 1 follow-up survey (75% response rate), 37 had true positive, 133 true negative, 64 false positive, and 77 indeterminate results. Financial harms increased in true positive and false positive patients with no significant changes noted among those with true negative or indeterminate results. At follow-up, 21.8% of patients reported moderate-severe financial burden, which was not significantly associated with test results. Semistructured interviews revealed variation in the frequency and severity of financial harms based on test results, with increased harm in those with false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Financial harms of hepatocellular carcinoma screening vary by test result and can pose a barrier that must be considered when determining the optimal screening program.

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.

Surviving the COVID-19 pandemic: navigating the recovery of breast imaging services in a safety-net hospital.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on county safety-net breast imaging services and describe the steps taken to actively manage and mitigate delays. METHODS: This was an IRB exempt retrospective review of our county safety-net breast imaging practice analyzed for 4 distinct time periods: (1) "Shut-down period": March 17, 2020 to May 17, 2020; (2) "Phased re-opening": May 18, 2020 to June 30, 2020; (3) "Ramp-up": July 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020; and (4) "Current state": October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. These time periods were compared to identical time periods 1 year prior. For "Current state," given that the 1-year prior comparison encompassed the first 3 periods of the pandemic, the identical time period 2 years prior was also compared. RESULTS: Our safety-net practice sustained significant volume losses during the first 3 time periods with a 99% reduction in screening mammography in the shut-down period. Cancers diagnosed decreased by 17% in 2020 (n = 229) compared to 2019 (n = 276). By implementing multiple initiatives that targeted improved access to care, including building community-hospital partnerships and engagement through outreach events and a community education roadshow, we were able to recover and significantly exceed our pandemic screening volumes by 48.1% (27,279 vs 18,419) from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 compared to the identical time period 1 year prior, and exceed our pre-pandemic screening volume by 17.4% (27,279 vs 23,234) compared to the identical time period 2 years prior. CONCLUSION: Through specific community outreach programs and optimized navigation, our safety-net breast imaging practice was able to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on our patient population by increasing patient engagement and breast imaging services.

Measurement of Perceived Risk of Developing Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review describes approaches to measuring perceived risk of developing type 2 diabetes among individuals without diagnoses and describes the use of theories, models, and frameworks in studies assessing perceived risk. While a systematic review has synthesized perceived risk of complications among individuals with diabetes, no reviews have systematically assessed how perceived risk is measured among those without a diagnosis. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHAL databases were searched for studies conducted through October 2022 with measures of perceived risk among adults ≥ 18 years without a diabetes diagnosis. Extracted data included study characteristics, measures, and health behavior theories, models, or frameworks used. RESULTS: Eighty-six studies met inclusion criteria. Six examined perceived risk scales' psychometric properties. Eighty measured perceived risk using (1) a single item; (2) a composite score from multiple items or subconstructs; and (3) multiple subconstructs but no composite score. Studies used items measuring "comparative risk," "absolute or lifetime risk," and "perceived risk" without defining how each differed. Sixty-four studies used cross-sectional designs. Twenty-eight studies mentioned use of health behavior theories in study design or selection of measures. DISCUSSION: There was heterogeneity in how studies operationalized perceived risk; only one third of studies referenced a theory, model, or framework as guiding design or scale and item selection. Use of perceived lifetime risk, absolute risk, or comparative risk limits comparisons across studies. Consideration of context, target population, and how data are utilized is important when selecting measures; we present a series of questions to ask when selecting measures for use in research and clinical settings. This review is the first to categorize how perceived risk is measured in the diabetes prevention domain; most literature focuses on perceived risk among those with diabetes diagnoses. Limitations include exclusion of non-English and gray literature and single reviewer screening and data extraction.

Broad perspectives in understanding vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence: an introduction to the special issue.

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence among the most pressing issues in global health. The COVID-19 pandemic has made vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence particularly salient and urgent. The purpose of this special issue is to highlight a broad range of perspectives on these critical issues. We have included a total of 30 papers that address issues related to vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence across multiple levels of the Socio-Ecological Model. We have organized the empirical papers into the following sections: individual-level beliefs, minority health and health disparities, social media and conspiracy beliefs, and interventions. In addition to the empirical papers, three commentaries are included in this special issue.

Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening With Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022. Interventions: Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group. Results: The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.

Substance use and mental health burden in head and neck and other cancer survivors: A National Health Interview Survey analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco dependence, alcohol abuse, depression, distress, and other adverse patient-level influences are common in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. Their interrelatedness and precise burden in comparison with survivors of other cancers are poorly understood. METHODS: National Health Interview Survey data from 1997 to 2016 were pooled. The prevalence of adverse patient-level influences among HNC survivors and matched survivors of other cancers were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluating covariate associations with the primary study outcomes were performed. These included 1) current cigarette smoking and/or heavy alcohol use (>14 drinks per week) and 2) high mental health burden (severe psychological distress [Kessler Index ≥ 13] and/or frequent depressive/anxiety symptoms). RESULTS: In all, 918 HNC survivors and 3672 matched survivors of other cancers were identified. Compared with other cancer survivors, more HNC survivors were current smokers and/or heavy drinkers (24.6% [95% CI, 21.5%-27.7%] vs 18.0% [95% CI, 16.6%-19.4%]) and exhibited a high mental health burden (18.6% [95% CI, 15.7%-21.5%] vs 13.0% [95% CI, 11.7%-14.3%]). In multivariable analyses, 1) a high mental health burden predicted for smoking and/or heavy drinking (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9), and 2) current cigarette smoking predicted for a high mental health burden (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3). Furthermore, nonpartnered marital status and uninsured/Medicaid insurance status were significantly associated with both cigarette smoking and/or heavy alcohol use (ORs, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.5] and 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.1], respectively) and a high mental health burden (ORs, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 -1.8] and 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2-4.2], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders should allocate greater supportive care resources to HNC survivors. The interdependence of substance abuse, adverse mental health symptoms, and other adverse patient-level influences requires development of novel, multimodal survivorship care interventions.

Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: There has been increased interest in interventions to promote hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance given low utilization and high proportions of late stage detection. Accurate prediction of patients likely versus unlikely to respond to interventions could allow a cost-effective approach to outreach and facilitate targeting more intensive interventions to likely non-responders. DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial evaluating a mailed outreach strategy to promote HCC surveillance among 1200 cirrhosis patients at a safety-net health system between December 2014 and March 2017. We developed regularized logistic regression (RLR) and gradient boosting machine (GBM) algorithm models to predict surveillance completion during each of the 3 screening rounds in a training set (n = 960). Model performance was assessed using multiple performance metrics in an independent test set (n = 240). RESULTS: Among 1200 patients, surveillance was completed in 41-47% of patients over the three rounds. The RLR and GBM models demonstrated good discriminatory accuracy, with area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.67 and 0.66 respectively in the first surveillance round and improved to 0.77 by the third surveillance round after incorporating prior screening behavior as a feature. Additional performance characteristics including the Brier score, Hosmer-Lemeshow test and reliability diagrams were also evaluated. The most important variables for the predictive model were prior screening completion status and past primary care contact. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive models can help stratify patients' likelihood to respond to surveillance outreach invitations, facilitating tailored strategies to maximize effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCC surveillance population health programs.

Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of a Mailed Outreach Strategy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is mitigated by underuse in clinical practice, highlighting a need for interventions. We evaluated the effectiveness of mailed HCC surveillance outreach to promote HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for surveillance ultrasound (n = 1436) and usual care with visit-based surveillance (n = 1436) among patients with cirrhosis at 3 health systems (tertiary care referral center, safety net health system, and Veterans Affairs medical center) from April 2018 to December 2019. The primary outcome of this interim analysis was guideline concordant semiannual HCC surveillance over a 12-month period and a secondary outcome was proportion time covered by surveillance. All patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, the outreach arm had significantly higher semiannual surveillance (35.1% vs 21.9%) and lower no-surveillance (29.8% vs 43.5%) (P < .001), resulting in significant increases in the proportion of time covered by surveillance (41.3% vs 31.0%; P < .001). The intervention increased HCC surveillance across most predefined subgroups; however, there were site-level differences in the intervention effect, with significant increases in semiannual surveillance at the Veterans Affairs and safety net health systems but not at the tertiary care referral center. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed outreach significantly increased semiannual HCC surveillance vs usual care in patients with cirrhosis, with a consistent intervention effect across most examined subgroups. Continued follow-up is ongoing to determine if these increases in surveillance translate into improved downstream outcomes includi.ng early HCC detection and curative treatment receipt. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Numbers: NCT02582918 and NCT03756051).

Depression and Anxiety Are Common Among Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Depression and anxiety can have negative effects on patients and are important to treat. There have been few studies of their prevalence among patients with cirrhosis. We aimed to characterize the prevalence and risk factors for depression and anxiety in a large multi-center cohort of patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a telephone-based survey of patients with cirrhosis at 3 health systems in the United States (a tertiary-care referral center, a safety net system, and a Veterans hospital) from April through December 2018. Of 2871 patients approached, 1021 (35.6%) completed the survey. Depression and anxiety were assessed using the PHQ-9 (range 0-25) and STAI (range 20-80) instruments, with clinically significant values defined as PHQ-9 ≥15 and STAI ≥40. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with significant depression and anxiety. RESULTS: The median PHQ-9 score was 7 (25th percentile-75th percentile, 3-12) and the median STAI score was 33 (25th percentile-75th percentile, 23-47); 15.6% of patients had moderately severe to severe depression and 42.6% of patients had high anxiety. In multivariable analyses, self-reported poor health (odds ratio [OR], 4.08; 95% CI, 1.79-9.28), being widowed (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.07-4.05), fear of hepatocellular carcinoma (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.04-3.42), higher household income (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.95), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97) were associated with moderately severe to severe depression. Male sex (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98), self-reported poor health (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.73-4.32), and fear of hepatocellular carcinoma (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.33-3.78) were associated with high anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 6 patients with cirrhosis have moderately severe to severe depression and nearly half have moderate-severe anxiety. Patients with cirrhosis should be evaluated for both of these disorders.

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.

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.

Anal cancer screening among women with HIV: provider experiences and system-level challenges.

Women living with HIV (WLWH) are at increased risk of anal cancer compared to women without HIV, often due to persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections. This paper describes current practices and challenges conducting anal cancer screening for WLWH at an urban integrated safety-net system and a non-profit community-based HIV clinic. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative stakeholders to assess knowledge, clinic practices and procedures, and experiences with anal cancer screening. Interview transcripts and fieldnotes were thematically analyzed using an iterative deductive and inductive coding scheme. Findings were organized by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains and constructs. Provider-level barriers to conducting anal cancer screening included limited knowledge of guidelines. System-level barriers included: structural characteristics such as lack of coordination between clinics to discern provider roles and responsibilities; and limitations in available resources such as configuration of electronic health records and infrastructure to manage referrals of abnormal anal Pap results. We conclude that anal cancer screening and follow-up for WLWH requires organization and coordination between multiple care teams, updated clinical information systems to facilitate communication and support anal Pap ordering and result documentation, and infrastructure that includes policies and protocols for management of abnormal results.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02135419.

Blood-based biomarkers of human papillomavirus-associated cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant societal burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, clinical screening interventions for HPV-associated noncervical cancers are not available. Blood-based biomarkers may help close this gap in care. METHODS: Five databases were searched, 5687 articles were identified, and 3631 unique candidate titles and abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors; 702 articles underwent a full-text review. Eligibility criteria included the assessment of a blood-based biomarker within a cohort or case-control study. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven studies were included. Among all biomarkers assessed, HPV-16 E seropositivity and circulating HPV DNA were most significantly correlated with HPV-associated cancers in comparison with cancer-free controls. In most scenarios, HPV-16 E6 seropositivity varied nonsignificantly according to tumor type, specimen collection timing, and anatomic site (crude odds ratio [cOR] for p16+ or HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer [OPC], 133.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.40-298.21; cOR for HPV-unspecified OPC, 25.41; 95% CI, 8.71-74.06; cOR for prediagnostic HPV-unspecified OPC, 59.00; 95% CI, 15.39-226.25; cOR for HPV-unspecified cervical cancer, 12.05; 95% CI, 3.23-44.97; cOR for HPV-unspecified anal cancer, 73.60; 95% CI, 19.68-275.33; cOR for HPV-unspecified penile cancer, 16.25; 95% CI, 2.83-93.48). Circulating HPV-16 DNA was a valid biomarker for cervical cancer (cOR, 15.72; 95% CI, 3.41-72.57). In 3 cervical cancer case-control studies, cases exhibited unique microRNA expression profiles in comparison with controls. Other assessed biomarker candidates were not valid. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-16 E6 antibodies and circulating HPV-16 DNA are the most robustly analyzed and most promising blood-based biomarkers for HPV-associated cancers to date. Comparative validity analyses are warranted. Variations in tumor type-specific, high-risk HPV DNA prevalence according to anatomic site and world region highlight the need for biomarkers targeting more high-risk HPV types. Further investigation of blood-based microRNA expression profiling appears indicated.

Patient-Reported Barriers Are Associated With Receipt of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in a Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: More than 20% of patients with cirrhosis do not receive semi-annual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance as recommended. Few studies have evaluated the effects of patient-level factors on surveillance receipt. METHODS: We administered a telephone survey to a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis from 3 health systems (a tertiary care referral center, a safety-net health system, and Veterans Affairs) to characterize patient knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers of HCC surveillance. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with HCC surveillance receipt (semi-annual and annual vs none) during the 12-month period preceding survey administration. RESULTS: Of 2871 patients approached, 1020 (35.5%) completed the survey. Patients had high levels of concern about developing HCC and high levels of knowledge about HCC. However, patients had knowledge deficits, including believing surveillance was unnecessary when physical examination and laboratory results were normal. Nearly half of patients reported barriers to surveillance, including costs (28.9%), difficulty scheduling (24.1%), and transportation (17.8%). In the year before the survey, 745 patients (73.1%) received 1 or more surveillance examination; 281 received on-schedule, semi-annual surveillance and 464 received annual surveillance. Semi-annual HCC surveillance (vs none) was significantly associated with receipt of hepatology subspecialty care (odds ratio, 30.1; 95% CI, 17.5-51.8) and inversely associated with patient-reported barriers (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.94). Patterns of associations comparing annual vs no surveillance were similar although the magnitude of effects were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported barriers such as knowledge deficits, costs, difficulty scheduling, and transportation are significantly associated with less frequent receipt of HCC surveillance, indicating a need for patient-centered interventions, such as patient navigation.

Reimbursement Matters: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual.

BACKGROUND: Accrual to cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. Few data exist regarding whether financial reimbursement might increase accruals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess perceptions about reimbursement to overcome barriers to trial accrual. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: Oncologists identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. MEASURES: We report descriptive statistics, associations of physician characteristics with perceptions of reimbursement, domains, and subthemes of free-text comments. RESULTS: Respondents (n=1030) were mostly medical oncologists (59.4%), ages 35-54 (67%), and male (75%). Overall, 30% reported discussing trials with >25% of patients. Barriers perceived were administrative/regulatory, physician/staff time, and eligibility criteria. National Cancer Institute cooperative group participants and practice owners were more likely to endorse higher reimbursement. Respondents indicated targeted reimbursement would help improve infrastructure, but also noted potential ethical problems with reimbursement for discussion (40.7%) and accrual (85.9%). Free-text comments addressed reimbursement sources, recipients, and concerns about the real and apparent conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Though concerns about a potential conflict of interest remain paramount and must be addressed in any new system of reimbursement, oncologists believe reimbursement to enhance infrastructure could help overcome barriers to trial accrual.

Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.

One in five U.S. women with health insurance are underscreened for cervical cancer. We sought to identify whether underscreening correlates differed among women with different levels of health care interaction. Among women age 30-64 years who were members of an integrated U.S. health system, we used 2014-2015 electronic health record data to identify underscreened cases (≥3.4 years since last Papanicolaou (Pap) test, n=3352) and screening-adherent controls (<3.4 years since last Pap test, n=45,359) and extracted data on potential underscreening correlates (demographics, health history, and healthcare utilization). We calculated the odds of underscreening in the total population and by subgroups defined by healthcare visits and online health portal usage in the prior 12 months. Underscreening was associated with older age (50-64 vs. 30-39; odds ratio (OR)=1.6; 95%CI=1.4-1.8), current tobacco use (vs. never use; OR=2.1; 95%CI=1.8-2.2), higher BMI (≥35 kg/m2 vs <25 kg/m2, OR=2.0; 95%CI=1.8-2.3), screening non-adherence for colorectal cancer (OR=5.1; 95%CI=4.6-5.7) and breast cancer (OR=8.1, 95%CI=7.2-9.0), and having no recent visit with their primary care provider (PCP) nor recent health portal use (vs. recent PCP visit and portal use; OR=8.4, 95%CI=7.6-9.4). Underscreening correlates were similar between the total study population and within all healthcare interaction groups. Interaction with the healthcare system is associated with lower odds of underscreening, but sociodemographic and health status correlates are similar regardless of primary care visits or online portal use. These data support the need for additional interventions to reach insured women who remain underscreened for cervical cancer.

De-implementation of cervical cancer screening before age 21.

In 2012, United States consensus guidelines were modified to recommend that cervical cancer screening not begin before age 21 and, since 2014, the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a health plan quality measurement too, has included a measure for non-recommended cervical cancer screening among females ages 16-20. Our goal was to describe prevalence over time of cervical cancer screening before age 21 following the 2012 guideline change, and provide information to help understand how rapidly new guidelines may be disseminated and implemented into clinical practice. We used longitudinal clinical and administrative data from three diverse healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium to examine annual trends in screening before age 21. We identified 55,316 average-risk, screening-eligible females ages 18-20 between 2011 and 2017. For each calendar year, we estimated the proportion of females who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. We observed a steady decline in the proportion of females under age 21 who received a Pap test, from an average of 8.3% in 2011 to <1% in 2017 across the sites. The observed steady decline suggests growing adherence to the 2012 consensus guidelines. This trend was consistent across diverse geographic regions, healthcare systems, and patient populations, strengthening the generalizability of the results; however, since we only had 1-2 years of study data prior to the consensus guidelines, we cannot discern whether screening under age 21 was already in decline. Nonetheless, these results provide data to compare with other guideline changes to de-implement non-recommended screening practices.

Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Risk Among Women Living With HIV.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were (1) to describe anal cancer knowledge, perceived risk, screening barriers, and acceptability of sample self-collection among women living with HIV (WLWH) at an integrated safety-net system and (2) to describe differences in demographic and psychosocial variables among a subsample of WLWH with a history of abnormal cervical cytology results versus those with normal results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys with English- and Spanish-speaking WLWH (N = 99) and used electronic health record data to extract insurance type, CD4+ cell count, RNA viral load, and cervical cytology results. We calculated descriptive statistics for participant demographics, HIV laboratory results, and psychosocial variables. Among the subsample of women who completed a recent cervical Pap, we used Fisher exact test to assess differences in demographic variables, CD4+ counts, RNA viral loads, knowledge, awareness, acceptability, and perceived risk by cervical cytology results. RESULTS: Most participants (70%) reported knowing nothing about anal cancer; 28% correctly responded that HIV increases one's chance of getting anal cancer. Most (68%) never heard of an anal Pap test. Forty percent would get an anal Pap if they could self-collect the sample, whereas 59% were neutral or disagreed. The 2 most commonly cited barriers to obtaining an anal Pap were "I do not know enough about it" (n = 15) and "It might hurt" (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a gap in knowledge and awareness among WLWH regarding their heightened risk for anal cancer. It indicates the need for health education and suggests an opportunity for a self-collection intervention.