Breast cancer statistics 2024.

This is the American Cancer Society's biennial update of statistics on breast cancer among women based on high-quality incidence and mortality data from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Breast cancer incidence continued an upward trend, rising by 1% annually during 2012-2021, largely confined to localized-stage and hormone receptor-positive disease. A steeper increase in women younger than 50 years (1.4% annually) versus 50 years and older (0.7%) overall was only significant among White women. Asian American/Pacific Islander women had the fastest increase in both age groups (2.7% and 2.5% per year, respectively); consequently, young Asian American/Pacific Islander women had the second lowest rate in 2000 (57.4 per 100,000) but the highest rate in 2021 (86.3 per 100,000) alongside White women (86.4 per 100,000), surpassing Black women (81.5 per 100,000). In contrast, the overall breast cancer death rate continuously declined during 1989-2022 by 44% overall, translating to 517,900 fewer breast cancer deaths during this time. However, not all women have experienced this progress; mortality remained unchanged since 1990 in American Indian/Alaska Native women, and Black women have 38% higher mortality than White women despite 5% lower incidence. Although the Black-White disparity partly reflects more triple-negative cancers, Black women have the lowest survival for every breast cancer subtype and stage except localized disease, with which they are 10% less likely to be diagnosed than White women (58% vs. 68%), highlighting disadvantages in social determinants of health. Progress against breast cancer could be accelerated by mitigating racial, ethnic, and social disparities through improved clinical trial representation and access to high-quality screening and treatment.

Progress in lymphedema.

A century ago, the first description of secondary lymphedema resulting from mastectomy was published in the medical literature. For most of the remaining twentieth century, evidence about cancer treatment related lymphedema grew slowly, and mostly through clinicians who wished to understand its causes, natural-history, and post-treatment risks, as well as from clinicians involved with its treatment. In the late 1990s, there was growing recognition that there were large gaps in our understanding of predisposing and post-treatment risks of onset, the near and long-term prevalence of lymphedema, and how to educate patients. Moreover, there was no consensus on best practices for treating lymphedema, and how to ensure the quality of treatment. In 1998, with support from the Longaberger Company®, the American Cancer Society began a long-standing commitment to address enduring challenges associated with lymphedema. This commitment began with a landmark international workshop on lymphedema that was held in New York City in February 1998, millions of dollars in research funding, support to establish the Lymphology Association of North America (LANA), a second workshop convened in February 2011 on the prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer, and most recently, the 2023 Lymphedema Summit: Forward momentum; Future Steps in Lymphedema Management, co-sponsored with the LANA, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and the Stryker Corporation. This editorial introduces the papers and expert consensus statements from that Summit.

Changes in Breast Cancer Screening Prevalence in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Annual mammography screening declined year-on-year during the COVID-19 pandemic through 2021. This study examined changes in 2022 compared to 2018 in the national prevalence of self-reported up-to-date mammography. METHODS: Using 2018-2022 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we assess relative changes defined as annual prevalence ratios (aPR) in the SR receipt of past-year and up-to-date (UTD) breast cancer screening (bi-annual mammography in women ages 50-74 years) during the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic overall and by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: UTD BC screening declined for the first time since 2018 (2018 compared to 2022, from 78.7% to 76.6%; aPR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98), despite a small increase in past-year breast cancer screening from 2020 and 2022 (57.9% to 59.6%; aPR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05). This translated to 747,791 fewer women reporting UTD with recommended BC screening in 2022 vs. 2018. UTD BC screening declines between 2018-2022 were largest for American Indian/Alaska Native women (74.8% to 62.2%; aPR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), women with less formal educational attainment (< high school: 73.1% to 65.5%; aPR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95), and women without a usual source of care (48% to 42.9%; aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Previously noted pandemic-related declines in past-year BC screening now reflect in women reporting being UTD, with the largest declines in AI/AN and lower SES women. IMPACT: Future studies should monitor screening prevalence in relation to BC diagnostic stage, overall and by sociodemographic groups.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Optimizing strategies for lung nodule evaluation and management.

Lung nodules are frequently detected on low-dose computed tomography scans performed for lung cancer screening and incidentally detected on imaging performed for other reasons. There is wide variability in how lung nodules are managed by general practitioners and subspecialists, with high rates of guideline-discordant care. This may be due in part to the level of evidence underlying current practice guideline recommendations (primarily based on findings from uncontrolled studies of diagnostic accuracy). The primary aims of lung nodule management are to minimize harms of diagnostic evaluations while expediting the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Potentially useful tools such as lung cancer probability calculators, automated methods to identify patients with nodules in the electronic health record, and multidisciplinary team evaluation are often underused due to limited availability, accessibility, and/or provider knowledge. Finally, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying and reducing disparities among individuals with screening-detected or incidentally detected lung nodules. This contribution to the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Strategic Plan aims to identify and describe these knowledge gaps in lung nodule management and propose recommendations to advance clinical practice and research. Major themes that are addressed include improving the quality of evidence supporting lung nodule evaluation guidelines, strategically leveraging information technology, and placing emphasis on equitable approaches to nodule management. The recommendations outlined in this strategic plan, when carried out through interdisciplinary efforts with a focus on health equity, ultimately aim to improve early detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of lung cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung nodules may be identified on chest scans of individuals who undergo lung cancer screening (screening-detected nodules) or among patients for whom a scan was performed for another reason (incidental nodules). Although the vast majority of lung nodules are not lung cancer, it is important to have evidence-based, standardized approaches to the evaluation and management of a lung nodule. The primary aims of lung nodule management are to diagnose lung cancer while it is still in an early stage and to avoid unnecessary procedures and other harms.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Methods for improving turnaround time of comprehensive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

Comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer is critical for selecting appropriate targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting is key to optimizing patient outcomes. However, various factors can prevent or delay patients from being offered the option of treatment selection based on comprehensive biomarker testing. These factors include problems with access to testing, tissue adequacy, turnaround time, and health insurance coverage and billing practices. Turnaround time depends on several logistical and tissue handling factors, which involve institutional policies, processes, resources, testing methodology, and testing algorithms that vary across different practices. In this article, the authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Advancing comprehensive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial requirement for the optimal treatment of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with emerging relevance in the adjuvant treatment setting. To advance its goal of ensuring optimal therapy for persons diagnosed with lung cancer, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) held The Summit on Optimizing Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Practice in September 2020 to align its partners toward the goal of ensuring comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients with NSCLC. The ACS NLCRT's Strategic Plan for Advancing Comprehensive Biomarker Testing in NSCLC, a product of the summit, comprises actions to promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients. The approach is multifaceted, including policy-level advocacy and the development and dissemination of targeted educational materials, clinical decision tools, and guides to patients, physicians, and payers aimed at ameliorating barriers to testing experienced by each of these groups. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The ACS NLCRT works to improve care for patients with lung cancer. The ACS NLCRT supports comprehensive biomarker testing as essential to determine treatment options for all eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Many factors lead to some patients not receiving optimal biomarker testing. The ACS NLCRT held a collaborative summit and developed a strategic plan to achieve and promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all patients. These plans include developing educational materials and physician tools and advocating for national policies in support of biomarker testing.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Promoting guideline-concordant lung cancer staging.

Accurate staging improves lung cancer survival by increasing the chances of delivering stage-appropriate therapy. However, there is underutilization of, and variability in, the use of guideline-recommended diagnostic tests used to stage lung cancer. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) convened the Triage for Appropriate Treatment Task Group-a multidisciplinary expert and stakeholder panel-to identify knowledge and/or resource gaps contributing to guideline-discordant staging and make recommendations to overcome these gaps. The task group determined the following: Gap 1: facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant staging are incompletely understood; Recommendation 1: identify facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Gap 2: the level of evidence supporting staging algorithms is low-to-moderate; Recommendation 2: prioritize comparative-effectiveness studies evaluating lung cancer staging; Gap 3: guideline recommendations vary across professional societies; Recommendation 3: harmonize guideline recommendations across professional societies; Gap 4: existing databases do not contain sufficient information to measure guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 4: augment existing databases with the information required to measure guideline-concordant staging; Gap 5: health systems do not have a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Recommendation 5: develop and implement a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Gap 6: patients rarely self-advocate for guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 6: increase opportunities for patient self-advocacy for guideline-concordant staging; and Gap 7: current health policies do not motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Recommendation 7: organize a representative working group under the ACS NLCRT that promotes policies that motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Staging-determining the degree of cancer spread-is important because it helps clinicians choose the best cancer treatment. Receiving the best cancer treatment leads to the best possible patient outcomes. Practice guidelines are intended to help clinicians stage patients with lung cancer. However, lung cancer staging in the United States often varies from practice guideline recommendations. This report identifies seven opportunities to improve lung cancer staging.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Introduction.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and across the world. The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) was established in 2017 as a consortium of public, private, and voluntary organizations with a mission to lower the impact of lung cancer via prevention, early detection, and optimal therapy. The ACS NLCRT supports a comprehensive scope of work that covers the lung cancer continuum, from risk reduction, tobacco prevention and control, and early detection (screening and incidental lung nodule management) to guideline-based staging, biomarker testing, treatment, and survivorship and overarching issues such as stigma and nihilism, health equity, and tactical approaches such as state coalition efforts and policy initiatives. Applying a multidimensional and multisector approach, over 220 public, private, and government agency member organizations and 250 volunteer experts, patients, and caregiver advocate representatives collaborate to address challenges across the lung cancer continuum by catalyzing action to conceive, build, and strengthen innovative solutions. The wide-ranging membership allows the ACS NLCRT to harness the collective power and expertise of the entire lung cancer community by connecting leaders, communities, and systems to improve equity and access. These national, state, and local relationships provide partnerships for the dissemination of ACS NLCRT-developed tools and resources. This article describes the ACS NLCRT and introduces the series of accompanying and future articles that together make up the ACS NLCRT strategic plan, which provides a roadmap for future research, investment, and collaboration to reduce lung cancer mortality and lung cancer-related stigma and enhance survivorship.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Provider engagement and outreach.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan for provider engagement and outreach addresses barriers to the uptake of lung cancer screening, including lack of provider awareness and guideline knowledge about screening, concerns about potential harms from false-positive examinations, lack of time to implement workflows within busy primary care practices, insufficient infrastructure and administrative support to manage a screening program and patient follow-up, and implicit bias based on sex, race/ethnicity, social class, and smoking status. Strategies to facilitate screening include educational programming, clinical reminder systems within the electronic medical record, decision support aids, and tools to track nodules that can be implemented across a diversity of practices and health care organizational structures. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan to reduce deaths from lung cancer includes strategies designed to support health care professionals, to better understand lung cancer screening, and to support adults who are eligible for lung cancer screening by providing counseling, referral, and follow-up.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Implementation of high-quality lung cancer screening.

More than a decade has passed since researchers in the Early Lung Cancer Action Project and the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to save lives of high-risk individuals from lung cancer through regular screening by low dose computed tomography scan. The emergence of the most recent findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung-cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) further strengthens and expands on this evidence. These studies demonstrate the benefit of integrating lung cancer screening into clinical practice, yet lung cancer continues to lead cancer mortality rates in the United States. Fewer than 20% of screen eligible individuals are enrolled in lung cancer screening, leaving millions of qualified individuals without the standard of care and benefit they deserve. This article, part of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) strategic plan, examines the impediments to successful adoption, dissemination, and implementation of lung cancer screening. Proposed solutions identified by the ACS NLCRT Implementation Strategies Task Group and work currently underway to address these challenges to improve uptake of lung cancer screening are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The evidence supporting the benefit of lung cancer screening in adults who previously or currently smoke has led to widespread endorsement and coverage by health plans. Lung cancer screening programs should be designed to promote high uptake rates of screening among eligible adults, and to deliver high-quality screening and follow-up care.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Lung cancer in women.

Lung cancer in women is a modern epidemic and represents a global health crisis. Cigarette smoking remains the most important risk factor for lung cancer in all patients and, among women globally, rates of smoking continue to increase. Although some data exist supporting sex-based differences across the continuum of lung cancer, there is currently a dearth of research exploring the differences in risk, biology, and treatment outcomes in women. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable recognizes the urgent need to promote awareness and future research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women. To this end, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Task Group on Lung Cancer in Women convened a summit undertaking the following to: (1) summarize existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps surrounding the epidemiology, risk factors, biologic differences, and outcomes of lung cancer in women; (2) develop and prioritize research topics and questions that address research gaps and advance knowledge to improve quality of care of lung cancer in women; and (3) propose strategies for future research. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in women, and, despite comparatively lower exposures to occupational and environmental carcinogens compared with men, disproportionately higher lung cancer rates in women who ever smoked and women who never smoked call for increased awareness and research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Current challenges and future directions for shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Shared decision making (SDM) between health care professionals and patients is essential to help patients make well informed choices about lung cancer screening (LCS). Patients who participate in SDM have greater LCS knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and improved adherence to annual screening compared with patients who do not participate in SDM. SDM tools are acceptable to patients and clinicians. The importance of SDM in LCS is emphasized in recommendations from professional organizations and highlighted as a priority in the 2022 President's Cancer Panel Report. The updated 2022 national coverage determination from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reaffirms the value of SDM in offering LCS to eligible beneficiaries. The Shared Decision-Making Task Group of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable undertook a group consensus process to identify priorities for research and implementation related to SDM for LCS and then evaluated current knowledge in these areas. Priority areas included: (1) developing feasible, adaptable SDM training programs for health care professionals; (2) understanding the impact of alternative health system LCS models on SDM practice and outcomes; (3) developing and evaluating new patient decision aids for use with diverse populations and in varied settings; (4) offering conceptual clarity about what constitutes a high-quality decision and developing appropriate quality measures; and (5) studying the use of prediction-augmented screening to support SDM in practice. Gaps in current research in all areas were observed. The authors conclude with a research and implementation agenda to advance the quality and implementation of SDM for persons who might benefit from LCS.

From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee: Terminology Issues in Screening and Early Detection of Lung Cancer-International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Expert Group Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: To facilitate global implementation of lung cancer (LC) screening and early detection in a quality assured and consistent manner, common terminology is needed. Researchers and clinicians within different specialties may use the same terms but with different meanings or different terms for the same intended meanings. METHODS: The Diagnostics Working Group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee has analyzed and discussed relevant terms used on a regular basis and suggests recommendations for consensus definitions of terminology applicable in this setting. We explored how to reach consensus to define relevant and unambiguous terminology for use by health care providers, researchers, patients, screening participants, and family. RESULTS: Terms and definitions for epidemiologic and health-economical purposes included the following: standardized incidence and mortality rates, LC-specific survival, long-term survival and cure rates, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and undertreatment. Terms and definitions for defining screening findings included the following: positive, false-positive, negative, false-negative, and indeterminate findings and additional and incidental findings. Terms and definitions for describing parameters in screening programs included the following: opportunistic versus programmatic screening, screening rounds, interval or interim diagnoses, and invasive and minimally invasive procedures. Terms and definitions for shared decision-making included the following: LC screening-possible harms and risks and LC risk and modifiers prior and posterior to a measure. CONCLUSIONS: A common set of terminology with standard definitions is recommended for describing clinical LC screening programs, the discussion about effectiveness and outcomes, or the clinical setting. The use of the terms should be clearly defined and explained.

The protocol for an observational Australian cohort study of CADASIL: The AusCADASIL study.

Introduction: Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is a rare genetic condition with a broad phenotypic presentation. This study aims to establish the first Australian cohort of individuals affected by CADASIL (AusCADASIL) and examine its clinical features and longitudinal course, and to investigate neuroimaging and blood biomarkers to assist in early diagnosis and identify disease progression. Methods: Participants will be recruited from six study centres across Australia for an observational study of CADASIL. We aim to recruit 150 participants with diagnosed CADASIL, family history of CADASIL or suspected CADASIL symptoms, and 150 cognitively normal NOTCH3 negative individuals as controls. Participants will complete: 1) online questionnaires on medical and family history, mental health, and wellbeing; 2) neuropsychological evaluation; 3) neurological examination and brain MRI; 4) ocular examination and 5) blood sample donation. Participants will have annual follow-up for 4 years to assess their progression and will be asked to invite a study partner to corroborate their self-reported cognitive and functional abilities.Primary outcomes include cognitive function and neuroimaging abnormalities. Secondary outcomes include investigation of genetics and blood and ocular biomarkers. Data from the cohort will contribute to an international consortium, and cohort participants will be invited to access future treatment/health intervention trials. Discussion: AusCADASIL will be the first study of an Australian cohort of individuals with CADASIL. The study will identify common pathogenic variants in this cohort, and characterise the pattern of clinical presentation and longitudinal progression, including imaging features, blood and ocular biomarkers and cognitive profile.

Recommendations for Use of p16/Ki67 Dual Stain for Management of Individuals Testing Positive for Human Papillomavirus.

OBJECTIVES: The Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee developed recommendations for dual stain (DS) testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology for use of DS to triage high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive results. METHODS: Risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse were calculated according to DS results among individuals testing HPV-positive using data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California cohort and the STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES study in Mississippi. Management recommendations were based on clinical action thresholds developed for the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Resource usage metrics were calculated to support decision-making. Risk estimates in relation to clinical action thresholds were reviewed and used as the basis for draft recommendations. After an open comment period, recommendations were finalized and ratified through a vote by the Consensus Stakeholder Group. RESULTS: For triage of positive HPV results from screening with primary HPV testing (with or without genotyping) or with cytology cotesting, colposcopy is recommended for individuals testing DS-positive. One-year follow-up with HPV-based testing is recommended for individuals testing DS-negative, except for HPV16- and HPV18-positive results, or high-grade cytology in cotesting, where immediate colposcopy referral is recommended. Risk estimates were similar between the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES populations. In general, resource usage metrics suggest that compared with cytology, DS requires fewer colposcopies and detects cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Dual stain testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology is acceptable for triage of HPV-positive test results. Risk estimates are portable across different populations.

Enduring Consensus Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management: Introduction to the Scope and Process.

OBJECTIVES: The Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines (Enduring Guidelines) effort is a standing committee to continuously evaluate new technologies and approaches to cervical cancer screening, management, and surveillance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Enduring Guidelines process will selectively incorporate new technologies and approaches with adequate supportive data to more effectively improve cancer prevention for high-risk individuals and decrease unnecessary procedures in low-risk individuals. This manuscript describes the structure, process, and methods of the Enduring Guidelines effort. Using systematic literature reviews and primary data sources, risk of precancer will be estimated and recommendations will be made based on risk estimates in the context of established risk-based clinical action thresholds. The Enduring Guidelines process will consider health equity and health disparities by assuring inclusion of diverse populations in the evidence review and risk assessment and by developing recommendations that provide a choice of well-validated strategies that can be adapted to different settings. CONCLUSIONS: The Enduring Guidelines process will allow updating existing cervical cancer screening and management guidelines rapidly when new technologies are approved or new scientific evidence becomes available.

Development of a Follow-Up Measure to Ensure Complete Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The current quality performance measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited to initial screening. Despite low rates, there is no measure for appropriate follow-up with colonoscopy after receipt of an abnormal result of a stool-based screening test (SBT) for CRC. A quality performance measure is needed. Objective: To develop and test a quality performance measure for follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal result of an SBT for CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective quality improvement study examined data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, with 2018 plus 6 months of follow-up as the primary measurement period to verify performance rates, specify a potential measure, and test for validity, reliability, and feasibility. The Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW), a deidentified database of health care claims and clinical data, was accessed. The OLDW contains longitudinal health information on enrollees and patients, representing a diverse mixture of ages and geographic regions across the US. For the database study, adults from 38 health care organizations (HCOs) aged 50 to 75 years who completed an initial CRC SBT with an abnormal result were observed to determine follow-up colonoscopy rates within 6 months. Rates were stratified by race, ethnicity, sex, insurance, and test modality. Three HCOs participated in the feasibility field testing. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome consisted of follow-up colonoscopy rates following an abnormal SBT result for CRC. Reliability statistics were also calculated across HCOs, race, ethnicity, and measurement year. Results: Among 20 581 adults (48.6% men and 51.4% women; 307 [1.5%] Asian, 492 [7.2%] Black, 644 [3.1%] Hispanic, and 17 705 [86.0%] White; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [7.1] years) in 38 health systems, 47.9% had a follow-up colonoscopy following an abnormal SBT result for CRC within 6 months. There was significant variation between HCOs. Notably, significantly fewer Black patients (37.1% [95% CI, 34.6%-39.5%]) and patients with Medicare (49.2% [95% CI, 47.7%-50.6%]) or Medicaid (39.2% [95% CI, 36.3%-42.1%]) insurance received a follow-up colonoscopy. A quality performance measure that tracks rates of follow-up within 6 months of an abnormal SBT result was observed to be feasible, valid, and reliable, with a median reliability statistic between HCOs of 94.5% (range, 74.3%-99.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this observational study of 20 581 adults suggest that a measure of follow-up colonoscopy within defined periods after an abnormal result of an SBT test for CRC is warranted based on low current performance rates and would be feasible to collect by health systems and produce valid, reliable results.

Associations between Cerebrovascular Function and the Expression of Genes Related to Endothelial Function in Hormonal Migraine.

There is evidence to suggest that hormonal migraine is associated with altered cerebrovascular function. We aimed to investigate whether the expression of genes related to endothelial function in venous blood (1) might influence cerebrovascular function, (2) differs between hormonal migraineur and non-migraineur women, and (3) changes following resveratrol supplementation. This study utilised data obtained from 87 women (59 hormonal migraineurs and 28 controls) where RNA from venous blood was used to quantify gene expression and transcranial Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate cerebrovascular function. Spearman's correlation analyses were performed between gene expression, cerebrovascular function, and migraine-related disability. We compared the expression of genes associated with endothelial function between migraineurs and non-migraineurs, and between resveratrol and placebo. The expression of several genes related to endothelial function was associated with alterations in cerebrovascular function. Notably, the expression of CALCA was associated with increased neurovascular coupling capacity (p = 0.013), and both CALCA (p = 0.035) and VEGF (p = 0.014) expression were associated with increased cerebral blood flow velocity in the overall study population. Additionally, VCAM1 expression correlated with decreased pulsatility index (a measure of cerebral arterial stiffness) (p = 0.009) and headache impact test-6 scores (p = 0.007) in the migraineurs. No significant differences in gene expression were observed between migraineurs and controls, or between placebo and resveratrol treatments in migraineurs. Thus, altering the expression of genes related to endothelial function may improve cerebrovascular function and decrease migraine-related disability.

Lung cancer statistics, 2023.

Despite decades of declining mortality rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. This article examines lung cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival, and mortality using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Over the past 5 years, declines in lung cancer mortality became considerably greater than declines in incidence among men (5.0% vs. 2.6% annually) and women (4.3% vs. 1.1% annually), reflecting absolute gains in 2-year relative survival of 1.4% annually. Improved outcomes likely reflect advances in treatment, increased access to care through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and earlier stage diagnosis; for example, compared with a 4.6% annual decrease for distant-stage disease incidence during 2013-2019, the rate for localized-stage disease rose by 3.6% annually. Localized disease incidence increased more steeply in states with the highest lung cancer screening prevalence (by 3%-5% annually) than in those with the lowest (by 1%-2% annually). Despite progress, disparities remain. For example, Native Americans have the highest incidence and the slowest decline (less than 1% annually among men and stagnant rates among women) of any group. In addition, mortality rates in Mississippi and Kentucky are two to three times higher than in most western states, largely because of elevated historic smoking prevalence that remains. Racial and geographic inequalities highlight longstanding opportunities for more concerted tobacco-control efforts targeted at high-risk populations, including improved access to smoking-cessation treatments and lung cancer screening, as well as state-of-the-art treatment.

Colorectal cancer screening test exposure patterns in US adults 45 to 49 years of age, 2019-2021.

Several organizations now recommend that individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) begin screening at 45 rather than 50 years of age. We present contemporary estimates of CRC screening in newly eligible adults aged 45 to 49 years between 2019 and 2021. Nationally representative prevalence estimates and population number screened were estimated based on the National Health Interview Survey. A logistic regression model assessed CRC screening prevalence differences by survey year and sociodemographic characteristics. In 2021, 19.7%-that is, fewer than 4 million of the eligible 19 million adults aged 45 to 49 years-were up-to-date on CRC screening. Screening was lowest in those who were uninsured (7.6%), had less than a high school diploma (15.4%), and Asian (13.1%). Additionally, fecal occult blood test and/or fecal immunochemical testing was underused, with only 2.4% (<460 000 people) reporting being up-to-date with screening using this modality in 2021. CRC screening in eligible young adults remains low. Concerted efforts to improve screening are warranted, particularly in underserved populations.