A population-based survey of self-reported delays in breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening.

The early COVID-19 pandemic was associated with cessation of screening services, but the prevalence of ongoing delays in cancer screening into the third year of the pandemic are not well-characterized. In February/March 2022, a population-based survey assessed cancer needs in New Hampshire and Vermont. The associations between cancer screening delays (breast, cervical, colorectal or lung cancer) and social determinants of health, health care access, and cancer attitudes and beliefs were tested. Distributions and Rao-Scott chi-square tests were used for hypothesis testing and weighted to represent state populations. Of 1717 participants, 55% resided in rural areas, 96% identified as White race, 50% were women, 36% had high school or less education. Screening delays were reported for breast cancer (28%), cervical cancer (30%), colorectal cancer (24%), and lung cancer (30%). Delays were associated with having higher educational attainment (lung), urban living (colorectal), and having Medicaid insurance (breast, cervical). Low confidence in ability to obtain information about cancer was associated with screening delays across screening types. The most common reason for delay was the perception that the screening test was not urgent (31% breast, 30% cervical, 28% colorectal). Cost was the most common reason for delayed lung cancer screening (36%). COVID-19 was indicated as a delay reason in 15-29% of respondents; 12-20% reported health system capacity during the pandemic as a reason for delay, depending on screening type. Interventions that address sub-populations and reasons for screening delays are needed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer burden and mortality.

New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.

BACKGROUND: Established mammography screening performance metrics use the initial screening mammography assessment because they were developed for radiologist performance auditing, yet these metrics are frequently used to inform health policy and screening decision making. The authors have developed new performance metrics based on the final assessment that consider the entire screening episode, including diagnostic workup. METHODS: The authors used data from 2,512,577 screening episodes during 2005-2017 at 146 facilities in the United States participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Screening performance metrics based on the final assessment of the screening episode were compared with conventional metrics defined with the initial assessment. Results were also stratified by breast density and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: The cancer detection rates were similar for the final assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.3 per 1000) and the initial assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% CI, 3.9-4.3 per 1000). The interval cancer rate was 12% higher when it was based on the final assessment (0.77 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83 per 1000) versus the initial assessment (0.69 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74 per 1000), and this resulted in a modest difference in sensitivity (84.1% [95% CI, 83.0%-85.1%] vs 85.7% [95% CI, 84.8%-86.6%], respectively). Absolute differences in the interval cancer rate between final and initial assessments increased with breast density and breast cancer risk (eg, a difference of 0.29 per 1000 for women with extremely dense breasts and a 5-year risk >2.49%). CONCLUSIONS: Established screening performance metrics underestimate the interval cancer rate of a mammography screening episode, particularly for women with dense breasts or an elevated breast cancer risk. Women, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers should use final-assessment performance metrics to support informed screening decisions.