Breast Cancer Prevention Practices and Knowledge in Italian and Chinese Women in Italy: Clinical Checkups, Free NHS Screening Adherence, and Breast Self-Examination (BSE).

Breast cancer remains a significant global concern, underscoring the critical need for early detection and prevention strategies. Primary and secondary preventive measures, such as routine screenings and behaviors like breast self-examination (BSE), play a crucial role in facilitating early diagnosis. While the National Health System (NHS) in Italy offers free regular screenings for women aged 50-69, there is a lack of clarity regarding the participation of both Italian and Chinese women residing in Italy in these screening programs. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by thoroughly assessing the involvement in regular clinical check-ups and the types of screening employed, the adherence to free screenings offered by the NHS, and the practice of BSE among women aged 50-69 of these two groups. Furthermore, it investigates their knowledge and perceptions regarding breast cancer and BSE. Results reveal disparities in breast cancer control practice between Italian and Chinese women in Italy: the former demonstrates higher adherence to clinical checkups (53% vs. 3%, p < 0.001), while both groups show low participation in free NHS screenings (70% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Additionally, Chinese women reported significantly lower frequency of mammography (96% vs. 33%, p < 0.001) and ultrasound (69% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). The frequency of BSE also differed substantially, with 47% of Chinese women never performing BSE compared to 12% of Italian women (p < 0.001). This comprehensive exploration provides valuable insights, attitudes, and knowledge into the disparities and potential areas for improvement in breast cancer prevention, thus contributing to the overall well-being of these communities. The findings highlight the necessity for educational initiatives aimed at improving awareness and participation in screenings, particularly among the Chinese population. These initiatives could have profound implications for patient education by equipping women with the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in proactive health behaviors.

The influence of overweight and obesity on participation in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide. The incidence of cervical cancer has decreased after implementation of cervical cancer screening, however, obese women have higher risk of cervical cancer than women of normal weight. This might be caused by a lower participation rate in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the influence of overweight and obesity on adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations. We conducted a thorough systematic literature search of electronic databases to identify studies examining screening participation among overweight and obese women compared to women of normal weight. Based on a random effect model, we calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) of screening participation with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). I2 statistic was used to describe heterogeneity. A total of 32 papers were included. The pooled OR of screening participation was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.89-0.99) for overweight women and 0.79 (95%CI: 0.68-0.92) for obese women compared to women of normal weight. The heterogeneity was substantial (overweight: I2 = 89%; obese: I2 = 93%). The OR for screening adherence was 0.91 (95%CI: 0.80-1.05), 0.85 (95%CI: 0.70-1.03) and 0.67 (95%CI: 0.54-0.84) for women in obesity class I, II and III, respectively. The OR varied by geographical region and race. In conclusion, obese women are less likely to participate in cervical cancers screening compared to women of normal weight. In addition, the likelihood of adherence to screening recommendations decreases with increasing obesity class. This stresses the need for targeted intervention to increase screening adherence for overweight and obese women.

Individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics of lung cancer screening participants undergoing telemedicine shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Although lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality in clinical trial settings, many questions remain about how to implement high-quality LCS in real-world programs. With the increasing use of telemedicine in healthcare, studies examining this approach in the context of LCS are urgently needed. We aimed to identify sociodemographic and other factors associated with screening completion among individuals undergoing telemedicine Shared Decision Making (SDM) for LCS. METHODS: This retrospective study examined patients who completed Shared Decision Making (SDM) via telemedicine between May 4, 2020 - March 18, 2021 in a centralized LCS program. Individuals were categorized into Complete Screening vs. Incomplete Screening subgroups based on the status of subsequent LDCT completion. A multi-level, multivariate model was constructed to identify factors associated with incomplete screening. RESULTS: Among individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM during the study period, 20.6% did not complete a LDCT scan. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that Black/African-American race, Medicaid insurance status, and new patient type were associated with greater odds of incomplete screening. On multi-level, multivariate analysis, individuals who were new patients undergoing baseline LDCT or resided in a census tract with a high level of socioeconomic deprivation had significantly higher odds of incomplete screening. Individuals with a greater level of education experienced lower odds of incomplete screening. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM for LCS, predictors of incomplete screening included low education, high neighborhood-level deprivation, and new patient type. Future research should focus on testing implementation strategies to improve LDCT completion rates while leveraging telemedicine for high-quality LCS.

Experiences of patients and family members with follow-up care, information needs and provider support after identification of Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome is among the most common hereditary cancer syndromes and requires ongoing cancer surveillance, repeated screenings and potential risk-reducing surgeries. Despite the importance of continued surveillance, there is limited understanding of patient experiences after initial testing and counseling, the barriers or facilitators they experience adhering to recommendations, and how they want to receive information over time. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted among 127 probands and family members who had received genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome. We conducted semi-structured interviews to determine proband and family member experiences after receiving genetic testing results including their surveillance and screening practices, information needs, and interactions with health care providers. Both closed-ended and open-ended data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Both probands (96.9%) and family members (76.8%) received recommendations for follow-up screening and all probands (100%) and most family members (98.2%) who tested positive had completed at least one screening. Facilitators to screening included receiving screening procedure reminders and the ease of making screening and surveillance appointments. Insurance coverage to pay for screenings was a frequent concern especially for those under 50 years of age. Participants commented that their primary care providers were often not knowledgeable about Lynch Syndrome and surveillance recommendations; this presented a hardship in navigating ongoing surveillance and updated information. Participants preferred information from a knowledgeable health care provider or a trusted internet source over social media or support groups. CONCLUSIONS: Probands and family members receiving genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome generally adhered to initial screening and surveillance recommendations. However, factors such as insurance coverage and difficulty finding a knowledgeable healthcare provider presented barriers to receiving recommended follow-up care. There is an opportunity to improve care through better transitions in care, procedures to keep primary care providers informed of surveillance guidelines, and practices so that patients receive reminders and facilitated appointment setting for ongoing screening and surveillance at the time they are due.

Changed definition of disease and broader screening criteria had little impact on prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: There are major controversies in screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The present study evaluates the impact of the 2017 revised guidelines for GDM screening and a changed definition of GDM in Norway. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a case-series design and included women with no pre-pregnancy diabetes mellitus, who gave birth after gestational week 29 to a singleton fetus at the University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, or at a local maternity ward in Troms county, during the first 6 months of 2013 (before group, n = 676) and 2018 (after group, n = 673). Data were collected from antenatal records, maternal health information sheets, and electronic medical records (Partus). We assessed the screening criteria age, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, and ethnicity. Primary outcomes were change in size of the population eligible for GDM screening, screening adherence, and prevalence of GDM, and follow up of GDM (treatment and obstetric risk assessment at gestational week 36). Statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS with chi-squared test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The proportion of women eligible for GDM screening increased from 46.4% in the before group to 67.6% in the after group (+45%) (p < 0.01). However, screening adherence among eligible women was only 28.3% and 49.2% in the before and after groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Among screened women, 16.9% (15/89) and 10.7% (24/224), respectively, were diagnosed with GDM, resulting in an overall estimated prevalence of 2.2% (15/676) and 3.6% (24/673). Among women diagnosed with GDM, 13.3% received no follow up in 2013 and this proportion was 20.8% in 2018. The remaining women underwent obstetric risk assessment at gestational week 36 as advised in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of broader screening criteria and a more liberal case definition increased the population eligible for GDM screening by 45%. The higher proportion of women screened resulted in an insignificant higher prevalence of GDM. Screening adherence was poor in both study groups. Stakeholders for obstetric care need to consolidate quality measures and revisit the screening algorithm.

Black patients referred to a lung cancer screening program experience lower rates of screening and longer time to follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities are well-documented in preventive cancer care, but they have not been fully explored in the context of lung cancer screening. We sought to explore racial differences in lung cancer screening outcomes within a lung cancer screening program (LCSP) at our urban academic medical center including differences in baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results, time to follow-up, adherence, as well as return to annual screening after additional imaging, loss to follow-up, and cancer diagnoses in patients with positive baseline scans. METHODS: A historical cohort study of patients referred to our LCSP was conducted to extract demographic and clinical characteristics, smoking history, and lung cancer screening outcomes. RESULTS: After referral to the LCSP, blacks had significantly lower odds of receiving LDCT compared to whites, even while controlling for individual lung cancer risk factors and neighborhood-level factors. Blacks also demonstrated a trend toward delayed follow-up, decreased adherence, and loss to follow-up across all Lung-RADS categories. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, lung cancer screening annual adherence rates were low, regardless of race, highlighting the need for increased patient education and outreach. Furthermore, the disparities in race we identified encourage further research with the purpose of creating culturally competent and inclusive LCSPs.

Is it disgusting or am I just easily disgusted? The relation between situational disgust, dispositional disgust, and colonoscopy intentions.

OBJECTIVE: While early detection is an effective way to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, screening rates are low. An underlying factor in screening completion failure may be experiences of disgust when learning about screening and/or dispositional disgust. METHOD: Participants recruited via Amazon MTurk (N = 296) read information about colonoscopy and completed an online survey assessing both dispositional forms of disgust (i.e. trait disgust and disgust sensitivity) and situational forms, including state disgust and disgust associated with colonoscopy. Participants reported intentions to discuss colonoscopy with a provider and to prepare for and complete screening. RESULTS: Greater state disgust and the degree to which one associated disgust with colonoscopy predicted lower screening, preparation and provider discussion intentions. By contrast, neither trait disgust nor disgust sensitivity was associated with intentions. Both disgust sensitivity and trait disgust moderated the state disgust to intentions relation. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of few investigations of disgust examining the relation between specific types and colonoscopy intentions. Screening uptake may be improved by identifying specific components of disgust that have an effect on colonoscopy intentions. Future work focusing on the interplay between different disgust mechanisms as they relate to colonoscopy behaviour is important for intervention development.

Effect of Imperfect Compliance With Instructions for Fecal Sample Collection on Diagnostic Performance of 9 Fecal Immunochemical Tests.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) measure hemoglobin in stool to identify individuals at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there are many different FITs, with different instructions for fecal sample collection. In routine practice, participants do not always follow these instructions exactly. We assessed the effects of violations of fecal sampling instructions on the diagnostic performance of 9 quantitative FITs. METHODS: We obtained stool samples from 76 patients with CRC scheduled for surgery at 4 hospitals in Germany and 100 participants without advanced neoplasms who participated in a prospective colonoscopy screening program. We filled fecal sample tubes according to the manufacturers' instructions or with 3 violations that are likely to occur in routine practice. The diagnostic performance was assessed for a total of 6336 FIT samples (176 participants × 9 FITs × 4 sampling methods). RESULTS: Sample collection instructions varied widely among FITs but included 3 key components: multiple insertions of the sampling rod into stool, a visual check of rod for complete filling with stool, and once-only insertion of the stool-filled rod into the tube. Violation of the first 2 components (inserting the rod into the stool sample only 1 time or not visually checking the rod for complete filling) reduced levels of hemoglobin measured. However, the effect on diagnostic performance was generally small. Violation of the third component (insertion of more stool into the tube than recommended) increased levels of hemoglobin measured in samples and identified more patients with CRC (increase of median sensitivity by almost 10% units) at a small loss of specificity (decrease of median specificity by 2% units), and produced the highest area under the curve for detection of CRC cases for 6 FITs. CONCLUSIONS: Violations of fecal sampling instructions can lead to non-negligible variations in fecal hemoglobin measurements. The limited adverse effects on diagnostic performance indicate the robustness of FITs. The potential for increasing diagnostic performance by collecting more stool material should be followed up in further research.

Immigration and Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening: A Provincewide Longitudinal Matched Cohort Study Using Multistate Transitional Models.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies highlighting inequities in cancer screening between immigrants and non-immigrants have been methodologically limited. This longitudinal matched cohort study used a multistate modelling framework to examine associations between immigration status and cervical cancer screening adherence. METHODS: A 1:1 matched cohort of women aged 25 and older from 1992-2014 who were residing in Ontario was examined. For each woman, the proportion of time spent being non-adherent was determined. Disparities in cervical screening adherence, and specifically the association between immigration status and the rate of becoming adherent, were investigated with a three-state transitional model. The model was adjusted for individual- and physician-level characteristics, which were updated annually and incorporated as time-varying covariates. RESULTS: The matched cohort consisted of 1 156 720 immigrant and non-immigrant women. The median proportion of time spent non-adherent was 38.9% for immigrants and 24.7% for non-immigrants. The rate of becoming adherent among immigrants was lower than that among non-immigrants, after accounting for individual- and physician-level characteristics (relative rate 0.933; 95% CI 0.928-0.937). Other characteristics such as socioeconomic status, immigrant region of origin, presence of primary physician, and physician's sex were found to be significantly associated with cervical screening adherence. CONCLUSION: This study assessed the association between immigration status and adherence to cervical cancer screening. The insights from this work can be used to target groups of women vulnerable to underscreening and to minimize their time spent non-adherent to cancer screening. The methodology serves as a useful framework for examining adherence to other types of cancer screening.

Analyzing factors enabling colorectal cancer screening adherence in Korean Americans using the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization.

Purpose/objectives: Korean Americans (KAs) report suboptimal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. This study investigated factors that enable KAs to adhere to CRC screening guidelines using the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization. Design: Cross-sectional survey using self-reported measures of CRC screening behaviors. Sample and methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 433 KAs aged 50-75 from the Atlanta metropolitan area who completed questionnaires measuring predisposing (i.e., gender, age, marital status, and educational attainment), enabling (income, health insurance, regular annual health checkups, doctor's recommendation English proficiency, CRC knowledge, self-efficacy for CRC screening, and decisional balance in CRC screening), and need (family cancer history and self-reported health status) factors associated with CRC screening. Findings: A multiple logistic regression model including all 14 predictor variables revealed that several enabling factors (i.e., income, regular annual health checkups, doctor's recommendation, self-efficacy, and decisional balance) independently predicted increased CRC screening adherence in KAs. No predisposing or need factors independently predicted CRC screening. Conclusions and implications for psychosocial providers or policy: To increase CRC screening adherence among KAs, psychosocial interventions should target on improving their self-efficacy and decisional balance regarding CRC screening, while policy interventions should focus on promoting health providers' CRC screening recommendations during routine health checkups.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Interventions to Improve Endoscopic Screening Adherence of Cancer in High-Risk Populations: A Scoping Review.

Background: Colorectal, and gastric cancers have the second, and fourth mortality rates worldwide, respectively. Endoscopic screening is a crucial diagnostic tool for colorectal, and gastric cancers. Effective interventions can improve adherence to endoscopic screening in high-risk populations, which is important for cancer prevention and mortality reduction. This study aimed to identify interventions that could improve adherence to endoscopic screening for cancer in high-risk populations. Methods: Combination keywords including colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, screening adherence, and interventions were used to search for articles in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE Complete. The review methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCR). Results: A total of 12 articles were included in this review: 9 randomized controlled trials(RCT) and 3 quasi-experimental studies(QEDs). Among the extracted studies, 11 were about colorectal cancer, and 1 was about gastric cancer. Most studies used lecture-based or Information Technology-based health education interventions. Narrative interventions have proven to be novel and effective approaches for promoting adherence to endoscopic screening. Health education interventions included cancer epidemiology, cancer risk factors, warning symptoms, and screening methods. Conclusion: All interventions involved were effective in increasing individual knowledge of cancer-related endoscopic screening, willingness to undergo screening, and screening behaviors. These findings provide a reference for designing endoscopy-related cancer screening interventions.

The use of social simulation modelling to understand adherence to diabetic retinopathy screening programs.

The success of screening programs depends to a large extent on the adherence of the target population, so it is therefore of fundamental importance to develop computer simulation models that make it possible to understand the factors that correlate with this adherence, as well as to identify population groups with low adherence to define public health strategies that promote behavioral change. Our aim is to demonstrate that it is possible to simulate screening adherence behavior using computer simulations. Three versions of an agent-based model are presented using different methods to determine the agent's individual decision to adhere to screening: (a) logistic regression; (b) fuzzy logic components and (c) a combination of the previous. All versions were based on real data from 271,867 calls for diabetic retinopathy screening. The results obtained are statistically very close to the real ones, which allows us to conclude that despite having a high degree of abstraction from the real data, the simulations are very valid and useful as a tool to support decisions in health planning, while evaluating multiple scenarios and accounting for emergent behavior.

Colorectal cancer screening: Modalities and adherence.

In the last decade, several studies have explored various modalities and strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, taking into account epidemiological data, individual characteristics, and socioeconomic factors. In this editorial, we comment further on a retrospective study by Agatsuma et al published in the recent issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology. Our focus is on screening trends, particularly in relation to efforts to improve the currently suboptimal uptake among the general population worldwide, aiming to enhance early diagnosis rates of CRC. There is a need to raise awareness through health edu-cation programs and to consider the use of readily available, non-invasive screening methods. These strategies are crucial for attracting screen-eligible populations to participate in first-line screening, especially those in high- or average-risk groups and in regions with limited resources. Liquid biopsies and biomarkers represent rapidly evolving trends in screening and diagnosis; however, their clinical relevance has yet to be standardized.

Repeat Annual Lung Cancer Screening After Baseline Screening Among Screen-Negative Individuals: No-Cost Coverage Is Not Enough.

PURPOSE: Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) is central to effective screening. The authors evaluated the likelihood of repeat annual LCS in a national commercially insured population and associations with individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and annual out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) burden. METHODS: Using claims data from an employer-insured population (Clinformatics), individuals 55 to 80 years of age undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2019, with "negative" LCS were included. Repeat LCS was defined as low-dose chest CT occurring 10 to 15 months after the preceding LCS. Analysis was conducted over a 6-year period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between repeat LCS and individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and total OOPC incurred by the individual in the year of the index LCS, even if unrelated to LCS. RESULTS: Of 14,943 individuals with negative LCS, 4,561 (30.5%) underwent repeat LCS. Likelihood of repeat LCS was decreased for men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and indemnity insurance plans (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53). Relative to New England, individuals in nearly all US geographic regions were less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Finally, individuals with total OOPC in the highest two quartiles were less likely to undergo repeat LCS (aOR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92] for OOPC >$1,069.02-$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.68-0.82] for OOPC >$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82). CONCLUSIONS: Although federal policies facilitate LCS without cost sharing, individuals incurring high OOPC, even when unrelated to LCS, are less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Future policy design should consider the permeative burden of OOPC across the health continuum on preventive services use.

Association between employer-based health promotion programs and adherence to breast cancer screening in Texas.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women in Texas. Although adherence to recommended screening mammogram guidelines enables early detection and reduces breast cancer risks, screening mammogram adherence is low in Texas. With the rising percentage of women in the workforce, employer-based health promotion programs could be an effective measure in increasing mammogram adherence, thereby reducing breast cancer risk in Texas. Although employer-based health programs are common in the state, little is known about their effectiveness in increasing screening mammogram adherence among age-eligible employed females. The study survey was administered using Qualtrics and the study participants were representative of the Texas population. The study population included 318 females from Texas who were 50-74 years old. Among those who had access to employer-based health promotion programs, 65.4 % were adherent and 34.6 % were non-adherent to the guidelines. Population-weighted survey logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between access to employer-based health promotion programs and mammogram adherence for employed women (AOR: 0.85 [0.15-4.79], p-value = 0.86). However, access to healthcare coverage (AOR: 7.58 [2.89-19.88], p-value < 0.001), those who disagree with the fatalistic belief that everything causes cancer (AOR: 2.99 [1.45-6.19], p-value < 0.001), and those who perceive cancer screening important (AOR: 12.36 [2.26-67.47], p < 0.05) were found as significant determinants of mammogram adherence among females in Texas. The study concluded that access to employer-based health promotion programs alone was insufficient to improve breast cancer screening. The employers and the insurance companies, with support from the government, should develop a comprehensive program that addresses all structural and psychosocial barriers to employee breast cancer screening adherence.

The Impact of Downstream Procedures on Lung Cancer Screening Adherence.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Evaluate downstream procedures after lung cancer screening (LCS), including imaging and invasive procedures, in screened individuals without screen-detected lung cancer. (2) Determine the association between repeat LCS and downstream procedures and patient characteristics. METHODS: Individuals receiving LCS between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2020, from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database were included. Individuals with lung cancer after LCS were excluded. We determined frequency and costs of downstream procedures after LCS, including diagnostic imaging (chest CT, PET, or CT using fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging) and invasive procedures (bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, thoracic surgery). A generalized estimating equation was used to model repeat LCS as a function of downstream procedures and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was repeat screening within 1 year of index LCS, and a secondary analysis evaluated the outcome of repeat screening with 2 years of index LCS. RESULTS: In all, 23,640 individuals receiving 30,521 LCS examinations were included in the primary analysis; 17.7% of LCS examinations (5,414 of 30,521) prompted downstream testing, with chest CT within 4 months being most common (9.1%, 2,769 of 30,521). At multivariable analysis adjusted for patient characteristics, the occurrence of a downstream diagnostic imaging test or invasive procedure was associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat annual LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.34-0.44; adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.63-0.90, respectively). DISCUSSION: Downstream imaging and invasive procedures after LCS are potential barriers to LCS adherence. Efforts to reduce false-positives at LCS and reduce patient costs from downstream procedures are likely necessary to ensure that downstream workup after LCS does not discourage screening adherence.

Factors Associated With Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Among Patients With Negative Baseline CT Results in a Community Health Care Setting.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, that reduction depends upon screening adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with adherence rate for LCS among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network LCS program between January 2015 and January 2020. The two outcomes were adherence for the first and second subsequent LCS studies. Negative baseline result was defined as a Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System score 0, 1, or 2. Adherence was defined as undergoing a follow-up study within 11 to 15 months of a prior scan. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of adherence, adjusting for patient demographics, median household income (on the basis of geocoding ZIP codes from the US Census Bureau), smoking history, screening sites, and provider specialty. RESULTS: A total of 30.7% (512 of 1,668) and 16.3% (270 of 1,660) of patients were adherent for the first two annual subsequent screens, respectively. First-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site and provider specialty. Second-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site, provider specialty, and pack-years smoked. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to LCS in a multihospital integrated health care network was poor and even lower at year 2. The identified factors associated with adherence may serve as targets to increase LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer mortality.

The impact of cumulative colorectal cancer screening delays: A simulation study.

OBJECTIVE: Annual fecal immunochemical tests can reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, screening is a multi-step process and most patients do not perfectly adhere to guideline-recommended screening schedules. Our objective was to compare the reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and life-years gained based on US guideline-concordant fecal immunochemical test screening to scenarios with a range of delays. METHOD: The Colorectal Cancer Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history (CRC-SPIN) microsimulation model was used to estimate the effect of systematic departures from fecal immunochemical test screening guidelines on lifetime screening benefit. RESULTS: The combined effect of consistent modest delays in screening initiation (1 year), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (3 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (3 months) resulted in up to 1.3 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 0.4 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 154.7 fewer life-years gained per 10,000. A 5-year delay in screening initiation had a larger impact on screening effectiveness than consistent small delays in repeated fecal immunochemical test screening or receipt of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test. The combined effect of consistent large delays in screening initiation (5 years), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (6 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (6 months) resulted in up to 3.7 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 1.5 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 612.3 fewer life-years gained per 10,000. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic delays across the screening process can result in meaningful reductions in colorectal cancer screening effectiveness, especially for longer delays. Screening delays could drive differences in colorectal cancer incidence across patient groups with differential access to screening.

The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Lung Cancer Screening Utilization.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand how social determinants of health might influence lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence. METHODS: All LCS low-dose CT appointments scheduled at an urban, tertiary care academic medical center in the New England region between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Demographics, insurance type, information on social determinants of health, and appointment status were obtained from the electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the associations between the appointment status and the explanatory variables. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,797 patients had 4,747 scheduled LCS appointments. Forty-one percent of patients had at least one missed appointment, and 32.7% of all scheduled appointments were missed. The retention rate of patients after the baseline examination was approximately 50%. Self-reported Black race was independently associated with 1.5 times the odds of missing appointments compared with White race (P = .012). Patients with Medicaid had 6.1 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with private insurance and 4.6 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with Medicare (P < .0001). Housing insecurity was a risk factor for failing to follow up after the baseline examination, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (P = .0013). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of missed LCS appointments underscores the need to improve screening compliance. The identification of specific social determinants of health that contribute to disparities in access to LCS could empower policymakers, hospital systems, and providers to use targeted interventions to promote more equitable access.