Global review of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their impact on cancer service disruptions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. METHODS: Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. RESULTS: Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Tobacco smoking changes during the first pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Globally, tobacco smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced nations to take unprecedented measures, including 'lockdowns' that might impact tobacco smoking behaviour. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess smoking behaviour changes during the early pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Methods: We searched Medline/Embase/PsycINFO/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases (January-November 2020) for published and pre-print articles that reported specific smoking behaviour changes or intentions after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used random-effects models to pool prevalence ratios comparing the prevalence of smoking during and before the pandemic, and the prevalence of smoking behaviour changes during the pandemic. The PROSPERO registration number for this systematic review was CRD42020206383. Findings: 31 studies were included in meta-analyses, with smoking data for 269,164 participants across 24 countries. The proportion of people smoking during the pandemic was lower than that before, with a pooled prevalence ratio of 0·87 (95%CI:0·79-0·97). Among people who smoke, 21% (95%CI:14-30%) smoked less, 27% (95%CI:22-32%) smoked more, 50% (95%CI:41%-58%) had unchanged smoking and 4% (95%CI:1-9%) reported quitting smoking. Among people who did not smoke, 2% (95%CI:1-3%) started smoking during the pandemic. Heterogeneity was high in all meta-analyses and so the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution (I2 >91% and p-heterogeneity<0·001). Almost all studies were at high risk of bias due to use of non-representative samples, non-response bias, and utilisation of non-validated questions. Interpretation: Smoking behaviour changes during the first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 were highly mixed. Meta-analyses indicated that there was a relative reduction in overall smoking prevalence during the pandemic, while similar proportions of people who smoke smoked more or smoked less, although heterogeneity was high. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco control policies and programs, including tobacco cessation services, have an important role in ensuring that the COVID-19 pandemic does not exacerbate the smoking pandemic and associated adverse health outcomes. Funding: No specific funding was received for this study.

Assessing reinforcing versus aversive consequences in a real-time secondhand smoke intervention.

Few studies have examined the relative effectiveness of reinforcing versus aversive consequences at changing behavior in real-world environments. Real-time sensing devices makes it easier to investigate such questions, offering the potential to improve both intervention outcomes and theory. This research aims to describe the development of a real-time, operant theory-based secondhand smoke (SHS) intervention and compare the efficacy of aversive versus aversive plus reinforcement contingency systems. Indoor air particle monitors were placed in the households of 253 smokers for approximately three months. Participants were assigned to a measurement-only control group (N = 129) or one of the following groups: 1.) aversive only (AO, N = 71), with aversive audio/visual consequences triggered by the detection of elevated air particle measurements, or 2.) aversive plus reinforcement (AP, N = 53), with reinforcing consequences contingent on the absence of SHS added to the AO intervention. Residualized change ANCOVA analysis compared particle concentrations over time and across groups. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were also performed. After controlling for Baseline, Post-Baseline daily particle counts (F = 6.42, p = 0.002), % of time >15,000 counts (F = 7.72, p < 0.001), and daily particle events (F = 4.04, p = 0.02) significantly differed by study group. Nearly all control versus AO/AP pair-wise comparisons were statistically significant. No significant differences were found for AO versus AP groups. The aversive feedback system reduced SHS, but adding reinforcing consequences did not further improve outcomes. The complexity of real-world environments requires the nuances of these two contingency systems continue to be explored, with this study demonstrating that real-time sensing technology can serve as a platform for such research.

Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a scoping review on the benefits and harm of mpMRI in different biopsy scenarios.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty on how multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) can be best used to manage low-risk prostate cancer patients on Active Surveillance (AS). We performed a scoping review to evaluate the benefits and harm associated with four different biopsy scenarios in which mpMRI can be implemented in AS. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases (1 January 2013-18 September 2020) were searched. Included studies were on men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in AS, who had mpMRI ± MRI-TB and standard prostate biopsy (systematic transrectal ultrasound or transperineal saturation biopsy), at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. Primary outcomes were the number of Gleason score upgrades and biopsies avoided. RESULTS: Eight confirmatory biopsy studies and three follow-up biopsy studies were included. Compared to the benchmark of using standard biopsy (SB) for all men, the addition of MRI-TB increased the detection of Gleason score upgrades at both confirmatory (6/8 studies) and follow-up biopsy (3/3 studies), with increments of 1.7-11.8 upgrades per 100 men. 6/7 studies suggested that the use of a positive mpMRI to triage men for MRI-TB or SB alone would detect fewer Gleason score upgrades than benchmark at confirmatory biopsy, but the combination of MRI-TB and SB would detect more upgrades than the benchmark. For follow-up biopsy, the evidence on mpMRI triage biopsy scenarios was inconclusive due to the small number of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of MRI-TB to benchmark (SB for all men) maximises the detection of Gleason score upgrades at confirmatory and follow-up biopsy. When the use of mpMRI to triage men for a biopsy is desired, the combination of MRI-TB and SB should be considered for men with positive mpMRI at confirmatory biopsy. The evidence on mpMRI triage scenarios was inconclusive in the follow-up biopsy setting.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of residential radon and lung cancer in never-smokers.

BACKGROUND: Globally, radon is the leading risk factor for lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS). In this study, we systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the evidence of the risk of LCINS associated with residential radon exposure. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify relevant studies published from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2020 focused on never-smokers. We identified four pooled collaborative studies (incorporating data from 24 case-control studies), one case-control study and one cohort study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed on the results of the four pooled studies due to different measures of effect and outcome reported in the cohort study and insufficient information reported for the case-control study. In a post hoc analysis, the corresponding risk for ever-smokers was also examined. RESULTS: Risk estimates of lung cancer from residential radon exposure were pooled in the meta-analysis for 2341 never-smoker cases, 8967 never-smoker controls, 9937 ever-smoker cases and 12 463 ever-smoker controls. Adjusted excess relative risks (aERRs) per 100 Bq·m-3 of radon level were 0.15 (95% CI 0.06-0.25) for never-smokers and 0.09 (95% CI 0.03-0.16) for ever-smokers, and the difference between them was statistically insignificant (p=0.32). The aERR per 100 Bq·m-3was higher for men (0.46; 95% CI 0.15-0.76) than for women (0.09; 95% CI -0.02-0.20) among never-smokers (p=0.027). CONCLUSION: This study provided quantified risk estimates for lung cancer from residential radon exposure among both never-smokers and ever-smokers. Among never-smokers in radon-prone areas, men were at higher risk of lung cancer than women.

Randomised controlled trial of real-time feedback and brief coaching to reduce indoor smoking.

BACKGROUND: Previous secondhand smoke (SHS) reduction interventions have provided only delayed feedback on reported smoking behaviour, such as coaching, or presenting results from child cotinine assays or air particle counters. DESIGN: This SHS reduction trial assigned families at random to brief coaching and continuous real-time feedback (intervention) or measurement-only (control) groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 298 families with a resident tobacco smoker and a child under age 14. INTERVENTION: We installed air particle monitors in all homes. For the intervention homes, immediate light and sound feedback was contingent on elevated indoor particle levels, and up to four coaching sessions used prompts and praise contingent on smoking outdoors. Mean intervention duration was 64 days. MEASURES: The primary outcome was 'particle events' (PEs) which were patterns of air particle concentrations indicative of the occurrence of particle-generating behaviours such as smoking cigarettes or burning candles. Other measures included indoor air nicotine concentrations and participant reports of particle-generating behaviour. RESULTS: PEs were significantly correlated with air nicotine levels (r=0.60) and reported indoor cigarette smoking (r=0.51). Interrupted time-series analyses showed an immediate intervention effect, with reduced PEs the day following intervention initiation. The trajectory of daily PEs over the intervention period declined significantly faster in intervention homes than in control homes. Pretest to post-test, air nicotine levels, cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use decreased more in intervention homes than in control homes. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that real-time particle feedback and coaching contingencies reduced PEs generated by cigarette smoking and other sources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01634334; Post-results.

The predicted impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in people with incident colorectal cancer (CRC) in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We investigated the impact of LS testing strategies in a micro-simulation model (Policy1-Lynch), explicitly modelling the cost of testing all patients diagnosed with incident CRC during 2017, with detailed modelling of outcomes for patients identified as LS carriers (probands) and their at-risk relatives throughout their lifetimes. For people with confirmed LS, we modelled ongoing colonoscopic surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness of six universal tumour testing strategies (testing for DNA mismatch repair deficiencies) and of universal germline gene panel testing of patients with incident CRC; impact on cost-effectiveness of restricting testing by age at CRC diagnosis (all ages, under 50/60/70 years) and of colonoscopic surveillance interval (one, two years). RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio of universal tumour testing strategies (annual colonoscopic surveillance, no testing age limit) compared with no testing ranged from $28 915 to $31 904/life-year saved (LYS) (indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: $30 000-$50 000/LYS). These strategies could avert 184-189 CRC deaths with an additional 30 597-31 084 colonoscopies over the lifetimes of 1000 patients with incident CRC with LS and 1420 confirmed LS carrier relatives (164-166 additional colonoscopies/death averted). The most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $28 915/LYS). Universal germline gene panel testing was not cost-effective compared with universal tumour testing strategies (ICER, $2.4 million/LYS). Immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing was cost-effective at all age limits when paired with 2-yearly colonoscopic surveillance (ICER, $11 525-$32 153/LYS), and required 4778-15 860 additional colonoscopies to avert 46-181 CRC deaths (88-103 additional colonoscopies/death averted). CONCLUSIONS: Universal tumour testing strategies for guiding germline genetic testing of people with incident CRC for LS in Australia are likely to be cost-effective compared with no testing. Universal germline gene panel testing would not currently be cost-effective.

Factors associated with the use of diet and the use of exercise for prostate cancer by long-term survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of diet and the use of exercise for prostate cancer (and/or its treatments' side effects) by long-term survivors and whether such use is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and psychological factors. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort study in New South Wales, Australia of prostate cancer survivors aged <70 years at diagnosis and who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire. METHODS: Validated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative proportions (RRs) of prostate cancer survivor groups who were currently eating differently ('using diet') or exercise differently ('using exercise') to help with their prostate cancer. RESULTS: 996 (61.0% of 1634) participants completed the 10-year questionnaire of whom 118 (11.8%; 95%CI[9.8-13.9]) were using diet and 78 (7.8%; 95%CI[6.2-9.5]) were using exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Men were more likely to use diet or use exercise for prostate cancer if they were younger (p-trend = 0.020 for diet, p-trend = 0.045 for exercise), more educated (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.011), support group participants (p-nominal<0.001, p-nominal = 0.005), had higher Gleason score at diagnosis (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.002) and had knowledge of cancer spread (p-nominal = 0.002, p-nominal = 0.001). Use of diet was also associated with receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 1.59; 95%CI[1.04-2.45]), a greater fear of cancer recurrence (p-trend = 0.010), cognitive avoidance (p-trend = 0.025) and greater perceived control of cancer course (p-trend = 0.014). Use of exercise was also associated with receipt of prostatectomy (RR = 2.02; 95%CI[1.12-3.63]), receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 2.20; 95%CI[1.34-3.61]) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (p-trend = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Few long-term prostate cancer survivors use diet or exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Survivors may benefit from counselling on the scientific evidence supporting healthy eating and regular exercise for improving quality-of-life and cancer-related outcomes.

Statistical projection methods for lung cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarise all studies using statistical methods to project lung cancer incidence or mortality rates more than 5 years into the future. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in multiple electronic databases to identify studies published from 1 January 1988 to 14 August 2018, which used statistical methods to project lung cancer incidence and/or mortality rates. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional potentially relevant articles. We developed an organisational framework to classify methods into groups according to the type of data and the statistical models used. Included studies were critically appraised using prespecified criteria. RESULTS: One hundred and one studies met the inclusion criteria; six studies used more than one statistical method. The number of studies reporting statistical projections for lung cancer increased substantially over time. Eighty-eight studies used projection methods, which did not incorporate data on smoking in the population, and 16 studies used a method which did incorporate data on smoking. Age-period-cohort models (44 studies) were the most commonly used methods, followed by other generalised linear models (35 studies). The majority of models were developed using observed rates for more than 10 years and used data that were considered to be good quality. A quarter of studies provided comparisons of fitted and observed rates. While validation by withholding the most recent observed data from the model and then comparing the projected and observed rates for the most recent period provides important information on the model's performance, only 12 studies reported doing this. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an up-to-date summary of the statistical methods used in published lung cancer incidence or mortality projections. The assessment of the strengths of existing methods will help researchers to better apply and develop statistical methods for projecting lung cancer rates. Some of the common methods described in this review can be applied to the projection of rates for other cancer types or other non-infectious diseases.

Indoor cannabis smoke and children's health.

Cannabis use is increasing and cannabis is typically consumed by smoking. This study explored how indoor secondhand cannabis smoke (SCS) was associated with child health. As part of a larger trial, air particle monitors were placed in 298 homes of families with at least one cigarette smoker and one child under 14 years old in San Diego County, California. Assessment included past 7-day indoor cigarette and cannabis use, the youngest child's exposure to cigarette smoke, and 5 smoke-related past-year child health outcomes: emergency department use for coughing/difficulty breathing; physician diagnosis of ear infection, bronchitis/bronchiolitis, asthma, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. An ordinal measure of adverse health outcomes (0, 1, or ≥2) was regressed on reported indoor cannabis smoking-the main measure of exposure (yes/no). Of 221 parents/guardians asked about cannabis use, 192 (86.9%) provided all required data, and 29 (15.1%) reported indoor cannabis smoking; reports were supported by air particle data. Homes without indoor smoking had lower average 7-day particle concentrations (1968 particles/0.01ft3) than homes with cannabis smoking only (3131 particles/0.01ft3), cigarette smoking only (3095 particles/0.01ft3), or both cigarette and cannabis smoking (6006 particles/0.01ft3). Odds of reporting a greater number of adverse health outcomes were 1.83 (95% CI = 0.89-3.80, p = 0.10) times higher for children of families with indoor cannabis smoking vs families without cannabis smoking, after controlling for exposure to cigarette smoke and other covariates. Our results do not indicate a statistically significant association. However, the magnitude of the (non-significant) association between indoor cannabis smoking and adverse health outcomes warrants more studies.

Pathways to a cancer-free future: A protocol for modelled evaluations to maximize the future impact of interventions on cervical cancer in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Australia's HPV vaccination and HPV-based cervical screening programs are changing the landscape in cervical cancer prevention. We aim to identify areas which can make the biggest further impact on cervical cancer burden. This protocol describes the first stage of a program of work called Pathways-Cervix that aims to generate evidence from modelled evaluations of interventions across the cervical cancer spectrum. METHODS: Based on evidence from literature reviews and guidance from a multi-disciplinary Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), the most relevant evaluations for prevention, diagnosis and treatment were identified. RESULTS: Priority evaluations agreed by the SAC included: increasing/decreasing and retaining vaccination uptake at the current level; vaccinating older women; increasing screening participation; methods for triaging HPV-positive women; improving the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer; treating cervical abnormalities and cancer; and vaccinating women treated for CIN2/3 to prevent recurrence. Evaluations will be performed using a simulation model, Policy1-Cervix previously used to perform policy evaluations in Australia. Exploratory modelling of interventions using idealised scenarios will initially be conducted in single birth cohorts. If these have a significant impact on findings then evaluations with more realistic assumptions will be conducted. Promising strategies will be investigated further by multi-cohort simulations predicting health outcomes, resource use and cost outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pathways-Cervix will assess the relative benefits of strategies and treatment options in a systematic and health economic framework, producing a list of 'best buys' for future decision-making in cervical cancer control.

Screening for Pregnancy Status in a Population-Based Sample: Characteristics Associated with Item Nonresponse.

OBJECTIVES: Population-based recruitment of a cohort of women who are currently pregnant or who may become pregnant in a given timeframe presents challenges unique to identifying pregnancy status or the likelihood of future pregnancy. Little is known about the performance of individual eligibility items on pregnancy screeners although they are critical to participant recruitment. This paper examined the patterns and respondent characteristics of key pregnancy screener items used in a large national study. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine nonresponse patterns to three questions (currently pregnant, trying to get pregnant and able to get pregnant). The questions were asked of 50,529 women in 17 locations across the US, as part of eligibility screening for the National Children's Study Vanguard Study household-based recruitment. RESULTS: Most respondents were willing to provide information about current pregnancy, trying, and able to get pregnant: 99.3% of respondents answered all three questions and 97.4% provided meaningful answers. Nonresponse ranged from 0.3 to 2.5% for individual items. Multivariable logistic regression results identified small but statistically significant differences in nonresponse by respondent age, marital status, race/ethnicity-language, and household-based recruitment group. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: The high levels of response to pregnancy-related items are impressive considering that the eligibility questions were fairly sensitive, were administered at households, and were not part of a respondent-initiated encounter.

A Markov approach for increasing precision in the assessment of data-intensive behavioral interventions.

Health interventions using real-time sensing technology are characterized by intensive longitudinal data, which has the potential to enable nuanced evaluations of individuals' responses to treatment. Existing analytic tools were not developed to capitalize on this opportunity as they typically focus on first-order findings such as changes in the level and/or slope of outcome variables over different intervention phases. This paper introduces an exploratory, Markov-based empirical transition method that offers a more comprehensive assessment of behavioral responses when intensive longitudinal data are available. The procedure projects a univariate time-series into discrete states and empirically determines the probability of transitioning from one state to another. State transition probabilities are summarized separately in phase-specific transition matrices. Comparing transition matrices illuminates intricate, quantifiable differences in behavior between intervention phases. Statistical significance is estimated via bootstrapping techniques. This paper introduces the methodology via three case studies from a secondhand smoke reduction trial utilizing real-time air particle sensors. Analysis enabled the identification of complex phenomena such as avoidance and escape behavior in response to punitive contingencies for tobacco use. Additionally, the largest changes in behavior dynamics were associated with the introduction of behavioral feedback. The Markov approach's ability to elucidate subtle behavioral details has not typically been feasible with standard methodologies, mainly due to historical limitations associated with infrequent repeated measures. These results suggest that the evaluation of intervention effects in data-intensive single-case designs can be enhanced, providing rich information that can ultimately be used to develop interventions uniquely tailored to specific individuals.

Factors associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicines for prostate cancer by long-term survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of complementary and alternative medicines therapies (CAMs) for prostate cancer and/or its treatment side effects by long-term survivors is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and/or psychological factors. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS) is a population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer who were aged less than 70 years at diagnosis in New South Wales, Australia. Included in these analyses were men who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire, which included questions about CAM use. METHODS: Validated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of current CAM use for prostate cancer according to socio-demographic, clinical, HRQOL and psychological factors. RESULTS: 996 of 1634 (61%) living PCOS participants completed the 10-year questionnaire. Of these 996 men, 168 (17%) were using CAMs for prostate cancer and 525 (53%) were using CAMs for any reason (including prostate cancer). Those using CAM for prostate cancer were more likely to be regular or occasional support group participants (vs. no participation RR = 2.02; 95%CI 1.41-2.88), born in another country (vs. Australian born RR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.17-2.16), have received androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) since diagnosis (RR = 1.60; 95%CI 1.12-2.28) or in the past two years (RR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.56-3.52). CAM use was associated with greater fear of recurrence (RR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.12-1.48), cancer-specific distress (RR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.01-1.30), cancer-specific hyperarousal (RR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31), cancer locus of control (RR = 1.16; 95%CI 1.01-1.34) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (RR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.76-0.97), but not with intrusive thinking, cognitive avoidance, depression, anxiety or any HRQOL domains. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, about one in six long term prostate cancer survivors used CAMs for their prostate cancer with use centred around ADT, country of birth, distress, cancer control, fear of recurrence and active help seeking.

Randomized Trial to Reduce Air Particle Levels in Homes of Smokers and Children.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to fine particulate matter in the home from sources such as smoking, cooking, and cleaning may put residents, especially children, at risk for detrimental health effects. A randomized clinical trial was conducted from 2011 to 2016 to determine whether real-time feedback in the home plus brief coaching of parents or guardians could reduce fine particle levels in homes with smokers and children. DESIGN: A randomized trial with two groups-intervention and control. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 298 participants from predominantly low-income households with an adult smoker and a child aged <14 years. Participants were recruited during 2012-2015 from multiple sources in San Diego, mainly Women, Infants and Children Program sites. INTERVENTION: The multicomponent intervention consisted of continuous lights and brief sound alerts based on fine particle levels in real time and four brief coaching sessions using particle level graphs and motivational interviewing techniques. Motivational interviewing coaching focused on particle reduction to protect children and other occupants from elevated particle levels, especially from tobacco-related sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-home air particle levels were measured by laser particle counters continuously in both study groups. The two outcomes were daily mean particle counts and percentage time with high particle concentrations (>15,000 particles/0.01 ft3). Linear mixed models were used to analyze the differential change in the outcomes over time by group, during 2016-2017. RESULTS: Intervention homes had significantly larger reductions than controls in daily geometric mean particle concentrations (18.8% reduction vs 6.5% reduction, p<0.001). Intervention homes' average percentage time with high particle concentrations decreased 45.1% compared with a 4.2% increase among controls (difference between groups p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time feedback for air particle levels and brief coaching can reduce fine particle levels in homes with smokers and young children. Results set the stage for refining feedback and possible reinforcing consequences for not generating smoke-related particles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01634334.