Lung cancer screening use among screening-eligible adults with disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) use among adults with disabilities has not been well characterized. We estimated the prevalence of LCS use by disability types and counts and investigated the association between disability counts and LCS utilization among LCS-eligible adults. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Lung Cancer Screening Module. Based on the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS, the sample included 4407 LCS-eligible adults, aged 55-79 years, with current or former (quit smoking in the past 15 years) tobacco use history of at least 30 pack-years. Disability types included limitations in hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. We also categorized respondents by number of disabilities (no disability, 1 disability, 2 disabilities, 3+ disabilities). We utilized descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine the association between disability counts and the receipt of LCS (yes/no) in the past 12 months. RESULTS: In 2019, 16.4% of LCS-eligible adults were screened for lung cancer. Overall, 49.6% of participants had no disability, and 14.5% had >3 disabilities. Mobility was the most prevalent disability type (35.4%), followed by cognitive impairment (18.2%) and hearing (16.6%). LCS was more prevalent in adults with disability in self-care versus no disability in self-care (24.0% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.01), disability in independent living versus no disability in independent living (22.2% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02), and cognitive impairment disability versus no cognitive impairment (22.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.03). The prevalence rates of LCS among groups of LCS-eligible adults with different disability counts were not significant (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of clinical guidelines on LCS among individuals with disabilities, some individuals with disabilities are being screened for lung cancer. Future research should address this knowledge gap to determine clinical benefit versus harm of LCS among those with disabilities.

Evaluating ChatGPT's Accuracy in Providing Screening Mammography Recommendations among Older Women: Artificial Intelligence and Cancer Communication.

Abstract Objective: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends biennial screening mammography through age 74. Guidelines vary as to whether or not they recommended mammography screening to women aged 75 and older. This study aims to determine the ability of ChatGPT to provide appropriate recommendations for breast cancer screening in patients aged 75 years and older. Methods: 12 questions and 4 clinical vignettes addressing fundamental concepts about breast cancer screening and prevention in patients aged 75 years and older were created and asked to ChatGPT three consecutive times to generate 3 sets of responses. The responses were graded by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts in the intersection of breast cancer screening and aging . The responses were graded as 'appropriate', 'inappropriate', or 'unreliable' based on the reviewer's clinical judgment, content of the response, and whether the content was consistent across the three responses . Appropriateness was determined through a majority consensus. Results: The responses generated by ChatGPT were appropriate for 11/17 questions (64%). Three questions were graded as inappropriate (18%) and 2 questions were graded as unreliable (12%). A consensus was not reached on one question (6%) and was graded as no consensus. Conclusions: While recognizing the limitations of ChatGPT, it has potential to provide accurate health care information and could be utilized by healthcare professionals to assist in providing recommendations for breast cancer screening in patients age 75 years and older. Physician oversight will be necessary, due to the possibility of ChatGPT to provide inappropriate and unreliable responses, and the importance of accuracy in medicine.

Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce lung cancer mortality, but its adoption in the U.S. has been limited. Digital interventions have the potential to improve uptake of LCS. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of digital interventions in promoting LCS. METHODS: A systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Medline) was conducted to identify studies published between January 2014 and May 2023. Studies were reviewed and abstracted between February 2023 and July 2023. Outcomes related to knowledge, decision-making and screening were measured. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: Of 1,979 screened articles, 30 studies were included in this review. Digital interventions evaluated included decision aids (n=20), electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions (n=7), social media campaigns and mobile applications (n=3). Decision aids were the most commonly studied digital interventions, with most studies showing improved knowledge (13/13) and reduced decisional conflict (7/9) but most did not show a substantial change in screening use. Fewer studies tested clinician-facing or multi-level interventions. DISCUSSION: Digital interventions, particularly decision aids, have shown promise in improving knowledge and the quality of decision-making around LCS. However, few interventions have been shown to substantially alter screening behavior and few clinician-facing or multi-level interventions have been rigorously tested. Further research is needed to develop effective tools for engaging patients in LCS, to compare the efficacy of different interventions, and evaluate implementation strategies in diverse healthcare settings.

It Takes a Village: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Preparing Internal Medicine Residents to Care for Patients at the Intersection of Women's Health, Gender-Affirming Care, and Health Disparities.

Objective: To create an interdisciplinary curriculum to teach key topics at the intersection of women's health, gender-affirming care, and health disparities to internal medicine (IM) residents. Materials and Methods: A core team of faculty from IM, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Surgery partnered with faculty and fellows from other disciplines and with community experts to design and deliver the curriculum. The resulting curriculum consisted of themed half-day modules, each consisting of three to four inter-related topics, updated and repeated on an ∼3-year cycle. Health equity was a focus of all topics. Module delivery used diverse interactive learning strategies. Modules have been presented to ∼175 residents annually, beginning in 2015. To assess the curriculum, we used formative evaluation methods, using primarily anonymous, electronic surveys, and collected quantitative and qualitative data. Most surveys assessed resident learning by quantifying residents' self-reported comfort with skills taught in the module pre- and postsession. Results: Of 131 residents who completed an evaluation in 2022/23, 121 (90%) "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed with their readiness to perform a range of skills taught in the module. In all previous years where pre- and postsurveys were used to evaluate modules, we observed a consistent meaningful increase in the proportion of residents reporting high levels of comfort with the material. Residents particularly valued interactive teaching methods, and direct learning from community members and peers. Conclusion: Our interdisciplinary curriculum was feasible, valued by trainees, and increased resident learning. The curriculum provides a template to address equity issues across a spectrum of women's and gender-affirming care conditions that can be used by other institutions in implementing similar curricula.

Incarceration and Screen-Detectable Cancer Diagnosis among Adults in Connecticut.

Although incarcerated adults are at elevated risk of dying from cancer, little is known about cancer screening in carceral settings. This study compared stage-specific incidence of screen-detectable cancers among incarcerated and recently released people with the general population, as a reflection of screening practices. We calculated the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for early- and late-stage cancers for incarcerated and recently released adults compared to the general Connecticut population between 2005-2016. Our sample included 143 cancer cases among those incarcerated, 406 among those recently released, and 201,360 in the general population. The SIR for early-stage screen-detectable cancers was lower among incarcerated (SIR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.43) and recently released (SIR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.88) individuals than the general population. Incidence of late-stage screen-detectable cancer was lower during incarceration (SIR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.88) but not after release (SIR 1.32, 95% CI 0.93-1.82). Findings suggest that under-screening and under-detection of cancer may occur in carceral settings.

Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening, particularly for older women. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women by age. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among older women who continued screening in the next interval with those who did not. Analyses used competing risk models, stratified by age. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims, linked to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program. PATIENTS: Women 70 years and older who had been recently screened. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer diagnoses and breast cancer death for up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 54 635 women. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.4) per 100 screened women versus 4.2 cases (CI, 3.5 to 5.0) per 100 unscreened women. An estimated 31% of breast cancer among screened women were potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 75 to 84 years, cumulative incidence was 4.9 (CI, 4.6 to 5.2) per 100 screened women versus 2.6 (CI, 2.2 to 3.0) per 100 unscreened women, with 47% of cases potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 85 and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 (CI, 2.3 to 3.4) among screened women versus 1.3 (CI, 0.9 to 1.9) among those not, with up to 54% overdiagnosis. We did not see statistically significant reductions in breast cancer-specific death associated with screening. LIMITATIONS: This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, limiting our ability to draw conclusions on all benefits and harms of screening. Unmeasured differences in risk for breast cancer and differential competing mortality between screened and unscreened women may confound results. Results were sensitive to model specifications and definition of a screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Continued breast cancer screening was associated with greater incidence of breast cancer, suggesting overdiagnosis may be common among older women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after screening. Whether harms of overdiagnosis are balanced by benefits and for whom remains an important question. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Cancer incidence among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals: A statewide retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence among individuals with incarceration exposure has been rarely studied due to the absence of linked datasets. This study examined cancer incidence during incarceration and postincarceration compared to the general population using a statewide linked cohort. METHODS: We constructed a retrospective cohort from a linkage of state tumor registry and correctional system data for Connecticut residents from 2005 to 2016, and identified cancers diagnosed during and within 12 months postincarceration. We estimated incidence rates (including for screen-detectable cancers) and calculated the standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for the incarcerated and recently released populations, relative to the general population. We also examined cancer incidence by race and ethnicity within each group. RESULTS: Cancer incidence was lower in incarcerated individuals (SIR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.56-0.72), but higher in recently released individuals (SIR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.47) compared with the general population, and across all race and ethnic strata. Similarly, nonscreen-detectable cancer incidence was lower in incarcerated and higher in recently released populations compared to the general population. However, non-Hispanic Black individuals had elevated incidence of screen-detectable cancers compared with non-Hispanic White individuals across all three populations (incarcerated, SIR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.03-2.53; recently released, SIR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.32-2.47; and general population, SIR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.21). CONCLUSION: Compared with the general population, incarcerated persons have a lower cancer incidence, whereas recently released persons have a higher cancer incidence. Irrespective of incarceration status, non-Hispanic Black individuals have a higher incidence of screen-detectable cancers compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Supplemental studies examining cancer screening and diagnoses during incarceration are needed to discern the reasons for observed disparities in incidence.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Routine Chest Imaging.

Routine chest imaging has been used to identify unknown or subclinical cardiothoracic abnormalities in the absence of symptoms. Various imaging modalities have been suggested for routine chest imaging. We review the evidence for or against the use of routine chest imaging in different clinical scenarios. This document aims to determine guidelines for the use of routine chest imaging as initial imaging for hospital admission, initial imaging prior to noncardiothoracic surgery, and surveillance imaging for chronic cardiopulmonary disease. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from disparities to health equity.

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented disruptions to routine health care in the United States. Screening mammography, a cornerstone of breast cancer control and prevention, was completely halted in the spring of 2020, and screening programs have continued to face challenges with subsequent COVID-19 waves. Although screening mammography rates decreased for all women during the pandemic, a number of studies have now clearly documented that reductions in screening have been greater for some populations than others. Specifically, minoritized women have been screened at lower rates than White women across studies, although the specific patterns of disparity vary depending on the populations and communities studied. We posit that these disparities are likely due to a variety of structural and contextual factors, including the differential impact of COVID-19 on communities. We also outline key considerations for closing gaps in screening mammography. First, practices, health systems, and communities must measure screening mammography use to identify whether gaps exist and which populations are most affected. Second, we propose that strategies to close disparities in breast cancer screening must be multifaceted, targeting the health system or practice, but also structural factors at the policy level. Health disparities arise from a complex set of conditions, and multimodal solutions that address the complex, multifactorial conditions that lead to disparities may be more likely to succeed and are necessary for promoting health equity.

Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Screening: Evaluation of FDA Device Regulation and Future Recommendations.

Importance: Contemporary approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) based on deep learning have generated interest in the application of AI to breast cancer screening (BCS). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several next-generation AI products indicated for BCS in recent years; however, questions regarding their accuracy, appropriate use, and clinical utility remain. Objectives: To describe the current FDA regulatory process for AI products, summarize the evidence used to support FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS, consider the advantages and limitations of current regulatory approaches, and suggest ways to improve the current system. Evidence Review: Premarket notifications and other publicly available documents used for FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. Findings: Nine AI products indicated for BCS for identification of suggestive lesions and mammogram triage were included. Most of the products had been cleared through the 510(k) pathway, and all clearances were based on previously collected retrospective data; 6 products used multicenter designs; 7 products used enriched data; and 4 lacked details on whether products were externally validated. Test performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve, were the main outcomes reported. Most of the devices used tissue biopsy as the criterion standard for BCS accuracy evaluation. Other clinical outcome measures, including cancer stage at diagnosis and interval cancer detection, were not reported for any of the devices. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this review suggest important gaps in reporting of data sources, data set type, validation approach, and clinical utility assessment. As AI-assisted reading becomes more widespread in BCS and other radiologic examinations, strengthened FDA evidentiary regulatory standards, development of postmarketing surveillance, a focus on clinically meaningful outcomes, and stakeholder engagement will be critical for ensuring the safety and efficacy of these products.

The role of lung cancer risk and comorbidity in lung cancer screening use.

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, benefits and harms of screening vary among eligible adults. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether LCS is more commonly used among populations most likely to benefit, namely adults with high lung cancer risk and low comorbidity. In this cohort study of patients eligible for LCS, we used data from the electronic health record to evaluate the relationship between lung cancer risk, comorbidity, and receipt of LCS. We also evaluated use of diagnostic chest CT. Analyses used a nonparametric test for trend across quartiles of lung cancer risk and comorbidity. The study sample included 551 LCS-eligible adults who were followed for a mean 2.9 years (SD 1.6 years). A cumulative 190 (34 %) received at least 1 LCS, and 141 (26 %) had a diagnostic chest CT. Receipt of LCS increased across quartiles of lung cancer risk (5 per 100 person years in the lowest quartile vs 13 per 100 person-years in the highest, p < 0.001 for test of trend). LCS receipt decreased across increasing quartiles of comorbidity (14 vs 8 per 100 person-years, p = 0.008). Diagnostic CT was more common in among patient with higher levels of comorbidity (15 vs 5 per 100 person-years, p < 0.001). In conclusion, lung cancer screening was more commonly used in patients with greater lung cancer risk and lower comorbidity. Results suggest that both patient characteristics and use of diagnostic imaging may shape current patterns of LCS use.

Lost to follow up?: A qualitative study of why some patients do not pursue lung cancer screening.

Although national guidelines recommend lung cancer screening for adults at high risk, only a small proportion of eligible adults in the US have been screened. The goal of this study was to understand barriers to screening among a specific but important population: patients who have been referred for screening, but who have not completed the test. We used semi-structured interviews to explore barriers to screening among patients at two academic, safety-net primary care practices. We included patients who had been referred for screening at least 6 months prior but who had not completed the test. Among interviewees (N = 16) a consistent theme was a lack of knowledge about the purpose and process of screening. Despite being referred for lung cancer screening, participants expressed that they knew little about how screening was performed or what it was intended to achieve. Preferences and values also played a role in why some participants did not return for screening. Our findings suggest that lack of knowledge about screening is an important barrier to use, as patients are unlikely to prioritize a test if they know little about it.

Insurance Coverage Mandates and the Adoption of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a breast cancer screening modality that has gained popularity in recent years. Although insurance coverage for DBT is not mandated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several states have required coverage without cost sharing for private insurers. Objective: To evaluate the association between state-level insurance coverage mandates for DBT and changes in DBT use, price, and out-of-pocket payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an event-study design with repeated cross-sectional observations of US states. Data were obtained from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database for commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years who underwent screening mammography between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Data were analyzed between January 14, 2021, and January 20, 2022. Interventions: Passage of state-level legislation requiring insurance coverage of DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in DBT use among women screened for breast cancer, overall DBT price, and out-of-pocket payments for DBT in states with mandates for coverage of DBT compared with states that did not pass legislation. Results: This study included 9 604 084 screening mammograms from 5 754 123 women (mean [SD] age, of 53 [6.7] years). During the study period, 15 states enacted DBT coverage mandates and 34 states did not. In states with coverage mandates, DBT use increased by 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.8-16.3 percentage points; P = .02) 2 years after the mandate compared with states without coverage mandates. Coverage mandates were also associated with a net $38.7 (95% CI, $13.4-$63.9; P = .003) decrease in the mean price of DBT compared with no coverage mandates. There was no association between coverage mandates and out-of-pocket payments 2 years after mandate passage ($-2.1; 95% CI, $-5.3 to $1.0; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, DBT coverage mandates were associated with an increase in DBT use but not with any change in out-of-pocket payments. The findings suggest that coverage mandates for DBT may have been associated with broader use but were not associated with changes in direct costs to patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women. OBJECTIVE: To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. KEY RESULTS: Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may have a higher cancer detection rate and lower recall compared with 2-dimensional (2 D) mammography for breast cancer screening. The goal of this study was to evaluate screening outcomes with DBT in a real-world cohort and to characterize the population health impact of DBT as it is widely adopted. METHODS: This observational study evaluated breast cancer screening outcomes among women screened with 2 D mammography vs DBT. We used deidentified administrative data from a large private health insurer and included women aged 40-64 years screened between January 2015 and December 2017. Outcomes included recall, biopsy, and incident cancers detected. We used 2 complementary techniques: a patient-level analysis using multivariable logistic regression and an area-level analysis evaluating the relationship between population-level adoption of DBT use and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Our sample included 7 602 869 mammograms in 4 580 698 women, 27.5% of whom received DBT. DBT was associated with modestly lower recall compared with 2 D mammography (113.6 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 113.0 to 114.2 vs 115.4, 99% CI = 115.0 to 115.8, P < .001), although younger women aged 40-44 years had a larger reduction in recall (153 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 151 to 155 vs 164 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 163 to 166, P < .001). DBT was associated with higher biopsy rates than 2 D mammography (19.6 biopsies per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 19.3 to 19.8 vs 15.2, 99% CI = 15.1 to 15.4, P < .001) and a higher cancer detection rate (4.9 incident cancers per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 4.7 to 5.0 vs 3.8, 99% CI = 3.7 to 3.9, P < .001). Point estimates from the area-level analysis generally supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of privately insured women, DBT was associated with a slightly lower recall rate than 2 D mammography and a higher cancer detection rate. Whether this increased cancer detection improves clinical outcomes remains unknown.