Impact of different financial incentive structures on a web-based health survey: do timing and amount matter?

Aim: Financial incentives improve response to electronic health surveys, yet little is known about how unconditional incentives (guaranteed regardless of survey completion), conditional incentives, and various combinations of incentives influence response rates. We compared electronic health survey completion with two different financial incentive structures. Methods: We invited women aged 30-64 years enrolled in a U.S. healthcare system and overdue for Pap screening to complete a web-based survey after receiving a mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kit in a pragmatic trial. HPV kit returners (n = 272) and non-returners (n = 1,083) were allocated to one of two different incentive structures: (1) Unconditional: $5 pre-incentive only (n = 653); (2) Combined: $2 pre-incentive plus $10 post-incentive conditional on completion (n = 702). Chi-square tests evaluated whether survey completion differed by incentive structure within kit return groups or was modified by kit return status. For each incentive-by-kit status group, the cost-per-survey response was calculated as: ([number invited*pre-incentive amount] + [number responses*post-incentive amount]) / number responses. Results: Overall, survey response was higher in kit returners vs. kit non-returners (42.6% vs. 11.0%, P < 0.01), and survey response was higher in the combined (20.1%) vs. unconditional (14.4%) incentive group (P = 0.01). Kit return status did not modify the association between incentive type and survey response (P = 0.52). Among respondents, time to survey completion did not differ by incentive type among either kit returners or non-returners. Among returners, the cost-per-survey response was similar between groups ($13.57 unconditional; $14.15 combined); among non-returners, the cost was greater in the unconditional ($57.78) versus the combined ($25.22) group. Conclusion: A combined incentive can be cost-effective for increasing survey response in health services research, particularly in hard-to-reach populations.

Economic Evaluation of Mailed Home-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-sampling Kits for Cervical Cancer Screening.

Importance: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs. Intervention: Participants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization. Results: Among 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity.

Importance: Breast cancer screening, surveillance, and diagnostic imaging services were profoundly limited during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To develop a risk-based strategy for triaging mammograms during periods of decreased capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data collected prospectively from mammography examinations performed in 2014 to 2019 at 92 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants included individuals undergoing mammography. Data were analyzed from August 10 to November 3, 2020. Exposures: Clinical indication for screening, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, age, time since last mammogram/screening interval, family history of breast cancer, breast density, and history of high-risk breast lesion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Combinations of clinical indication, clinical history, and breast cancer risk factors that subdivided mammograms into risk groups according to their cancer detection rate were identified using classification and regression trees. Results: The cohort included 898 415 individuals contributing 1 878 924 mammograms (mean [SD] age at mammogram, 58.6 [11.2] years) interpreted by 448 radiologists, with 1 722 820 mammograms in individuals without a personal history of breast cancer and 156 104 mammograms in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Most individuals were aged 50 to 69 years at imaging (1 113 174 mammograms [59.2%]), and 204 305 (11.2%) were Black, 206 087 (11.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 126 677 (7.0%) were Hispanic or Latina, and 40 021 (2.2%) were another race/ethnicity or mixed race/ethnicity. Cancer detection rates varied widely based on clinical indication, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, and age. The 12% of mammograms with very high (89.6 [95% CI, 82.3-97.5] to 122.3 [95% CI, 108.1-138.0] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) or high (36.1 [95% CI, 33.1-39.3] to 47.5 [95% CI, 42.4-53.3] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) cancer detection rates accounted for 55% of all detected cancers and included mammograms to evaluate an abnormal mammogram or breast lump in individuals of all ages regardless of breast cancer history, to evaluate breast symptoms other than lump in individuals with a breast cancer history or without a history but aged 60 years or older, and for short-interval follow-up in individuals aged 60 years or older without a breast cancer history. The 44.2% of mammograms with very low cancer detection rates accounted for 13.1% of detected cancers and included annual screening mammograms in individuals aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 [95% CI, 3.5-4.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) and all screening mammograms in individuals younger than 50 years regardless of screening interval (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, clinical indication and individual risk factors were associated with cancer detection and may be useful for prioritizing mammography in times and settings of decreased capacity.

Association of the Intensity of Diagnostic Evaluation With Outcomes in Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

Importance: Whether guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluations lead to better outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To examine the association between the intensity of lung nodule diagnostic evaluations and outcomes, safety, and health expenditures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study analyzed health plan enrollees at Kaiser Permanente Washington in Seattle, Washington, and Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wisconsin, with an incidental lung nodule detected between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015. Included patients were 35 years or older, had no high suspicion of infection, had no history of malignant neoplasm, and had no evidence of advanced lung cancer on nodule detection. Data analysis was conducted from January 7 to August 19, 2020. Exposures: With the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines (selected for their applicability to the time frame under investigation) as the comparator, 2 other intensities of lung nodule evaluation were defined. Guideline-concordant evaluation followed the guidelines. Less intensive evaluation was the absence of recommended testing, longer-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or less invasive testing than recommended. More intensive evaluation consisted of testing when the guidelines recommended no further testing, shorter-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or more invasive testing than recommended. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the proportion of patients with lung cancer who had stage III or IV disease, radiation exposure, procedure-related adverse events, and health expenditures 2 years after nodule detection. Results: Among the 5057 individuals included in this comparative effectiveness research study, 1925 (38%) received guideline-concordant, 1863 (37%) less intensive, and 1269 (25%) more intensive diagnostic evaluations. The entire cohort comprised 2786 female patients (55%), and the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years. Adjusted analyses showed that compared with guideline-concordant evaluations, less intensive evaluations were associated with fewer procedure-related adverse events (risk difference [RD], -5.9%; 95% CI, -7.2% to -4.6%), lower mean radiation exposure (-9.5 milliSieverts [mSv]; 95% CI, -10.3 mSv to -8.7 mSv), and lower mean health expenditures (-$10 916; 95% CI, -$16 112 to -$5719); no difference in stage III or IV disease was found among patients diagnosed with lung cancer (RD, 4.6%; 95% CI, -22% to +31%). More intensive evaluations were associated with more procedure-related adverse events (RD, +8.1%; 95% CI, +5.6% to +11%), higher mean radiation exposure (+6.8 mSv; 95% CI, +5.8 mSv to +7.8 mSv), and higher mean health expenditures ($20 132; 95% CI, +$14 398 to +$25 868); no difference in stage III or IV disease was observed (RD, -0.5%; 95% CI, -28% to +27%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found inconclusive evidence of an association between less intensive diagnostic evaluations and more advanced stage at lung cancer diagnosis compared with guideline-concordant care; higher intensities of diagnostic evaluations were associated with greater procedural complications, radiation exposure, and expenditures. These findings underscore the need for more evidence on better ways to evaluate lung nodules and to avoid unnecessarily intensive diagnostic evaluations of lung nodules.

Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.

Importance: Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective: To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements: Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results: Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance: While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.

Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

HPV self-sampling (HPV-SS) can increase cervical cancer screening participation by addressing barriers in high- and low- and middle-income settings. Successful implementation of HPV-SS programs will depend on understanding potential costs and health effects. Our objectives were to summarize the methods and results of published HPV-SS cost and cost-effectiveness studies, present implications of these results for HPV-SS program implementation, and identify knowledge gaps. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One reviewer searched online databases for articles published through June 12, 2019, identified eligible studies, and extracted data; a second reviewer checked extracted data for accuracy. Eligible studies used an economic model to compare HPV-SS outreach strategies to standard-of-care tests. Of 16 eligible studies, 14 reported HPV-SS could be a cost-effective strategy. Studies differed in model type, HPV-SS delivery methods, triage strategies for positive results, and target populations. Most (9/16) modeled HPV-SS in European screening programs, 6/16 targeted women who were underscreened for cervical cancer, and 5/16 modeled HPV-SS in low- and middle-income countries. The most commonly identified driver of HPV-SS cost-effectiveness was the level of increase in cervical cancer screening attendance. Lower HPV-SS material and testing costs, higher sensitivity to detect cervical precancer, and longer duration of underscreening among HPV-SS users were also associated with increased cost-effectiveness. Future HPV-SS models in high-income settings should explore the effect of widespread vaccination and new triage strategies such as partial HPV genotyping. Knowledge gaps remain about the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in low- and middle-income settings.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Multigene Testing for All Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: Moving to multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) could identify many more mutation carriers who can benefit from precision prevention. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach remains unaddressed. Objective: To estimate incremental lifetime effects, costs, and cost-effectiveness of multigene testing of all patients with BC compared with the current practice of genetic testing (BRCA) based on family history (FH) or clinical criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness microsimulation modeling study compared lifetime costs and effects of high-risk BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (multigene) testing of all unselected patients with BC (strategy A) with BRCA1/BRCA2 testing based on FH or clinical criteria (strategy B) in United Kingdom (UK) and US populations. Data were obtained from 11 836 patients in population-based BC cohorts (regardless of FH) recruited to 4 large research studies. Data were collected and analyzed from January 1, 2018, through June 8, 2019. The time horizon is lifetime. Payer and societal perspectives are presented. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. Interventions: In strategy A, all women with BC underwent BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 testing. In strategy B, only women with BC fulfilling FH or clinical criteria underwent BRCA testing. Affected BRCA/PALB2 carriers could undertake contralateral preventive mastectomy; BRCA carriers could choose risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Relatives of mutation carriers underwent cascade testing. Unaffected relative carriers could undergo magnetic resonance imaging or mammography screening, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy for BC risk and RRSO for ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and compared with standard £30 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY UK and US thresholds, respectively. Incidence of OC, BC, excess deaths due to heart disease, and the overall population effects were estimated. Results: BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 multigene testing for all patients detected with BC annually would cost £10 464/QALY (payer perspective) or £7216/QALY (societal perspective) in the United Kingdom or $65 661/QALY (payer perspective) or $61 618/QALY (societal perspective) in the United States compared with current BRCA testing based on clinical criteria or FH. This is well below UK and US cost-effectiveness thresholds. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, unselected multigene testing remained cost-effective for 98% to 99% of UK and 64% to 68% of US health system simulations. One year's unselected multigene testing could prevent 2101 cases of BC and OC and 633 deaths in the United Kingdom and 9733 cases of BC and OC and 2406 deaths in the United States. Correspondingly, 8 excess deaths due to heart disease occurred in the United Kingdom and 35 in the United States annually. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found unselected, high-risk multigene testing for all patients with BC to be extremely cost-effective compared with testing based on FH or clinical criteria for UK and US health systems. These findings support changing current policy to expand genetic testing to all women with BC.

Trends in BRCA Test Utilization in an Integrated Health System, 2005-2015.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing to determine BRCA status has been available for over two decades, but there are few population-based studies of test diffusion. We report 10-year trends in BRCAtesting in an integrated health-care system with long-standing access to genetic services. METHODS: A cohort of women aged 18 years and older was created to ascertain BRCA testing (n = 295 087). Annual testing rates between 2005 and 2015 were calculated in all women with and without incident (ie, newly diagnosed) breast and ovarian cancers and in clinically eligible subgroups by family cancer history, personal cancer history, and age at diagnosis. Secular trends were assessed using Poisson regression. Women tested early (2005-2008), midway (2009-2012), and late (2013-2015) in the study period were compared in cross-sectional analyses. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2015, annual testing rates increased from 0.6/1000 person-years (pys) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4 to 0.7/1000 pys) to 0.8/1000 pys (95% CI = 0.6 to 1.0/1000 pys) in women without incident breast or ovarian cancers. Rates decreased from 71.5/1000 pys (95% CI = 42.4 to 120.8/1000 pys) to 44.4/1000 pys (95% CI = 35.5 to 55.6/1000 pys) in women with incident diagnoses, despite improvements in provision of timely BRCA testing during this time frame. We found no evidence of secular trends in clinically eligible subgroups including women with family history indicating increased hereditary cancer risk, but no personal cancer history. At the end of the study period, 97.0% (95% CI = 96.6% to 97.3%) of these women remained untested. CONCLUSION: Many eligible women did not receive BRCA testing despite having insurance coverage and access to specialty genetic services, underscoring challenges to primary and secondary hereditary cancer prevention.

Population-Based Assessment of the Association Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Future Primary Breast Cancer Risk.

PURPOSE: To evaluate comparative associations of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and mammographic breast density with subsequent breast cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined women undergoing breast MRI in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from 2005 to 2015 (with one exam in 2000) using qualitative BPE assessments of minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Breast density was assessed on mammography performed within 5 years of MRI. Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, the first BPE assessment was included if it was more than 3 months before their first diagnosis. Breast cancer risk associated with BPE was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 4,247 women, 176 developed breast cancer (invasive, n = 129; ductal carcinoma in situ,n = 47) over a median follow-up time of 2.8 years. More women with cancer had mild, moderate, or marked BPE than women without cancer (80% v 66%, respectively). Compared with minimal BPE, increasing BPE levels were associated with significantly increased cancer risk (mild: hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.87; moderate: HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.86; and marked: HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.66). Compared with women with minimal BPE and almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density, women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE demonstrated elevated cancer risk if they had almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.46) or heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.44 to 4.72), with no significant interaction (P = .82). Combined mild, moderate, and marked BPE demonstrated significantly increased risk of invasive cancer (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.66 to 4.49) but not ductal carcinoma in situ (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.05). CONCLUSION: BPE is associated with future invasive breast cancer risk independent of breast density. BPE should be considered for risk prediction models for women undergoing breast MRI.

Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.

Importance: Accurate long-term breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening could help reduce the disease burden and intervention-associated harms by personalizing screening recommendations and preventive interventions. Objective: To report the accuracy of risk assessment for breast cancer during a period of 19 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of the Kaiser Permanente Washington breast imaging registry included women without previous breast cancer, aged 40 to 73 years, who attended screening from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2013. Follow-up was completed on December 31, 2014, and data were analyzed from March 2, 2016, through November 13, 2017. Exposures: Risk factors from a questionnaire and breast density from the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System at entry; primary risk was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of invasive breast cancer was estimated with and without breast density. Follow-up began 6 months after the entry mammogram and extended to the earliest diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, censoring at 75 years of age, 2014, diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, death, or health plan disenrollment. Observed divided by expected (O/E) numbers of cancer cases were compared using exact Poisson 95% CIs. Hazard ratios for the top decile of 10-year risk relative to the middle 80% of the study population were estimated. Constancy of relative risk calibration during follow-up was tested using a time-dependent proportional hazards effect. Results: In this cohort study of 132 139 women (median age at entry, 50 years; interquartile range, 44-58 years), 2699 invasive breast cancers were subsequently diagnosed after a median 5.2 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 2.4-11.1 years; maximum follow-up, 19 years; annual incidence rate [IR] per 1000 women, 2.9). Observed number of cancer diagnoses was close to the expected number (O/E for the Tyrer-Cuzick model, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.06]; O/E for the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94-1.02]). The Tyrer-Cuzick model estimated 2554 women (1.9%) to be at high risk (10-year risk of ≥8%), of whom 147 subsequently developed invasive breast cancer (O/E, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93; IR per 1000 women, 8.7). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with density estimated more women to be at high risk (4645 [3.5%]; 273 cancers [10.1%]; O/E, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; IR per 1000 women, 9.2). The hazard ratio for the highest risk decile compared with the middle 80% was 2.22 (95% CI, 2.02-2.45) for the Tyrer-Cuzick model and 2.55 (95% CI, 2.33-2.80) for the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density. Little evidence was found for a decrease in relative risk calibration throughout follow-up for the Tyrer-Cuzick model (age-adjusted slope, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.018 to 0.012) or the Tyrer-Cuzick model with density (age-adjusted slope, -0.008; 95% CI, -0.020 to 0.004). Conclusions and Relevance: Breast cancer risk assessment combining classic risk factors with mammographic density may provide useful data for 10 years or more and could be used to guide long-term, systematic, risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.

A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Background: Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients' decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews. Results: Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding. Conclusion: The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening.

Training in the Conduct of Population-Based Multi-Site and Multi-Disciplinary Studies: the Cancer Research Network's Scholars Program.

Expanding research capacity of large research networks within health care delivery systems requires strategically training both embedded and external investigators in necessary skills for this purpose. Researchers new to these settings frequently lack the skills and specialized knowledge conducive to multi-site and multi-disciplinary research set in delivery systems. This report describes the goals and components of the Cancer Research Network (CRN) Scholars Program, a 26-month training program developed to increase the capacity for cancer research conducted within the network's participating sites, its progression from training embedded investigators to a mix of internal and external investigators, and the content evolution of the training program. The CRN Scholars program was launched in 2007 to assist junior investigators from member sites develop independent and sustainable research programs within the CRN. Resulting from CRN's increased emphasis on promoting external collaborations, the 2013 Scholars program began recruiting junior investigators from external institutions committed to conducting delivery system science. Based on involvement of this broader population and feedback from prior Scholar cohorts, the program has honed its focus on specific opportunities and issues encountered in conducting cancer research within health care delivery systems. Efficiency and effectiveness of working within networks is accelerated by strategic and mentored navigation of these networks. Investing in training programs specific to these settings provides the opportunity to improve multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration, particularly for early-stage investigators. Aspects of the CRN Scholars Program may help inform others considering developing similar programs to expand delivery system research or within large, multi-disciplinary research networks.

The Role of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment and Surgical Treatment of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancer in Older Women.

We describe the relationship between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the utilization of additional imaging, biopsy, and primary surgical treatment for subgroups of women with interval versus screen-detected breast cancer. We determined the proportion of women receiving additional breast imaging or biopsy and type of primary surgical treatment, stratified by use of preoperative MRI, separately for both groups. Using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) data, we identified a cohort of women age 66 and older with an interval or screen-detected breast cancer diagnosis between 2005 and 2010. Using logistic regression, we explored associations between primary surgical treatment type and preoperative MRI use for interval and screen-detected cancers. There were 204 women with an interval cancer and 1,254 with a screen-detected cancer. The interval cancer group was more likely to receive preoperative MRI (21% versus 13%). In both groups, women receiving MRI were more likely to receive additional imaging and/or biopsy. Receipt of MRI was not associated with increased odds of mastectomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.50), while interval cancer diagnosis was associated with significantly higher odds of mastectomy (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.11-2.42). Older women with interval cancer were more likely than women with a screen-detected cancer to have preoperative MRI, however, those with an interval cancer had 64% higher odds of mastectomy regardless of receipt of MRI. Given women with interval cancer are reported to have a worse prognosis, more research is needed to understand effectiveness of imaging modalities and treatment consequences within this group.

Breast MRI in the Diagnostic and Preoperative Workup Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared the frequency and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy use for the diagnostic and preoperative workup of breast cancer according to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among older women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data from 2004 to 2010, we identified women with and without breast MRI as part of their diagnostic and preoperative breast cancer workup and measured the number and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy events per woman. RESULTS: A total of 10,766 (20%) women had an MRI in the diagnostic/preoperative period, 32,178 (60%) had mammogram and ultrasound, and 10,669 (20%) had mammography alone. MRI use increased across study years, tripling from 2005 to 2009 (9%-29%). Women with MRI had higher rates of breast imaging and biopsy compared with those with mammogram and ultrasound or those with mammography alone (5.8 vs. 4.1 vs. 2.8, respectively). There were 4254 unique sequences of breast events; the dominant patterns for women with MRI were an MRI occurring at the end of the care pathway. Among women receiving an MRI postdiagnosis, 26% had a subsequent biopsy compared with 51% receiving a subsequent biopsy in the subgroup without MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Older women who receive breast MRI undergo additional breast imaging and biopsy events. There is much variability in the diagnostic/preoperative work-up in older women, demonstrating the opportunity to increase standardization to optimize care for all women.

Primary Care Clinicians' Perspectives on Reducing Low-Value Care in an Integrated Delivery System.

CONTEXT: Perceptions about low-value care (eg, medical tests and procedures that may be unnecessary and/or harmful) among clinicians with capitated salaries are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Explore clinicians' perceived use of and responsibility for reducing low-value care by focusing on barriers to use, awareness of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and response to reports of peer-comparison resource use and practice patterns. METHODS: Electronic, cross-sectional survey, distributed in 2013, to 304 salaried primary care physicians and physician assistants at Group Health Cooperative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes, awareness, and barriers of low-value care strategies and initiatives. RESULTS: A total of 189 clinicians responded (62% response rate). More than 90% believe cost is important to various stakeholders and believe it is fair to ask clinicians to be cost-conscious. Most found peer-comparison resource-use reports useful for understanding practice patterns and prompting peer discussions. Two-thirds of clinicians were aware of the Choosing Wisely campaign; among them, 97% considered it a legitimate information source. Although 88% reported being comfortable discussing low-value care with patients, 80% reported they would order tests or procedures when a patient insisted. As key barriers in reducing low-value care, clinicians identified time constraints (45%), overcoming patient preferences/values (44%), community standards (43%), fear of patients' dissatisfaction (41%), patients' knowledge about the harms of low-value care (38%), and availability of tools to support shared decision making (37%). CONCLUSIONS: Salaried clinicians are aware of rising health care costs and want to be stewards of limited health care resources. Evidence-based initiatives such as the Choosing Wisely campaign may help motivate clinicians to be conscientious stewards of limited health care resources.

Factors Associated with Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use among Medicare Beneficiaries with Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer.

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer has substantially increased from 2005 to 2009. We sought to identify factors associated with preoperative breast MRI use among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I-III invasive breast cancer (IBC). Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare data from 2005 to 2009 we identified women ages 66 and older with DCIS or stage I-III IBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. We compared preoperative breast MRI use by patient, tumor and hospital characteristics stratified by DCIS and IBC using multivariable logistic regression. From 2005 to 2009, preoperative breast MRI use increased from 5.9% to 22.4% of women diagnosed with DCIS and 7.0% to 24.3% of women diagnosed with IBC. Preoperative breast MRI use was more common among women who were younger, married, lived in higher median income zip codes and had no comorbidities. Among women with IBC, those with lobular disease, smaller tumors (<1 cm) and those with estrogen receptor negative tumors were more likely to receive preoperative breast MRI. Women with DCIS were more likely to receive preoperative MRI if tumors were larger (>2 cm). The likelihood of receiving preoperative breast MRI is similar for women diagnosed with DCIS and IBC. Use of MRI is more common in women with IBC for tumors that are lobular and smaller while for DCIS MRI is used for evaluation of larger lesions.

Geographic access to breast imaging for US women.

PURPOSE: The breast imaging modalities of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI are widely used for screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer. Geographic access to breast imaging services in various modalities is not known at a national level overall or for population subgroups. METHODS: A retrospective study of 2004-2008 Medicare claims data was conducted to identify ZIP codes in which breast imaging occurred, and data were mapped. Estimated travel times were made for each modality for 215,798 census block groups in the contiguous United States. Using Census 2010 data, travel times were characterized by sociodemographic factors for 92,788,909 women aged ≥30 years, overall, and by subgroups of age, race/ethnicity, rurality, education, and median income. RESULTS: Overall, 85% of women had travel times of ≤20 minutes to nearest mammography or ultrasound services, and 70% had travel times of ≤20 minutes for MRI with little variation by age. Native American women had median travel times 2-3 times longer for all 3 modalities, compared to women of other racial/ethnic groups. For rural women, median travel times to breast imaging services were 4-8-fold longer than they were for urban women. Black and Asian women had the shortest median travel times to services for all 3 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Travel times to mammography and ultrasound breast imaging facilities are short for most women, but for breast MRI, travel times are notably longer. Native American and rural women are disadvantaged in geographic access based on travel times to breast imaging services. This work informs potential interventions to reduce inequities in access and utilization.

Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

BACKGROUND: Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. METHODS: Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. RESULTS: For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.