Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective: To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions: Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results: A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

Time to fecal immunochemical test completion for colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can efficiently screen for colorectal cancer (CRC), but little is known on the timing to their completion. We investigate the time to return of a FIT following an order and describe patient characteristics associated with FIT return. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We identified 63,478 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington, aged 50 to 74 years, who received a FIT order from 2011 through 2012. Patient characteristics were ascertained through administrative and electronic health record data sources. We compared time from FIT order to return by patient characteristics using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. RESULTS: About half (53.7%) of members completed a FIT. Median time from order to return was 13 days (mean, 44.5 days; interquartile range, 6-42 days). There was higher completion of FITs among Asian patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.48), black patients (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19), and Hispanic patients (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16) compared with white patients; among patients with recent CRC testing (vs no testing in past 2 years; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.86-1.95); and among patients with Medicare insurance (vs commercial; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37). Factors associated with decreased FIT completion included younger age (50-54 years vs 70-74 years; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.92), obesity (vs normal body mass index; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91), and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥3 vs 0; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Time to return of FIT varies by patient characteristics. We observed greater FIT completion among people of color, suggesting that racial disparities in CRC may not be due to patient completion of the test after an order is received.

Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems. METHODS: A total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status. RESULTS: Even within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion.

Financial difficulty, worry about affording care, and benefit finding in long-term survivors of cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of worry about affording care and reporting financial difficulties with benefit finding in long-term cancer survivors. METHODS: Long-term survivors of cancer (n = 547) in 3 integrated health care delivery systems completed the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Cancer Survivorship Supplement. The relationship between benefit finding (becoming a stronger person, coping better, and making positive changes) and the potentially interacting factors of worry about affording care and financial difficulties was examined using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the total sample, 20% reported worry and 15% reported financial difficulty. Among those who reported no worry, financial difficulty was positively associated with becoming a stronger person (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.07, 7.80). Coping better was not associated with worry, financial difficulties, or the interaction of the two. Among those with no financial difficulty, worry was positively associated with making positive changes (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.41, 4.96), and among those reporting no worry, financial difficulty had a non-significant positive association with making positive changes (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 0.91, 4.31). Among those reporting worry, having financial difficulties was associated with lower odds of making positive changes (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a complex relationship between financial difficulty, worry, and benefit finding. The combination of worry about affording care and financial difficulty needs to be addressed and further studied among cancer survivors, as the presence of both, but not alone, was negatively associated with making positive changes, an aspect of benefit finding.

Diabetes Treatments and Risks of Adverse Breast Cancer Outcomes among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

The widely prescribed diabetes medicine metformin has been reported to lower the risk of incident breast cancer, but it is unclear whether it affects malignant progression after diagnosis. In this study, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Women were included in the study if they were aged 66 to 80 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II breast cancer, and enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D during 2007 to 2011. Information on dispensed diabetes-related medications was obtained from Medicare Part D claims data. Our primary outcomes were second breast cancer events (SBCE), breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer death. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate HRs and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 14,766 women included in the study, 791 experienced SBCE, 627 had a recurrence, and 237 died from breast cancer. Use of metformin (n = 2,558) was associated with 28% (95% CI, 0.57-0.92), 31% (95% CI, 0.53-0.90), and 49% (95% CI, 0.33-0.78) lower risks of an SBCE, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer death. Use of sulfonylureas or insulin was associated with 1.49- (95% CI, 1.00-2.23) and 2.58-fold (95% CI, 1.72-3.90) higher risks of breast cancer death. Further research may be warranted to determine whether metformin is a preferred treatment for diabetes among breast cancer survivors and whether it benefits breast cancer patients without diabetes. Cancer Res; 77(21); 6033-41. ©2017 AACR.

Use of Antihypertensive Medications and Risk of Adverse Breast Cancer Outcomes in a SEER-Medicare Population.

Background: It is unclear if use of common antihypertensive medications influences the risk of adverse breast cancer outcomes.Methods: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we identified 14,766 women between ages 66 and 80 years diagnosed with incident stage I/II breast cancer between 2007 and 2011. Medicare Part D data were obtained to characterize women's post-cancer use of various antihypertensive medications. Outcomes included a second breast cancer event (SBCE; a composite outcome defined as the first of a recurrence or a second contralateral primary breast cancer), breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer-specific mortality. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: There were 791 SBCEs, 627 breast cancer recurrences, and 237 breast cancer deaths identified over a median follow-up of 3 years. Use of diuretics (n = 8,517) after breast cancer diagnosis was associated with 29% (95% CI, 1.10-1.51), 36% (95% CI, 1.14-1.63) and 51% (95% CI, 1.11-2.04) higher risks of a SBCE, recurrence, and breast cancer death, respectively. Compared with nonusers, ß-blockers users (n = 7,145) had a 41% (95% CI, 1.07-1.84) higher risk of breast cancer death. Use of angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were not associated with risks of breast cancer outcomes.Conclusions: Use of diuretics and ß-blockers may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer outcomes among older women.Impact: Most antihypertensive medications are safe with respect to breast cancer outcomes, but more research is needed for diuretics and ß-blockers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1603-10. ©2017 AACR.

Cancer survivors' experiences with insurance, finances, and employment: results from a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer has significant implications on survivors' insurance coverage, financial status, and employment. We aimed to examine how these outcomes vary for survivors of different cancer types. METHODS: Using the Cancer Survivorship Supplement of the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), in 2013, we surveyed survivors of five common cancers who were diagnosed during 2003-2008 and were continuously enrolled in one of three health plans in Massachusetts, Colorado, and Washington State. RESULTS: Among 615 eligible respondents, 96 % reported having health insurance at the time of or since diagnosis; of those, few reported barriers in coverage to visit doctors or facilities of their choice. Approximately 15 % reported experiencing financial hardships due to cancer. Of the 334 who responded as having been employed at the time of or since diagnosis, approximately 25 % reported that they or their spouses remained at their jobs due to concerns about losing medical insurance. Further, 63 % reported making changes in their jobs or careers (e.g., took extended time off, worked part time, or declined promotion) due to cancer, and 42 % reported that cancer interfered with their physical and/or mental tasks at work or reduced productivity. Negative employment and financial implications were most common among those with lung, breast, and colorectal cancer, and those diagnosed before age 65. CONCLUSIONS: In this insured population, few experienced restrictions in cancer care coverage, though maintaining health insurance often drove employment decisions. Significant negative effects on finances and employment were observed among specific cancer types and younger survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our study findings emphasize a need to identify ways of supporting survivors and provide tailored resources to reduce the untoward financial and work-related implications of cancer.

Psychometric investigation of benefit finding among long-term cancer survivors using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

PURPOSE: Benefit finding has been shown to be beneficial for people with cancer and may be an indication that one is coping adequately with the stress of cancer. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a four-item benefit finding measure from the cancer survivorship supplement of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). METHODS: Long-term survivors (5-10 years post-diagnosis) of breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer or melanoma (n = 594) completed the MEPS cancer supplement survey in 2013. Four items asked about benefit finding after the cancer: stronger person, coping better, positive changes and having healthier habits. Information on sociodemographics, disease and activity limitations after the cancer was also collected. We examined factor structure, reliability (Kuder-Richardson 20) and validity. RESULTS: The four benefit finding items did not appear to measure one factor. Three of the benefit finding items (stronger person, coping better, positive changes) were related to gender, receipt of chemotherapy and activity limitations but not cancer stage, time since diagnosis or income. Having healthier habits was unrelated to any sociodemographic or disease variable. CONCLUSIONS: Three of the items (stronger person, coping better, positive changes) appeared to have validity as they were related to variables that literature has shown are related to benefit finding. However, having healthier habits is likely measuring a separate but related construct. This short instrument may be used in future studies assessing benefit finding post cancer; however, the four items should be analyzed separately.

An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.

INTRODUCTION: Recent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Analyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results. RESULTS: Intervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.

An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years. DESIGN: 4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047) SETTING: 21 primary care medical centers. PATIENTS: 4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: Usual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2). RESULTS: Compared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]). LIMITATION: Participants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.

Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Four U.S. health plans. PATIENTS: 1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures. RESULTS: In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer. LIMITATION: The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates. CONCLUSION: Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant.

Predictors of 1-year change in patient activation in older adults with diabetes mellitus and heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns and predictors of 1-year change in patient activation in chronically ill older adults. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Integrated healthcare delivery system. PARTICIPANTS: Members of an integrated delivery system from 2007 to 2009 in western Washington state aged 65 and older with diabetes mellitus or heart disease; participants responded to baseline and 1-year follow-up mailed surveys about their health and health care (N = 2,341). MEASUREMENTS: Patient activation was measured using the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM) at baseline and follow-up. Automated diagnoses and procedure data were extracted from databases. Multinomial logistic regression, stratified according to baseline activation stage, was used to estimate the odds ratios for increasing or decreasing activation stage associated with participant characteristics and serious adverse health events. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of participants changed activation stage between baseline and follow-up. Of people who changed stage, 54% increased, and 46% decreased. Older age and worse baseline self-reported health were independent predictors of activation change in multivariate models. Changes in health status or serious adverse health events such as the occurrence of hospitalizations, new major diagnoses, or procedures were not related to changes in activation in this age group. CONCLUSION: Patient activation, as measured using the PAM, changes over time in elderly adults with chronic diseases. Clinicians and researchers who use the PAM for patient care or as an outcome measure in research studies should be aware of its fluctuation over time in chronically ill older persons.

Colorectal cancer risk in relation to antidepressant medication use.

Laboratory studies suggest that antidepressants affect the risk of some cancers, including colorectal cancer. To investigate whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are associated with colorectal cancer risk, we conducted a case-control study among enrollees of an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. Cases were first diagnosed with invasive colorectal cancer between 2000 and 2003; controls were randomly selected from Group Health enrollees and matched to cases on age, sex and length of enrollment before diagnosis/reference date. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in relation to use of any antidepressant, SSRIs only or TCAs only, among 649 cases and 656 controls. Use of any antidepressant was associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-0.9). Associations were similar for persons who used SSRIs exclusively (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.1) and TCAs exclusively (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-1.2); however, this reduction in risk appeared limited to persons without a prior cancer at another site. Our data support findings from previous epidemiologic and animal studies that suggest antidepressants may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Future studies with larger sample sizes should further examine individual drugs as well as dose, duration and recency of use.

Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the direct cost, from the perspective of the health insurer or purchaser, of breast-care services in the year following a false positive screening mammogram compared with a true negative examination. DESIGN: We identified 21,125 women aged 40 to 80 years enrolled in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State, who participated in screening mammography between January 1, 1998 and July 30, 2002. Pathology and cancer registry data were used to identify breast cancer diagnoses in the year following the screening mammogram. A positive examination was defined as a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment of 0, 4, or 5. Women with a positive screening mammogram but no breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year were classified as false positives. We used diagnostic and procedure codes in automated health plan data to identify services received in the year following the screening mammogram. Medicare reimbursement rates were applied to all services. We used ordinary least-squares linear regression to estimate the difference in costs following a false positive versus true negative screening mammogram. RESULTS: False positive results occurred in 9.9% of women; most false positives (87.3%) were followed by breast imaging only. The mean cost of breast-care following a false positive mammogram was $527. This was $503 (95% confidence interval, $490-$515) more than the cost of breast-care services for true negative women. CONCLUSIONS: The direct costs for breast-related procedures following false positive screening mammograms may contribute substantially to US healthcare spending.