Development of a Follow-Up Measure to Ensure Complete Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The current quality performance measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited to initial screening. Despite low rates, there is no measure for appropriate follow-up with colonoscopy after receipt of an abnormal result of a stool-based screening test (SBT) for CRC. A quality performance measure is needed. Objective: To develop and test a quality performance measure for follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of an abnormal result of an SBT for CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective quality improvement study examined data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, with 2018 plus 6 months of follow-up as the primary measurement period to verify performance rates, specify a potential measure, and test for validity, reliability, and feasibility. The Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW), a deidentified database of health care claims and clinical data, was accessed. The OLDW contains longitudinal health information on enrollees and patients, representing a diverse mixture of ages and geographic regions across the US. For the database study, adults from 38 health care organizations (HCOs) aged 50 to 75 years who completed an initial CRC SBT with an abnormal result were observed to determine follow-up colonoscopy rates within 6 months. Rates were stratified by race, ethnicity, sex, insurance, and test modality. Three HCOs participated in the feasibility field testing. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome consisted of follow-up colonoscopy rates following an abnormal SBT result for CRC. Reliability statistics were also calculated across HCOs, race, ethnicity, and measurement year. Results: Among 20 581 adults (48.6% men and 51.4% women; 307 [1.5%] Asian, 492 [7.2%] Black, 644 [3.1%] Hispanic, and 17 705 [86.0%] White; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [7.1] years) in 38 health systems, 47.9% had a follow-up colonoscopy following an abnormal SBT result for CRC within 6 months. There was significant variation between HCOs. Notably, significantly fewer Black patients (37.1% [95% CI, 34.6%-39.5%]) and patients with Medicare (49.2% [95% CI, 47.7%-50.6%]) or Medicaid (39.2% [95% CI, 36.3%-42.1%]) insurance received a follow-up colonoscopy. A quality performance measure that tracks rates of follow-up within 6 months of an abnormal SBT result was observed to be feasible, valid, and reliable, with a median reliability statistic between HCOs of 94.5% (range, 74.3%-99.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this observational study of 20 581 adults suggest that a measure of follow-up colonoscopy within defined periods after an abnormal result of an SBT test for CRC is warranted based on low current performance rates and would be feasible to collect by health systems and produce valid, reliable results.

Lung cancer statistics, 2023.

Despite decades of declining mortality rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. This article examines lung cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival, and mortality using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Over the past 5 years, declines in lung cancer mortality became considerably greater than declines in incidence among men (5.0% vs. 2.6% annually) and women (4.3% vs. 1.1% annually), reflecting absolute gains in 2-year relative survival of 1.4% annually. Improved outcomes likely reflect advances in treatment, increased access to care through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and earlier stage diagnosis; for example, compared with a 4.6% annual decrease for distant-stage disease incidence during 2013-2019, the rate for localized-stage disease rose by 3.6% annually. Localized disease incidence increased more steeply in states with the highest lung cancer screening prevalence (by 3%-5% annually) than in those with the lowest (by 1%-2% annually). Despite progress, disparities remain. For example, Native Americans have the highest incidence and the slowest decline (less than 1% annually among men and stagnant rates among women) of any group. In addition, mortality rates in Mississippi and Kentucky are two to three times higher than in most western states, largely because of elevated historic smoking prevalence that remains. Racial and geographic inequalities highlight longstanding opportunities for more concerted tobacco-control efforts targeted at high-risk populations, including improved access to smoking-cessation treatments and lung cancer screening, as well as state-of-the-art treatment.

The Importance of Outcomes Ascertainment for Accurate Assessment of the Mammography Screening Cancer Detection Rate: A Simulation Study.

PURPOSE: Cancer detection rate (CDR), an important metric in the mammography screening audit, is designed to ensure adequate sensitivity. Most practices use biopsy results as the reference standard; however, commonly ascertainment of biopsy results is incomplete. We used simulation to determine the relationship between the cancer ascertainment rate of biopsy (AR-biopsy), CDR estimation, and associated error rates in classifying whether practices and radiologists meet the established ACR benchmark of 2.5 per 1,000. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We simulated screening mammography volume, number of cancers detected, and CDR, using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions, respectively. Simulations were performed at both the practice and radiologist level. Average CDR was based on linearly rescaling a published CDR by the AR-biopsy. CDR distributions were simulated for AR-biopsy between 5% and 100% in steps of five percentage points and were summarized with boxplots and smoothed histograms over the range of AR-biopsy, to quantify the proportion of practices and radiologists meeting the ACR benchmark at each level of AR-biopsy. RESULTS: Decreasing AR-biopsy led to an increasing probability of categorizing CDR performance as being below the ACR benchmark. Our simulation predicts that at the practice level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 17.6% below the benchmark (compared to 1.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%), and at the radiologist level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 34.7% as being below the benchmark (compared to 11.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation demonstrates that decreasing the AR-biopsy (in currently clinically relevant ranges) has the potential to artifactually lower the assessed CDR on both the practice and radiologist levels and may, in turn, increase the chance of erroneous categorization of underperformance per the ACR benchmark.

Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use between Commercial, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer screening does not require patient cost-sharing for insured people in the U.S. Little is known about whether other factors associated with patient selection into different insurance plans affect screening rates. We examined screening rates for enrollees in commercial, Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS), and Medicare Advantage plans. METHODS: County-level smoking rates from the 2017 County Health Rankings were used to estimate the number of enrollees eligible for lung cancer screening in two large retrospective claims databases covering: a 5% national sample of Medicare FFS enrollees; and 100% sample of enrollees associated with large commercial and Medicare Advantage carriers. Screening rates were estimated using observed claims, stratified by payer, before aggregation into national estimates by payer and demographics. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in screening rates between payers. RESULTS: There were 1,077,142 enrollees estimated to be eligible for screening. The overall estimated screening rate for enrollees by payer was 1.75% for commercial plans, 3.37% for Medicare FFS, and 4.56% for Medicare Advantage plans. Screening rates were estimated to be lowest among females (1.55%-4.02%), those aged 75-77 years (0.63%-2.87%), those residing in rural areas (1.88%-3.56%), and those in the West (1.16%-3.65%). Among Medicare FFS enrollees, screening rates by race/ethnicity were non-Hispanic White (3.71%), non-Hispanic Black (2.17%) and Other (1.68%). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation exists in lung cancer screening between different payers and across patient characteristics. Efforts targeting historically vulnerable populations could present opportunities to increase screening.

Living HTA: Automating Health Economic Evaluation with R.

Background: Requiring access to sensitive data can be a significant obstacle for the development of health models in the Health Economics & Outcomes Research (HEOR) setting. We demonstrate how health economic evaluation can be conducted with minimal transfer of data between parties, while automating reporting as new information becomes available. Methods: We developed an automated analysis and reporting pipeline for health economic modelling and made the source code openly available on a GitHub repository. The pipeline consists of three parts: An economic model is constructed by the consultant using pseudo data. On the data-owner side, an application programming interface (API) is hosted on a server. This API hosts all sensitive data, so that data does not have to be provided to the consultant. An automated workflow is created, which calls the API, retrieves results, and generates a report. Results: The application of modern data science tools and practices allows analyses of data without the need for direct access - negating the need to send sensitive data. In addition, the entire workflow can be largely automated: the analysis can be scheduled to run at defined time points (e.g. monthly), or when triggered by an event (e.g. an update to the underlying data or model code); results can be generated automatically and then be exported into a report. Documents no longer need to be revised manually. Conclusions: This example demonstrates that it is possible, within a HEOR setting, to separate the health economic model from the data, and automate the main steps of the analysis pipeline.

State legislative trends related to biomarker testing.

Comprehensive biomarker testing has become the standard of care for informing the choice of the most appropriate targeted therapy for many patients with advanced cancer. Despite evidence demonstrating the need for comprehensive biomarker testing to enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the incorporation of biomarker testing into clinical practice lags behind recommendations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Coverage policy differences across insurance health plans have limited the accessibility of comprehensive biomarker testing largely to patients whose insurance covers the recommended testing or those who can pay for the testing, and this has contributed to health disparities. Furthermore, even when insurance coverage exists for recommended biomarker testing, patients may incur burdensome out-of-pocket costs depending on their insurance plan benefits, which may also create barriers to testing. Prior authorization for biomarker testing for some patients can add an administrative burden and may delay testing and thus treatment if it is not done in a timely manner. Recently, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and California) passed laws designed to improve access to biomarker testing at the state level. However, there is variability among these laws in terms of the population affected, the stage of cancer, and whether the coverage of testing is mandated, or the legislation addresses only prior authorization. Advocacy efforts by patient advocates, health care professionals, and professional societies are imperative at the state level to further improve coverage for and access to appropriate biomarker testing.

Unemployment and cancer screening: Baseline estimates to inform health care delivery in the context of COVID-19 economic distress.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, US unemployment rates rose to historic highs, and they remain nearly double those of prepandemic levels. Employers are the most common source of health insurance among nonelderly adults. Thus, job loss may lead to a loss of health insurance and reduce access to cancer screening. This study examined associations between unemployment, health insurance, and cancer screening to inform the pandemic's potential impacts on early cancer detection. METHODS: Up-to-date and past-year breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening prevalences were computed for nonelderly respondents (aged <65 years) with 2000-2018 National Health Interview Survey data. Multivariable logistic regression models with marginal probabilities were used to estimate unemployed-versus-employed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Unemployed adults (2000-2018) were 4 times more likely to lack insurance than employed adults (41.4% vs 10.0%; P < .001). Unemployed adults had a significantly lower up-to-date prevalence of screening for cervical cancer (78.5% vs 86.2%; P < .001), breast cancer (67.8% vs 77.5%; P < .001), colorectal cancer (41.9 vs 48.5%; P < .001), and prostate cancer (25.4% vs 36.4%; P < .001). These differences were eliminated after accounting for health insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Unemployment was adversely associated with up-to-date cancer screening, and this was fully explained by a lack of health insurance. Ensuring the continuation of health insurance coverage after job loss may mitigate the pandemic's economic distress and future economic downturns' impact on cancer screening.

Socioeconomic inequalities in distance to and participation in a community-based running and walking activity: A longitudinal ecological study of parkrun 2010 to 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a longitudinal ecological analysis of the distance to and participation in free weekly outdoor physical activity events (parkrun) in England from 2010 to 2019, and related socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities, to inform policies to support participation in physically active community events. METHODS: We calculate distance to the nearest parkrun event for each English Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) each month from January 2010 to December 2019. We then report the trends in distance to and participation in parkrun by Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile. We also report trends in the Relative Index of Inequality (RII) by deprivation for participation and distance to nearest event. We go on to investigate trends in LSOA level determinants (e.g. deprivation and ethnic density) of parkrun participation between 2010 and 2019, using multivariable Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Mean distance to the nearest parkrun event decreased from 34.1 km in 2010, to 4.6 km in 2019. Throughout the period, parkrun events tended to be situated closer to deprived areas compared to less deprived areas. Participation rates increased superlinearly (greater than linear increase) from 2010 to 2013 before slowing to linear growth. Participation over the period exhibits a clear socioeconomic gradient, with people from deprived areas having consistently lower participation rates over the period. parkrun participation rates became more equal between 2010 and 2013 (RII improved from 189 to 39), before stabilising at an RII between 32.9 and 39.6 from 2014 to 2019. The results of the Poisson regression model validate this finding; the coefficients on IMD score initially increased from -0.050 in 2010 to -0.038 in 2013, and then remained relatively stable to 2019 (-0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 10 years, geodesic distance to the nearest parkrun decreased from a mean of 34 km to 5 km. In 2010, there was equality between the least and most deprived areas but by 2017 the distance of the most deprived areas was 29% that of the least deprived. Participation was shown to have increased over the past 10 years which can be split into two distinct phases: from 2010 to 2013 participation increased super-linearly and inequality in participation fell dramatically; from 2013 to 2019 participation increased linearly, and inequality in participation remained stable. Despite parkrun's ambitions of creating inclusive events and engaging with deprived communities, the socioeconomic gradient in participation rates remained high and stable since 2013. Gaining a better understanding of the reasons why parkrun grew so quickly may be useful for other physical activity movements, while further analysis of the relatively lower participation rates in areas with higher socioeconomic deprivation is important for developing initiatives to encourage physical activity in these communities.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey.

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

The MinION as a cost-effective technology for diagnostic screening of the SCN1A gene in epilepsy patients.

The MinION is a portable DNA sequencer that allows real time sequencing at low capital cost investment. We assessed accuracy and cost-effectivess of the MinION for genetic diagnostic testing of known SCN1A mutations that cause Dravet Syndrome (DS). DNA samples (n = 7) from DS patients previously shown to carry SCN1A mutations via Ion Torrent and Sanger sequencing were sequenced using the MinION. SCN1A amplicons for 8 exons were sequenced using the MinION with 1D chemistry on an R9.4 flow cell. All known missense mutations were detected in all samples showing 100 % concordance with results from other methods. However, the MinION failed to detect the insertions/deletions (INDELs) present in these patients. Nevertheless, these results indicate that MinION is a cost-effective platform for use as an initial screening step in the detection of nucleotide substitution mutations in in SCN1A, especially in under-resourced laboratories or hospitals. Further improvements are required to reliably detect INDELS in this gene.

Using Geospatial Analysis to Evaluate Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Screening current and former heavy smokers 55 to 80 years of age for lung cancer (LC) with low-dose chest CT scanning has been recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013. Although the number of screening facilities in the United States has increased, screening uptake has been slow. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is geographic access to screening facilities a barrier for screening uptake nationally? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Screening facilities were defined as American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) facilities. Analysis was performed at different geographic levels using a road network to calculate travel distances for the recommended age groups. Full access to screening was defined as the entire 55- to 79-year-old population being within 40 miles of an ACR LCSR facility. No access was defined as lack of access by the entire target population. Partial access was expressed in intervening quartiles. A geospatial approach then was used to integrate accessibility with smoking prevalence and LC mortality rates to identify potential focus areas visually. RESULTS: Screening facilities addresses were geocoded to identify 3,592 unique locations. Analysis of census tracts and aggregation to counties revealed that among 3,142 counties, adults 55 to 79 years of age have full access to an LC screening registry facility in 1,988 (63%) counties, partial access in 587 (19%) counties, and no access in 567 (18%) counties. Overall, less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities. Variation in screening facility access was noted across the United States, between states, and within some states. INTERPRETATION: It is recommended to calculate accessibility using subcounty geographies and to examine variation regionally and within states. A foundation geographic accessibility layer can be integrated with other variables to identify geographic disparities in access to screening and to focus on areas for interventions. Identifying areas of greatest need can inform state and local officials and healthcare organizations when planning and implementing LC screening programs.

Successes and challenges of implementing a lung cancer screening program in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

In recent years, studies have shown that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a safe and effective way to screen high-risk adults for lung cancer. Despite this, uptake remains low, especially in limited-resource settings. The American Cancer Society (ACS) partnered with two federally qualified health centers and accredited screening facilities on a 2 year pilot project to implement an LDCT screening program. Both sites attempted to develop a referral program and care coordination practices to move patients through the screening continuum and identify critical facilitators and barriers to implementation. Evaluators conducted key informant interviews (N = 46) with clinical and administrative staff, as well as regional ACS staff during annual site visits. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided our analysis of factors associated with effective implementation and improved screening outcomes. One study site established a sustainable lung screening program, while the other struggled to overcome significant implementation barriers. Increased time spent with patients, disruption to normal workflows, and Medicaid reimbursement policies presented challenges at both sites. Supportive, engaged leaders and knowledgeable champions who provided clear implementation guidance improved staff engagement and were able to train, guide, and motivate staff throughout the intervention. A slow, stepwise implementation process allowed one site's project champions to pilot test new processes and resolve issues before scaling up. This pilot study provides critical insights into the necessary resources and steps for successful lung cancer screening program implementation in underserved settings. Future efforts can build upon these findings and identify and address possible facilitators and barriers to screening program implementation.

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): final results of a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate. We aimed to estimate the effect of mammographic screening at ages 40-48 years on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled trial involving 23 breast screening units across Great Britain. We randomly assigned women aged 39-41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2 ratio, to yearly mammographic screening from the year of inclusion in the trial up to and including the calendar year that they reached age 48 years (intervention group), or to standard care of no screening until the invitation to their first National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) screen at approximately age 50 years (control group). Women in the intervention group were recruited by postal invitation. Women in the control group were unaware of the study. The primary endpoint was mortality from breast cancers (with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) diagnosed during the intervention period, before the participant's first NHSBSP screen. To study the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. Women were included in the primary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis). This Article reports on long-term follow-up analysis. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN24647151. FINDINGS: 160 921 women were recruited between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 24, 1997. 53 883 women (33·5%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 106 953 (66·5%) to the control group. Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up for a median of 22·8 years (IQR 21·8-24·0). We observed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up, with 83 breast cancer deaths in the intervention group versus 219 in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·58-0·97]; p=0·029). No significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 deaths versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0·98 [0·79-1·22]; p=0·86). INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or 41 years, was associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years, although the absolute reduction remained constant. Reducing the lower age limit for screening from 50 to 40 years could potentially reduce breast cancer mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Changes in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening After Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid expansions following the Affordable Care Act have improved insurance coverage in low-income adults, but little is known about its impact on cancer screening. This study examined associations between Medicaid expansion timing and colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) screening. METHODS: Up-to-date and past 2-year CRC (n=95,400) and BC (women, n=43,279) screening prevalence were computed among low-income respondents aged 50-64 years in 2012, 2014, and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. Respondents were grouped according to Medicaid expansion timing as: very early ([VE] six states expanding March 1, 2010-April 14, 2011), early (21 states expanding January 1, 2014-August 15, 2014), late (five states expanding January 1, 2015-July 1, 2016), and non-expansion states (19 states). Absolute adjusted difference-in-differences (aDDs) were computed in 2018-2019 (ref, non-expansion states). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, absolute up-to-date CRC screening increased by 8.8%, 2.9%, 2.4%, and 3.8% among low-income adults in VE, early, late, and non-expansion states, respectively. Past 2-year CRC screening increased by 8.0% in VE and 2.8% in non-expansion states, with an aDD of 4.9% (p=0.041). In 2012-2016, up-to-date BC screening increased by 5.1%, 4.9%, and 3.7% among low-income women in VE, early, and non-expansion states, respectively, but aDDs were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of CRC and BC screening among low-income adults rose in Medicaid expansion states, though increases were significantly higher than those in non-expansion states only for recent CRC screening in VE expansion states. Large-scale improvements in cancer screening may take several years following expansion in access to care.

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening's contribution to cancer control.

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

Resource allocation in NHS dentistry: recognition of societal preferences (RAINDROP): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Resources in any healthcare systems are scarce relative to need and therefore choices need to be made which often involve difficult decisions about the best allocation of these resources. One pragmatic and robust tool to aid resource allocation is Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but there is mixed evidence on its uptake and effectiveness. Furthermore, there is also no evidence on the incorporation of the preferences of a large and representative sample of the general public into such a process. The study therefore aims to undertake, evaluate and refine a PBMA process within the exemplar of NHS dentistry in England whilst also using an established methodology (Willingness to Pay (WTP)) to systematically gather views from a representative sample of the public. METHODS: Stakeholders including service buyers (commissioners), dentists, dental public health representatives and patient representatives will be recruited to participate in a PBMA process involving defining current spend, agreeing criteria to judge services/interventions, defining areas for investment and disinvestment, rating these areas against the criteria and making final recommendations. The process will be refined based on participatory action research principles and evaluated through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observation of the process by the research team. In parallel a representative sample of English adults will be recruited to complete a series of four surveys including WTP valuations of programmes being considered by the PBMA panel. In addition a methodological experiment comparing two ways of eliciting WTP will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The project will allow the PBMA process and particularly the use of WTP within it to be investigated and developed. There will be challenges around engagement with the task by the panel undertaking it and with the outputs by stakeholders but careful relationship building will help to mitigate this. The large volume of data will be managed through careful segmenting of the analysis and the use of the well-established Framework approach to qualitative data analysis. WTP has various potential biases but the elicitation will be carefully designed to minimise these and some methodological investigation will take place.

Optimizing colorectal cancer screening by race and sex: Microsimulation analysis II to inform the American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk varies by race and sex. This study, 1 of 2 microsimulation analyses to inform the 2018 American Cancer Society CRC screening guideline, explored the influence of race and sex on optimal CRC screening strategies. METHODS: Two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network microsimulation models, informed by US incidence data, were used to evaluate a variety of screening methods, ages to start and stop, and intervals for 4 demographic subgroups (black and white males and females) under 2 scenarios for the projected lifetime CRC risk for 40-year-olds: 1) assuming that risk had remained stable since the early screening era and 2) assuming that risk had increased proportionally to observed incidence trends under the age of 40 years. Model-based screening recommendations were based on the predicted level of benefit (life-years gained) and burden (required number of colonoscopies), the incremental burden-to-benefit ratio, and the relative efficiency in comparison with strategies with similar burdens. RESULTS: When lifetime CRC risk was assumed to be stable over time, the models differed in the recommended age to start screening for whites (45 vs 50 years) but consistently recommended screening from the age of 45 years for blacks. When CRC risk was assumed to be increased, the models recommended starting at the age of 45 years, regardless of race and sex. Strategies recommended under both scenarios included colonoscopy every 10 or 15 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing, and computed tomographic colonography every 5 years through the age of 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Microsimulation modeling suggests that CRC screening should be considered from the age of 45 years for blacks and for whites if the lifetime risk has increased proportionally to the incidence for younger adults. Cancer 2018;124:2974-85. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

What Predicts an Advanced-Stage Diagnosis of Breast Cancer? Sorting Out the Influence of Method of Detection, Access to Care, and Biologic Factors.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have yielded important findings regarding the determinants of an advanced-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. We seek to advance this line of inquiry through a broadened conceptual framework and accompanying statistical modeling strategy that recognize the dual importance of access-to-care and biologic factors on stage. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study yielded a seven-state, cancer registry-derived population-based sample of 9,142 women diagnosed with a first primary in situ or invasive breast cancer in 2004. The likelihood of advanced-stage cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIB, IIIC, or IV) was investigated through multivariable regression modeling, with base-case analyses using the method of instrumental variables (IV) to detect and correct for possible selection bias. The robustness of base-case findings was examined through extensive sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Advanced-stage disease was negatively associated with detection by mammography (P < 0.001) and with age < 50 (P < 0.001), and positively related to black race (P = 0.07), not being privately insured [Medicaid (P = 0.01), Medicare (P = 0.04), uninsured (P = 0.07)], being single (P = 0.06), body mass index > 40 (P = 0.001), a HER2 type tumor (P < 0.001), and tumor grade not well differentiated (P < 0.001). This IV model detected and adjusted for significant selection effects associated with method of detection (P = 0.02). Sensitivity analyses generally supported these base-case results. CONCLUSIONS: Through our comprehensive modeling strategy and sensitivity analyses, we provide new estimates of the magnitude and robustness of the determinants of advanced-stage breast cancer. IMPACT: Statistical approaches frequently used to address observational data biases in treatment-outcome studies can be applied similarly in analyses of the determinants of stage at diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(4); 613-23. ©2016 AACR.

Elimination of cost-sharing and receipt of screening for colorectal and breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the cost-sharing provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was to reduce financial barriers for preventive services, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) among privately and Medicare-insured individuals. Whether the provision has affected CRC and BC screening prevalence is unknown. The current study investigated whether CRC and BC screening prevalence among privately and Medicare-insured adults by socioeconomic status (SES) changed before and after the ACA. METHODS: Data obtained from the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to privately and Medicare-insured adults from 2008 (before the ACA) and 2013 (after the ACA) were used. There were 15,786 adults aged 50 to 75 years in the CRC screening analysis and 14,530 women aged ≥40 years in the BC screening analysis. Changes in guideline-recommended screening between 2008 and 2013 by SES were expressed as the prevalence difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) adjusted for demographics, insurance, income, education, body mass index, and having a usual provider. RESULTS: Overall, CRC screening prevalence increased from 57.3% to 61.2% between 2008 and 2013 (P<.001). Adjusted CRC screening prevalence during the corresponding period increased in low-income (PD, 5.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 10.2), least-educated (PD, 7.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 13.5), and Medicare-insured (PD, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 10.7) individuals, but not in high-income, most-educated, and privately insured respondents. BC screening remained unchanged overall (70.5% in 2008 vs 70.2% in 2013) and in the low SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in CRC screening prevalence between 2008 and 2013 were confined to respondents with low SES. These findings may in part reflect the ACA's removal of financial barriers.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: toward a system of cancer screening in the United States.

In the mid-1980s when there was a shift in public health priorities toward the prevention and control of chronic disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed a screening program based on the core elements of surveillance, public and provider education, quality assurance, and national and local collaborations. With the Affordable Care Act providing coverage for millions of individuals, the CDC now has an opportunity to focus on recommended cancer screenings through an organized approach versus an opportunistic approach.