Revisiting the lung cancer screening eligibility criteria to promote equity for Black individuals.

BACKGROUND: Early detection using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung-cancer-specific mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Blacks are less likely than Whites to meet lung cancer screening (LCS) criteria under both the former and the updated United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. The purpose of this study was to assess racial disparities in LCS eligibility and to propose tailored eligibility criteria for Blacks to enable equitable screening rate between Whites and Blacks. METHODS: Data for this study were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2021). 101,552 subjects were included in the final analysis. By employing a systematic approach, we sought cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. We evaluated the minimum age and smoking pack-years for Blacks while we retained the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites. The final decision was based on the minimum Wald's Chi-square statistics. RESULTS: The model we employed identified cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. Retaining the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites, the model discovered a new pair of points for Blacks by reducing the minimum age to 43 years and decreasing the cumulative number of cigarettes smoked to 15 pack-years. Based on these cut-off points, we created tailored criteria for Blacks. Under the tailored criteria, Blacks (OR: 1.00; 95 %CI: 0.88-1.14) had the same odds of eligibility for LCS as Whites. The odds of eligibility for LCS by sex under the tailored criteria did not differ significantly for Black men (OR: 1.02; 95 %CI: 0.85-1.24) and Black women (OR: 0.95; 95 %CI: 0.81-1.12) compared to their respective White counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: These tailored criteria for Blacks eliminate the disparities between Blacks and Whites in LCS eligibility. Future studies should test the sensitivity and specificity of these tailored criteria.

Critical gaps in knowledge and implementation of recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Introduction: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued 31 recommendations applicable to non-pregnant adults. We hypothesized variability in knowledge and implementation of these recommendations among US family medicine resident physicians. Methods: We performed two electronic surveys: a local survey, and then a nationally-representative, multicenter, survey. We evaluated self-reported knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations related to non-pregnant adults. Results: 84 family medicine residents from 40 residency programs across 25 states participated. Knowledge and implementation of recommendations varied widely. Most residents lacked knowledge relating to breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (9.9 % "known in detail" or "mostly know"), BRCA-related genetic counseling (BRCA-GC) referral (30 %), tuberculosis (TB) screening (41 %), and sexually transmitted infection (STI) counseling (45 %). There is virtually no implementation of recommendations for breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (90 % never/rarely implement). Many residents never/rarely implement recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (75 %), TB screening (62 %), and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (61 %). This remained true even for residents in their final year of training. Relative to their male counterparts, female physicians more frequently implemented recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (11 % vs 0 % always/often implement, p = 0.019), cervical cancer screening (100 % vs 83 %, p = 0.019), and folic acid supplementation (60 % vs 29 %, p = 0.007). Knowledge and implementation of recommendations were strongly related (ß = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.50-1.00, p < 0.001, Spearman R2 = 0.56). Conclusion: Critical gaps exist in resident knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations. We discuss urgent implications for cancer prevention, public health, and health equity.

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR). RESULTS: Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38). CONCLUSION: The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Did the 2015 USPSTF Abnormal Blood Glucose Recommendations Change Clinician Attitudes or Behaviors? A Mixed-Method Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised clinical recommendations to more broadly recommend abnormal blood glucose screening and more clearly recommend referral to behavioral interventions for adults with prediabetes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the 2015 USPSTF recommendation changes on abnormal blood glucose screening and referral to behavioral interventions, and to examine physicians' perceptions of the revised recommendation. DESIGN: We utilized a sequential, dependent mixed-methods triangulation design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,444 patients meeting USPSTF abnormal blood glucose screening criteria within 15 health system-affiliated primary care practices and 20 primary care physicians in North Carolina. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed monthly abnormal blood glucose screening rate and monthly referral rate to behavioral interventions. To estimate trend changes in outcomes, we used segmented linear regression analysis of interrupted time-series data. We gathered physicians' perspectives on the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation including awareness of, agreement with, adoption of, and adherence to the recommendation. To analyze qualitative data, we used directed content analysis. KEY RESULTS: There was a slight significant change in trend in abnormal blood glucose screening rates post-recommendation. There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in referral rates to behavioral interventions post-recommendation. Physicians were generally unaware of the revisions to the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation; however, once the recommendations were described, physicians agreed with the screening recommendation but felt that the behavioral intervention referral recommendation was hard to implement. CONCLUSION: The 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose guideline had little to no effect on abnormal blood glucose screening or referral to behavioral interventions in North Carolina practices. Potential interventions to improve these rates could include clinical decision tools embedded in the electronic health record and better referral systems for community-based diabetes prevention programs.

The Utilization and Costs of Grade D USPSTF Services in Medicare, 2007-2016.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care, or patient care that offers no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is costly and often associated with patient harm. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendations represent one of the most scientifically sound and frequently delivered groups of low-value services, but a more contemporary measurement of the utilization and spending for Grade D services beyond the small number of previously studied measures is needed. OBJECTIVE: To estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2007 to 2016 to identify instances of Grade D services. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: NAMCS is a nationally representative survey of US ambulatory visits at non-federal and non-hospital-based offices that uses a multistage probability sampling design. We included all visits by Medicare enrollees, which included traditional fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, supplemental coverage, and dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: We measured annual utilization of seven Grade D services among adult Medicare patients, using inclusion and exclusion criteria from prior studies and the USPSTF recommendations. We calculated annual costs by multiplying annual utilization counts by mean per-unit costs of services using publicly available sources. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 95,121 unweighted Medicare patient visits, representing approximately 2.4 billion visits. Each year, these seven Grade D services were utilized 31.1 million times for Medicare beneficiaries and cost $477,891,886. Three services-screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, vitamin D supplements for fracture prevention, and colorectal cancer screening for adults over 85 years-comprised $322,382,772, or two-thirds of the annual costs of the Grade D services measured in this study. CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare beneficiaries frequently received a group of rigorously defined and costly low-value preventive services. Spending on low-value preventive care concentrated among a small subset of measures, representing important opportunities to safely lower US health care spending while improving the quality of care.

The Impact of Mammography Screening Guideline Changes in a Universally Insured Population.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) modified breast cancer screening guidelines in November 2009. The impact has been studied among privately and Medicare insured populations, but not among universally insured women. Materials and Methods: This study compared the proportion of TRICARE beneficiaries aged 40-64 receiving mammograms from fiscal years 2006 to 2015 using an interrupted time series analysis to determine the impact of the 2009 USPSTF guideline changes. Stratified analyses evaluated differences by age (ages 40-49, 50-64), race, care setting, beneficiary type, and military status. Results: The proportion of women receiving mammograms increased from October 2005 through September 2009. A small, but significant decrease of 65-66 fewer women screened per 10,000 occurred in the first quarter of 2010 (October 1 to December 31) following the screening guideline update publication. The proportion screened then remained unchanged through 2015. Comparative analysis revealed no differences in impact between age groups, blacks and whites, or military dependents and active-duty/retirees. Conclusions: This study determined that the USPSTF guideline updates had a small, but immediate and lasting impact that was not different across age groups, beneficiary type, or race. No racial disparities in the proportion screened or in the impact of the guideline change were noted in our universally insured population.

Assessment of NICE and USPSTF guidelines for identifying women at high risk of pre-eclampsia for tailoring aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for predicting pre-eclampsia in pregnancy to guide aspirin prophylaxis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies (PARIS) dataset. This dataset includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antiplatelet therapy for primary prevention of pre-eclampsia conducted in international antenatal care settings. RCTs were eligible if they enrolled pregnant women up to 28 weeks'gestation, reported risk factors, and assessed pre-eclampsia. Women assigned to the control arm (no antiplatelet agent) were included. Both guidelines recommend aspirin if ≥1 high-risk factors or ≥2 moderate-risk factors. Two moderate-risk factors (body mass index and pregnancy interval) were unavailable. Pre-eclampsia was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were pre-eclampsia defined by gestational age at delivery (<37 weeks versus ≥37 weeks; <34 weeks versus ≥34 weeks). We assessed the performance of the NICE and USPSTF approaches for parous and nulliparous women by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for predicting pre-eclampsia, the number-needed-to-screen (NNS) and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent one pre-eclampsia event. RESULTS: Three RCTs were eligible (4524 women, 221 pre-eclampsia cases). Using the NICE guidelines, 9.4% of 1020 parous women were classified as screen-positive with a sensitivity of 26.4% (95% confidence interval 16.4-39.6%), specificity 91.5% (89.6-93.1%), PPV 14.6% (8.9-23.0%) and NPV 95.8% (94.3-96.9%). The NNS was 729 and NNT 69. For 3504 nulliparous women, 3% were classified as screen-positive with a sensitivity of 8.9% (5.5-14.4%), specificity 97.2% (96.6-97.8%), PPV 14.2% (8.7-21.9%), NPV 95.5% (94.8-96.1%). The NNS was 2336 and NNT 71. The USPSTF approach demonstrated similar performance. CONCLUSION: The NICE and USPSTF guidelines offer a simple and specific approach for recommending aspirin prophylaxis for women at high-risk of pre-eclampsia where more advanced screening methods are not available. However, the low detection rate limits its value in clinical practice, in particular for nulliparous women, and raises the need for development of an improved simple risk prediction tool.

Screening Mammography Use Among Older Women Before and After the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how changes in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations (from annual to biennial mammography screening in women aged 50-74 and grading the evidence as insufficient for screening in women aged 75 and older) have affected mammography use among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study of 12 million Medicare fee-for-service women aged 65-74 and 75 and older to measure changes in 3-year screening use, 2007-2009 (before) and 2010-2012 (after), defined by two measures-proportion screened and frequency of screening by age, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. RESULTS: Fewer women were screened, but with similar frequency after 2009 for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 60.1% vs. 60.8% screened, 2.1 vs. 2.1 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 31.7% vs. 33.6% screened, 1.9 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Black women were the only subgroup with an increase in screening use, and for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 55.4% vs. 54.0% screened and 2.0 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 28.5% vs. 27.9% screened and 1.8 vs. 1.8 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Regional change patterns in screening were more similar between age groups (Pearson correlation r = 0.781 for proportion screened; r = 0.840 for frequency of screening) than between black versus nonblack women (Pearson correlation r = 0.221 for proportion screened; r = 0.212 for frequency of screening). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening mammography use for Medicare women are not fully aligned with the 2009 recommendations.

The impact of Medicare eligibility on cancer screening behaviors.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of health insurance limits access to preventive services, including cancer screening. We examined the effects of Medicare eligibility on the appropriate use of cancer screening services in the United States. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor and Surveillance System (analyzed in 2014). Univariable and logistic regression analyses were performed for participants aged 60-64 and 66-70 to examine the effects of Medicare eligibility on prevalence of self-reported screening for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers. Sub-analyses were performed among low-income (<$25,000 annual/household) individuals. RESULTS: Medicare-eligible individuals were significantly more likely to undergo all examined preventive services (colorectal cancer OR: 1.90; 95% CI 1.79-2.04; prostate cancer OR: 1.29; 95% CI 1.17-1.43; breast cancer OR: 1.23; 95% CI 1.10-1.37) and the effect was most pronounced among low-income individuals (colorectal cancer OR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.8-2.32; prostate cancer OR: 1.39; 95% CI 1.12-1.72; breast cancer OR: 1.42, 95% CI 1.20-1.67). Access to a healthcare provider was the strongest independent predictor of undergoing appropriate screening, ranging from OR 2.73 (95% CI 2.20-3.39) for colorectal cancer screening in the low-income population to OR 4.79 (95% CI 3.95-5.81) for breast cancer screening in the overall cohort. The difference in screening prevalence was most pronounced when comparing Medicare-eligible participants to uninsured Medicare-ineligible participants (+33.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare eligibility impacts the prevalence of cancer screening, likely as a result of increased access to primary care. Low-income individuals benefit most from Medicare eligibility. Expanded public insurance coverage to these individuals may improve access to preventive services.

Recent trends in adherence to continuous screening for breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine recent trends in adherence to continuous screening, especially the rate of subsequent screening mammography following an initial screening before and after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its guidelines on breast cancer in November 2009. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims data to: 1) compare rate of subsequent screening mammography over 27 month periods for 317,150 women screened in either 2004 or 2009; and 2) examine patterns of subsequent screening by age and race. RESULTS: When adjusted for age, race, state of residence, county-level covariates, and clustered on ordering provider, the rate of subsequent screening decreased in 2009 relative to 2004 (OR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.74-0.76). Adjusted odds ratios are similar for alternative follow-up windows (15 months, 0.71; 24 months, 0.70; 30 months 0.75). The decline was mostly attributable to women 75 and older who are now less likely to return for a subsequent screening. Although USPSTF guidelines call for 24 months, approximately half of women continue screening at 12-month intervals in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of subsequent screening mammography has declined after 2009. Older women seem to follow the revised USPSTF guideline, but confusion by physicians and patients about competing guidelines may be contributing to these findings.

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in outpatient primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound screening for men aged 65 to 75 years who ever smoked. Reported screening rates have been 13% to 26% but did not include computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and nonaortic abdominal ultrasound, which provide adequate visualization of the aorta. The objective of this study was to evaluate rates of screening performed intentionally with ultrasound and incidentally with other abdominal imaging, determine rates of redundant screening, and evaluate patient and physician characteristics associated with screening. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patient encounters in 2007 and 2012 to determine abdominal aortic aneurysm screening trends in primary care practices. Participants included all patients who were seen in a primary care office and were eligible for screening by USPSTF guidelines. The primary outcome was percentage of eligible patients screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm by ultrasound or other abdominal imaging. RESULTS: There were 15,120 patients eligible for screening in 2007, and 22,355 in 2012. Screening with ultrasounds increased from 3.6% in 2007 to 9.2% in 2012. Screening with any imaging that included the aorta increased from 31% in 2007 to 41% in 2012. Of 2595 screening ultrasounds performed in either cohort, 800 (31%) were performed on patients who had already undergone another imaging modality. Of 153 physicians who had >50 eligible patients, rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening ranged from 7.5% to 79% (median 39%, interquartile range 31%-47%), and rates of ultrasound screening ranged from 0% to 47% (median 6.3%, interquartile range 3.6%-11.4%). Physician characteristics positively associated with screened patients included female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.54), specialty (Internal Medicine vs Family Medicine: OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54), and location (academic medical center vs family health center: OR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening rates remain below 50%, but are improving over time. Screening by individual physicians varied widely, indicating substantial opportunity for educational interventions. Most abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is completed incidentally, and some patients later undergo unnecessary ultrasound screening. Before ordering screening, physicians and electronic health record-based reminder tools should ensure that the aorta has not been previously visualized.

Issues with implementing a high-quality lung cancer screening program.

After a comprehensive review of the evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed screening with low-dose computed tomography as an early detection approach that has the potential to significantly reduce deaths due to lung cancer. Prudent implementation of lung cancer screening as a high-quality preventive health service is a complex challenge. The clinical evaluation and management of high-risk cohorts in the absence of symptoms mandates an approach that differs significantly from that of symptom-detected lung cancer. As with other cancer screenings, it is essential to provide to informed at-risk individuals a safe, high-quality, cost-effective, and accessible service. In this review, the components of a successful screening program are discussed as we begin to disseminate lung cancer screening as a national resource to improve outcomes with this lethal cancer. This information about lung cancer screening will assist clinicians with communications about the potential benefits and harms of this service for high-risk individuals considering participation in the screening process.

Obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge and opinions about the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) committee, the Women's Health Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act: national study after the release of the USPSTF 2009 Breast Cancer Screening Recommendation Statement.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the knowledge and opinions of obstetrician and gynecologists (ob-gyns) regarding the USPSTF committee and statement, and to assess their reactions to healthcare legislation. METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey study of ob-gyns was conducted six months after a controversial USPSTF recommendation statement was released in November 2009. Ob-gyns' opinions about the Women's Health Amendment (WHA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 54% of ob-gyns knew that the USPSTF recommendations do not represent the position of the U.S. government and 40% knew that the USPSTF is not comprised of federal employees. A majority (60%) thought that the USPSTF was influenced by potential costs more than guidelines should be. When examining ob-gyns opinions about new national health policies, 88% support the mammography coverage provided by the WHA but support for the ACA varied. CONCLUSION: This study provides a snapshot of ob-gyns' knowledge and opinions about the USPSTF and breast cancer screening guidelines at a controversial point in time. Our findings are a unique contribution to larger efforts to understand health and political policy as the culture of medicine continues to evolve.