Race and Ethnicity-Adjusted Age Recommendation for Initiating Breast Cancer Screening.

Importance: Breast cancer (BC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, and there is a substantial disparity in BC mortality by race, especially for early-onset BC in Black women. Many guidelines recommend starting BC screening from age 50 years; however, the current one-size-fits-all policy to start screening all women from a certain age may not be fair, equitable, or optimal. Objective: To provide race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages of BC screening based on data on current racial and ethnic disparities in BC mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using data on BC mortality in female patients in the US who died of BC in 2011 to 2020. Exposures: Proxy-reported race and ethnicity information was used. The risk-adapted starting age of BC screening by race and ethnicity was measured based on 10-year cumulative risk of BC-specific death. Age-specific 10-year cumulative risk was calculated based on age group-specific mortality data without modeling or adjustment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease-specific mortality due to invasive BC in female patients. Results: There were BC-specific deaths among 415 277 female patients (1880 American Indian or Alaska Native [0.5%], 12 086 Asian or Pacific Islander [2.9%], 62 695 Black [15.1%], 28 747 Hispanic [6.9%], and 309 869 White [74.6%]; 115 214 patients died before age 60 years [27.7%]) of any age in the US in 2011 to 2020. BC mortality per 100 000 person-years for ages 40 to 49 years was 27 deaths in Black females, 15 deaths in White females, and 11 deaths in American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander females. When BC screening was recommended to start at age 50 years for all females with a 10-year cumulative risk of BC death of 0.329%, Black females reached this risk threshold level 8 years earlier, at age 42 years, whereas White females reached it at age 51 years, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic females at age 57 years, and Asian or Pacific Islander females 11 years later, at age 61 years. Race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages for Black females were 6 years earlier for mass screening at age 40 years and 7 years earlier for mass screening at age 45 years. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides evidence-based race-adapted starting ages for BC screening. These findings suggest that health policy makers may consider a risk-adapted approach to BC screening in which individuals who are at high risk are screened earlier to address mortality due to early-onset BC before the recommended age of mass screening.

Assessment of US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline-Concordant Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Reasons for Underscreening by Age, Race and Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Rurality, and Insurance, 2005 to 2019.

Importance: Cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal in the US. Population-based assessment of reasons for not receiving screening is needed, particularly among women from historically underserved demographic groups. Objective: To estimate changes in US Preventive Service Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening over time and assess the reasons women do not receive up-to-date screening by sociodemographic factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pooled population-based cross-sectional study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey from 2005 and 2019. A total of 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) aged 21 to 65 years without previous hysterectomy were included. Analyses were conducted from March 30 to August 19, 2021. Exposures: Sociodemographic factors, including age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality of residence, and health insurance type. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were US Preventive Services Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening rates and self-reported primary reasons for not receiving up-to-date screening. For 2005, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone for women aged 21 to 29 years and screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30 to 65 years. Population estimation included sampling weights. Results: Among 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the study, most were aged 30 to 65 years (16 219 women; weighted, 86.3 million women [76.3%]) and had private insurance (13 571 women; weighted, 75.8 million women [67.0%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 997 women (weighted, 6.9 million women [6.1%]) were Asian, 3821 women (weighted, 19.5 million women [17.2%]) were Hispanic, 2862 women (weighted, 14.8 million women [13.1%]) were non-Hispanic Black, 12 423 women (weighted, 69.0 million women [61.0%]) were non-Hispanic White, and 453 women (weighted, 3.0 million women [2.7%]) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including Alaska Native and American Indian [weighted, 955 000 women (0.8%)] and other single and multiple races or ethnicities [weighted, 2.0 million women (1.8%)]). In 2019, women aged 21 to 29 years had a significantly higher rate of overdue screening (29.1%) vs women aged 30 to 65 years (21.1%; P < .001). In both age groups, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001). Significantly higher rates of overdue screening were found among those of Asian vs non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity (31.4% vs 20.1%; P = .01), those identifying as LGBQ+ (gender identity was not assessed because of a small sample) vs heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P < .001), those living in rural vs urban areas (26.2% vs 22.6%; P = .04), and those without insurance vs those with private insurance (41.7% vs 18.1%; P < .001). The most common reason for not receiving timely screening across all groups was lack of knowledge, ranging from 47.2% of women identifying as LGBQ+ to 64.4% of women with Hispanic ethnicity. Previous receipt of a human papillomavirus vaccine was not a primary reason for not having up-to-date screening (<1% of responses). From 2005 to 2019, among women aged 30 to 65 years, lack of access decreased significantly as a primary reason for not receiving screening (from 21.8% to 9.7%), whereas lack of knowledge (from 45.2% to 54.8%) and not receiving recommendations from health care professionals (from 5.9% to 12.0%) increased significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that cervical cancer screening that was concordant with US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decreased in the US between 2005 and 2019, with lack of knowledge reported as the biggest barrier to receiving timely screening. Campaigns addressing patient knowledge and provider communication may help to improve screening rates, and cultural adaptation of interventions is needed to reduce existing disparities.

Trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests in a large medical claims database, United States, 2013-2019.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013-2019 among commercially insured women. METHODS: The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9-9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21-29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30-64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%-13.6% of women aged 18-20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer.

Quality of Actions to Control Cervical Cancer in Bahia, Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of the actions to control cervical cancer (CC) and its correlates. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted from January to March 2019 in 19 municipalities in Bahia, Brazil, with a sample of 241 doctors and nurses from primary health care (PHC). Three dependent variables were chosen- "Performance of educational, promotion, prevention, and monitoring actions" (D1); "Access to diagnostic tests" (D2); "Non-occurrence of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL)" (D3). Poisson regression with robust variance was used, adopting hierarchical input variables to estimate the prevalence ratios and confidence intervals of 95%. RESULTS: The following prevalence rates were found: D1  39.8% (95% CI: 33.8-46.2); D2  73.9% (95% CI: 67.9-79.1); and D3  46.4% (95% CI: 39.9-53.0). These dimensions remained associated with the dependent variables: D1- having professional training courses on the topic; consideration to ensure that collection takes place appropriately by a professional; and women having access to medical transport; D2- nurses treating low-grade lesions; D3- recording the Papanicolaou in electronic medical records; D1 and D2- professionals joining the service through public tender; D1 and D3- working in the PHC (≥ 2 years); D2 and D3- recording Papanicolaou in physical records; and performance of Papanicolaou by residents. CONCLUSION: Better trained professionals and professionals working in stable work arrangements are associated with comprehensive actions to control CC. Such strategies indicate that investments in work management result in a more organized PHC and more solution-centered work processes. Therefore, working in the PHC for a longer time and nurses performing more clinical actions (collection and treatment) are favored by such organizational actions. Investments in diagnostic support contribute to perceptions of more comprehensive actions to control CC. 
.

Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration.

INTRODUCTION: In cost-effectiveness analyses, the future costs, disutility and mortality from alternative causes of morbidity are often not completely taken into account. We explored the impact of different assumed values for each of these factors on the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Twenty different CRC screening strategies and two EAC screening strategies were evaluated using microsimulation. Average health-related expenses, disutility and mortality by age for the U.S. general population were estimated using surveys and lifetables. First, we evaluated strategies under default assumptions, with average mortality, and no accounting for health-related costs and disutility. Then, we varied costs, disutility and mortality between 100% and 150% of the estimated population averages, with 125% as the best estimate. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained among efficient strategies. RESULTS: The set of efficient strategies was robust to assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality from other causes of morbidity. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased with higher assumed values. For example, for CRC, the ratio for the recommended strategy increased from $15,600 with default assumptions, to $32,600 with average assumption levels, $61,100 with 25% increased levels, and $111,100 with 50% increased levels. Similarly, for EAC, the incremental costs per QALY gained for the recommended EAC screening strategy increased from $106,300 with default assumptions to $198,300 with 50% increased assumptions. In sensitivity analyses without discounting or including only above-average expenses, the impact of assumptions was relatively smaller, but best estimates of the cost per QALY gained remained substantially higher than default estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Assumptions on future costs, utility and mortality from other causes of morbidity substantially impact cost-effectiveness outcomes of cancer screening. More empiric evidence and consensus are needed to guide assumptions in future analyses.

Estimating the Breast Cancer Burden in Germany and Implications for Risk-based Screening.

In Germany, it is currently recommended that women start mammographic breast cancer screening at age 50. However, recently updated guidelines state that for women younger than 50 and older than 70 years of age, screening decisions should be based on individual risk. International clinical guidelines recommend starting screening when a woman's 5-year risk of breast cancer exceeds 1.7%. We thus compared the performance of the current age-based screening practice with an alternative risk-adapted approach using data from a German population representative survey. We found that 10,498,000 German women ages 50-69 years are eligible for mammographic screening based on age alone. Applying the 5-year risk threshold of 1.7% to individual breast cancer risk estimated from a model that considers a woman's reproductive and personal characteristics, 39,000 German women ages 40-49 years would additionally be eligible. Among those women, the number needed to screen to detect one breast cancer case, NNS, was 282, which was close to the NNS = 292 among all 50- to 69-year-old women. In contrast, NNS = 703 for the 113,000 German women ages 50-69 years old with 5-year breast cancer risk <0.8%, the median 5-year breast cancer risk for German women ages 45-49 years, which we used as a low-risk threshold. For these low-risk women, longer screening intervals might be considered to avoid unnecessary diagnostic procedures. In conclusion, we show that risk-adapted mammographic screening could benefit German women ages 40-49 years who are at elevated breast cancer risk and reduce cost and burden among low-risk women ages 50-69 years. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: We show that a risk-based approach to mammography screening for German women can help detect breast cancer in women ages 40-49 years with increased risk and reduce screening costs and burdens for low-risk women ages 50-69 years. However, before recommending a particular implementation of a risk-based mammographic screening approach, further investigations of models and thresholds used are needed.

Eligibility for cervical cancer screening exit: Comparison of a national and safety net cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To determine eligibility for discontinuation of cervical cancer screening. METHODS: Women aged 64 with employer-sponsored insurance enrolled in a national database between 2016 and 2018, and those aged 64-66 receiving primary care at a safety net health center in 2019 were included. Patients were evaluated for screening exit eligibility by current guidelines: no evidence of cervical cancer or HIV-positive status and no evidence of cervical precancer in the past 25 years, and had evidence of either hysterectomy with removal of the cervix or evidence of fulfilling screening exit criteria, defined as two HPV screening tests or HPV plus Pap co-tests or three Pap tests within the past 10 years without evidence of an abnormal result. RESULTS: Of the 590,901 women in the national claims database, 131,059 (22.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (1.6%) or negative screening (20.6%). Of the 1544 women from the safety net health center, 528 (34.2%) were eligible to exit due to hysterectomy (9.3%) or negative screening (24.9%). Most women did not have sufficient data available to fulfill exit criteria: 382,509 (64.7%) in the national database and 875 (56.7%) in the safety net hospital system. Even among women with 10 years of insurance claims data, only 41.5% qualified to discontinue screening. CONCLUSIONS: Examining insurance claims in a national database and electronic medical records at a safety net institution led to remarkably similar findings: two thirds of women fail to qualify for screening exit. Additional steps to ensure eligibility prior to screening exit may be necessary to decrease preventable cervical cancers among women aged >65. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Cervical testing beyond the screening target age - A register-based cohort study from Finland.

OBJECTIVE: It has been proposed that cervical cancer screening should be continued in women with previous abnormal results or irregular attendance. We examined the coverage and factors that might influence cervical testing beyond the age range of the organized cervical screening programme in Finland. The national programme invites women in every five years least until the age of 60. After the stopping age, only opportunistic service is available. METHODS: Data on cervical testing were collected from the Mass Screening Registry and providers of opportunistic Pap/HPV-testing and were linked with information on socio-economic variables. The study included 373,353 women who had at least one invitation to the national screening programme between ages 50-60 years, and who were aged 65-74 years in the follow-up period 2006-2016. Multivariable binomial regression models were conducted to determine associations. RESULTS: Altogether 33% of the study population had been tested at least once at ages 65-74 years. Previous regular screening attendance (adjRR 1.70; 95% CI 1.67-1.73) and earlier abnormal results (adjRR 2.08; 95% CI 2.04-2.12) were most clearly related to higher testing adherence at older age. Other factors related to higher testing adherence were urban area of residence, domestic mother tongue, high education level, and high socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Testing at older age was frequent with normal results, whereas only a small proportion of women with earlier abnormal results or irregular attendance were tested. The upper age limit of the national programme should be raised to 65 years, and the invitations thereafter should be targeted to selected high-risk groups.

Official Information Act investigation of the Ministry of Health's process to assess the Southern District Health Board's readiness to join the National Bowel Screening Programme in 2018.

We examined the documentation underlying the decision to permit the Southern District Health Board (SDHB) to join the National Bowel Screening Programme (NBSP) at a time when it was not providing an adequate colonoscopy service for symptomatic patients. A coordinated sequence of relevant Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests was lodged with the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MoH), which is responsible for determining the readiness of district health boards (DHBs) to join the NBSP. However, the MoH OIA process was obfuscating, unduly long and responded only after they anticipated imminent intervention by the Office of the Ombudsman. The amount of information provided was massive, partly irrelevant and presented in an inconvenient format. It revealed that the MoH readiness process was incomplete, and permission for the SDHB to join the NBSP was given prematurely without following due process and despite concerns expressed by some MoH staff. Subsequently, the MoH has failed to admit that they made errors in this case or have any weaknesses in their readiness assessment process. The MoH readiness process failed to determine that the SDHB was not ready to join the NBSP in 2018. Concerns have been expressed in the public media that such failures have occurred with the assessment of other DHBs. The process needs to be overhauled or replaced before further permissions are granted to DHBs. Requests for information under the OIA from the MoH, and similar public entities and agencies subject to the OIA, are too easily deferred, derailed or declined. The OIA is in need of revision.

AI-based smartphone apps for risk assessment of skin cancer need more evaluation and better regulation.

Smartphone applications ("apps") with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used in healthcare. Widespread adoption of these apps must be supported by a robust evidence-base and app manufacturers' claims appropriately regulated. Current CE marking assessment processes inadequately protect the public against the risks created by using smartphone diagnostic apps.

Should colorectal cancer screening start at different ages for men and women? Cost-effectiveness analysis for a resource-constrained service.

BACKGROUND: Men have a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than women, but population screening currently starts at the same age for both sexes. AIM: This analysis investigates whether, in a resource-constrained setting, it would be more effective and cost-effective for men and women to start screening for CRC at different ages. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic modeling analysis was carried out using the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel to compare sex-stratification against screening everyone from the same age, taking an English National Health Service perspective. Screening men from age 56 and women from age 60, rather than screening everyone from age 58 using a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) threshold of 120 µg/g is expected to produce an additional 0.0004 QALYs for a cost of £0.55 per person at model start (Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio = £1392), and to reduce CRC cases and mortality by 25 and 19 per 100 000 people respectively, while using a similar amount of screening resources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates a 61% probability that sex-stratification is more cost-effective than screening everyone at age 58. Similar benefits of sex-stratification are found at other FIT thresholds, but become negligible if mean screening start age is reduced to 50. CONCLUSION: Where resources are constrained and it is not feasible to screen everyone from the age of 50, starting screening earlier in men than women is likely to be more cost-effective and gain more health benefits overall than strategies where men and women start screening at the same age.

The first BGICC consensus and recommendations for breast cancer awareness, early detection and risk reduction in low- and middle-income countries and the MENA region.

In low-middle income countries (LMICs) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, there is an unmet need to establish and improve breast cancer (BC) awareness, early diagnosis and risk reduction programs. During the 12th Breast, Gynecological & Immuno-oncology International Cancer Conference - Egypt 2020, 26 experts from 7 countries worldwide voted to establish the first consensus for BC awareness, early detection and risk reduction in LMICs/MENA region. The panel advised that there is an extreme necessity for a well-developed BC data registries and prospective clinical studies that address alternative modalities/modified BC screening programs in areas of limited resources. The most important recommendations of the panel were: (a) BC awareness campaigns should be promoted to public and all adult age groups; (b) early detection programs should combine geographically distributed mammographic facilities with clinical breast examination (CBE); (c) breast awareness should be encouraged; and (d) intensive surveillance and chemoprevention strategies should be fostered for high-risk women. The panel defined some areas for future clinical research, which included the role of CBE and breast self-examination as an alternative to radiological screening in areas of limited resources, the interval and methodology of BC surveillance in women with increased risk of BC and the use of low dose tamoxifen in BC risk reduction. In LMICs/MENA region, BC awareness and early detection campaigns should take into consideration the specific disease criteria and the socioeconomic status of the target population. The statements with no consensus reached should serve as potential catalyst for future clinical research.

Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.

Preventable differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality across racial/ethnic, economic, geographic, and other groups can be eliminated by assuring equitable access and quality across the care continuum, but few interventions have been demonstrated to do so. Multicomponent strategies designed with a health equity framework may be effective. A health equity framework takes into account social determinants of health, multilevel influences (policy, community, delivery, and individual levels), screening processes, and community engagement. Effective strategies for increasing screening uptake include patient navigation and other interventions for structural barriers, reminders and clinical decision support, and data to continuously track metrics and guide targets for improvement. Community resource gaps should be addressed to assure high-quality services irrespective of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status. One model combinespopulation-based proactive outreach screening with screening delivery at in-person or virtual points of contact, as well as community engagement. Patient- and provider-based behavioral interventions may be considered for increasing screening demand and delivery. Providing a choice of screening tests is recommended for CRC screening, and access to colonoscopy is required for completion of the CRC screening process.

The optimal HPV-screening protocol in Eastern-Europe: The example of Slovenia.

OBJECTIVE: Eastern European countries are contemplating to introduce the high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-test as the primary screening test for their cervical cancer screening programme, but its optimal protocol is yet unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of different primary HPV-screening protocols in Eastern Europe, using Slovenia as an example and with respect of local preferences for screening. METHODS: We evaluated 968 HPV-screening protocols, which varied by screening ages, triage tests (i.e. cytology, repeat HPV and/or genotyping) and strategy for women under 35 years old, using the microsimulation model MISCAN-Cervix. RESULTS: Within the subset of strategies that would be acceptable for Slovenian women, the optimal HPV-screening protocol is to start with two cytology tests at age 25 and 28 and switch to 5-yearly HPV screening from age 30 to 65. When also other protocols were considered, the optimal screening strategy would be 5-yearly HPV screening from age 30 to 65 only, improving the cost-effectiveness with 5%. Adding genotyping in the triage algorithm consistently improved cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results for other situations in Eastern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in cervical cancer epidemiology between Eastern and Western European regions where HPV screening was evaluated, the optimal screening protocol was found to be very similar. Furthermore, strategies that were considered socially acceptable to the population were found to be almost as cost-effective as less acceptable strategies and can therefore be considered a viable alternative to prevent opportunistic screening.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.