Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening From Three U.S. Healthcare Settings.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. METHODS: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. RESULTS: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p<0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations.

Association of Patient and Site-of-Care Characteristics With Reproductive Carrier Screening Timing in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Reproductive genetic carrier screening can be performed prior to or during pregnancy to assess a reproductive couple's risk of having a child with a recessively inherited disorder. Although professional societies endorse preconception screening as preferable to prenatal screening to allow for greater reproductive choice, implementation of preconception screening is challenging. Objective: To determine how carrier screening timing varies by multilevel factors associated with health care delivery including patient, clinician, and location across a large integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a mixed-methods approach including (1) quantitative analysis of multilevel factors associated with the timing of reproductive carrier screening and (2) qualitative analyses of data from interviews conducted with clinicians ordering carrier screenings. The setting was the Mass General Brigham, a large integrated health care system in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Participants included adult female patients who completed reproductive carrier screening performed by Myriad Women's Health between October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Exposures: Site of care (ordering clinical location and hospital affiliate), ordering clinician specialty, and patient characteristics, including age at date of test collection, self-reported race and ethnicity, primary insurance payor, and number of comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the timing of carrier screening (preconception vs prenatal). A series of 4 multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to measure the relative contribution of site, clinician, and patient-level factors on the timing of screening. Interviews with ordering clinicians (N = 9) were analyzed using a framework approach to explore barriers to preconception screening. Results: Among 6509 adult female patients who completed carrier screenings, 770 (12%) were Asian, 352 (5%) were Hispanic, 640 (10%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3844 (59%) were non-Hispanic White, 858 (13%) were other or multiple races and ethnicities, and 2611 (40%) were aged 31 to 35 years; 4701 (63%) had prenatal screening and 2438 (37%) had preconception screening; screenings were ordered by 161 distinct clinicians across 32 clinical locations affiliated with 4 hospitals. In model 1, adjusted for hospital (fixed effect), clinic and clinician (random effects), 49% of the variability in timing was associated with clinician-level effects (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.49) and 28% was associated with clinic-level effects (ICC, 0.28). Clinician specialty explained the greatest amount of variation in screening timing. Interviewed clinicians (N = 9) supported preconception screening but cited several barriers to offering population-based preconception screening. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, multilevel factors were associated with carrier screening timing. These findings suggest that increasing access to preconception screening may involve engaging specific medical specialties.

Natural Language Processing to Identify Abnormal Breast, Lung, and Cervical Cancer Screening Test Results from Unstructured Reports to Support Timely Follow-up.

Cancer screening and timely follow-up of abnormal results can reduce mortality. One barrier to follow-up is the failure to identify abnormal results. While EHRs have coded results for certain tests, cancer screening results are often stored in free-text reports, which limit capabilities for automated decision support. As part of the multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS) trial, we developed and implemented a natural language processing (NLP) tool to assist with real-time detection of abnormal cancer screening test results (including mammograms, low-dose chest CT scans, and Pap smears) and identification of gynecological follow-up for higher risk abnormalities (i.e. colposcopy) from free-text reports. We demonstrate the integration and implementation of NLP, within the mFOCUS system, to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results in a large integrated healthcare system. The NLP pipelines have detected scenarios when guideline-recommended care was not delivered, in part because the provider mis-identified the text-based result reports.

Receipt of Colonoscopy Following Diagnosis of Advanced Adenomas: An Analysis within Integrated Healthcare Delivery Systems.

BACKGROUND: To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval. METHODS: We describe patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan-Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%-27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%-65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60-74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas. IMPACT: Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed.

Racial/ethnic differences in obesity and comorbidities between safety-net- and non safety-net integrated health systems.

Previous research shows that patients in integrated health systems experience fewer racial disparities compared with more traditional healthcare systems. Little is known about patterns of racial/ethnic disparities between safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems.We evaluated racial/ethnic differences in body mass index (BMI) and the Charlson comorbidity index from 3 non safety-net- and 1 safety-net integrated health systems in a cross-sectional study. Multinomial logistic regression modeled comorbidity and BMI on race/ethnicity and health care system type adjusting for age, sex, insurance, and zip-code-level incomeThe study included 1.38 million patients. Higher proportions of safety-net versus non safety-net patients had comorbidity score of 3+ (11.1% vs. 5.0%) and BMI ≥35 (27.7% vs. 15.8%). In both types of systems, blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to have higher BMIs. Whites were more likely than blacks or Hispanics to have higher comorbidity scores in a safety net system, but less likely to have higher scores in the non safety-nets. The odds of comorbidity score 3+ and BMI 35+ in blacks relative to whites were significantly lower in safety-net than in non safety-net settings.Racial/ethnic differences were present within both safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems, but patterns differed. Understanding patterns of racial/ethnic differences in health outcomes in safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems is important to tailor interventions to eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care.

Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer screening guidelines and metrics are inconsistent with each other and may differ from breast screening practice patterns in primary care. This study measured breast cancer screening practice patterns in relation to common evidence-based guidelines and accountability metrics. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study using primary data collected from a regional breast cancer screening research network between 2011 and 2014. METHODS: Using information on women aged 30 to 89 years within 21 primary care practices of 2 large integrated health systems in New England, we measured the proportion of women screened overall and by age using 2 screening definition categories: any mammogram and screening mammogram. RESULTS: Of the 81,352 women in our cohort, 54,903 (67.5%) had at least 1 mammogram during the time period, 48,314 (59.4%) had a screening mammogram. Women aged 50 to 69 years were the highest proportion screened (82.4% any mammogram, 75% screening indication); 72.6% of women at age 40 had a screening mammogram with a median of 70% (range = 54.3%-84.8%) among the practices. Of women aged at least 75 years, 63.3% had a screening mammogram, with the median of 63.9% (range = 37.2%-78.3%) among the practices. Of women who had 2 or more mammograms, 79.5% were screened annually. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practice patterns for breast cancer screening are not well aligned with some evidence-based guidelines and accountability metrics. Metrics and incentives should be designed with more uniformity and should also include shared decision making when the evidence does not clearly support one single conclusion.

Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

BACKGROUND: Population outreach strategies are increasingly used to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The influence of primary care on cancer screening in this context is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between primary care provider (PCP) visits and receipt of CRC screening and colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 968,072 patients ages 50-74 years who were not up to date with CRC screening in 2011 in four integrated healthcare systems (three with screening outreach programs using FIT kits) in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, PCP visit, and CRC screening data were obtained from electronic health records and administrative databases. We examined associations between PCP visits in 2011 and receipt of FIT/FOBT, screening colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (CRC screening) in 2012 and follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months of a positive FIT/FOBT in 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score models to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of eligible patients completed a CRC screening test in 2012, most by FIT. Those with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of CRC screening at all sites. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had nearly twice the adjusted-odds of CRC screening (OR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.86-1.89). Overall, 79.6 % of patients with a positive FIT/FOBT completed colonoscopy within 3 months. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had 30 % higher adjusted odds of completing colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT (OR = 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.22-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of both incident CRC screening and colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT, even in health systems with active population health outreach programs. In this era of virtual care and population outreach, primary care visits remain an important mechanism for engaging patients in cancer screening.

Influence of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Expert recommendations differ for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults aged >75 years may benefit from screening. This study examined screening use and follow-up, and how they varied by health status within age strata, among a large cohort of elderly individuals in community settings. METHODS: A population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted among health plan members aged 65-89 years enrolled during 2011-2012 in three integrated healthcare systems participating in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Comorbidity measurements used the Charlson index. Analyses, conducted in 2015, comprised descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling that estimated age by comorbidity-specific percentages of patients for two outcomes: colorectal cancer screening uptake and follow-up of abnormal fecal blood tests. RESULTS: Among 846,267 patients, 72% were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Of patients with a positive fecal blood test, 65% received follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months. Likelihood of being up-to-date and receiving timely follow-up was significantly lower for patients aged ≥76 years than their younger counterparts (p<0.001). Comorbidity was less influential than age and more strongly related to timely follow-up than being up-to-date. In all age groups, considerable numbers of patients with no/low comorbidity were not up-to-date or did not receive timely follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In three integrated healthcare systems, many older, relatively healthy patients were not screening up-to-date, and some relatively young, healthy patients did not receive timely follow-up. Findings suggest a need for re-evaluating age-based screening guidelines and improving screening completion among the elderly.

Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.