The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as "nondense" (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as "dense" (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as "dense" by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as "nondense" by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

Teams and teamwork during a cancer diagnosis: interdependency within and between teams.

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each.

Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected during 2004-2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76-3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51-3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70-4.51) for detection of DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care.

Organizational leadership for building effective health care teams.

The movement toward accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes will increase with implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA will therefore give further impetus to the growing importance of teams in health care. Teams typically involve 2 or more people embedded in a larger social system who differentiate their roles, share common goals, interact with each other, and perform tasks affecting others. Multiple team types fit within this definition, and they all need support from leadership to succeed. Teams have been invoked as a necessary tool to address the needs of patients with multiple chronic conditions and to address medical workforce shortages. Invoking teams, however, is much easier than making them function effectively, so we need to consider the implications of the growing emphasis on teams. Although the ACA will spur team development, organizational leadership must use what we know now to train, support, and incentivize team function. Meanwhile, we must also advance research regarding teams in health care to give those leaders more evidence to guide their work.

Multilevel interventions: study design and analysis issues.

Multilevel interventions, implemented at the individual, physician, clinic, health-care organization, and/or community level, increasingly are proposed and used in the belief that they will lead to more substantial and sustained changes in behaviors related to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment than would single-level interventions. It is important to understand how intervention components are related to patient outcomes and identify barriers to implementation. Designs that permit such assessments are uncommon, however. Thus, an important way of expanding our knowledge about multilevel interventions would be to assess the impact of interventions at different levels on patients as well as the independent and synergistic effects of influences from different levels. It also would be useful to assess the impact of interventions on outcomes at different levels. Multilevel interventions are much more expensive and complicated to implement and evaluate than are single-level interventions. Given how little evidence there is about the value of multilevel interventions, however, it is incumbent upon those arguing for this approach to do multilevel research that explicates the contributions that interventions at different levels make to the desired outcomes. Only then will we know whether multilevel interventions are better than more focused interventions and gain greater insights into the kinds of interventions that can be implemented effectively and efficiently to improve health and health care for individuals with cancer. This chapter reviews designs for assessing multilevel interventions and analytic ways of controlling for potentially confounding variables that can account for the complex structure of multilevel data.

Multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward.

This summary reflects on this monograph regarding multilevel intervention (MLI) research to 1) assess its added value; 2) discuss what has been learned to date about its challenges in cancer care delivery; and 3) identify specific ways to improve its scientific soundness, feasibility, policy relevance, and research agenda. The 12 submitted chapters, and discussion of them at the March 2011 multilevel meeting, were reviewed and discussed among the authors to elicit key findings and results addressing the questions raised at the outset of this effort. MLI research is underrepresented as an explicit focus in the cancer literature but may improve implementation of studies of cancer care delivery if they assess contextual, organizational, and environmental factors important to understanding behavioral and/or system-level interventions. The field lacks a single unifying theory, although several psychological or biological theories are useful, and an ecological model helps conceptualize and communicate interventions. MLI research designs are often complex, involving nonlinear and nonhierarchical relationships that may not be optimally studied in randomized designs. Simulation modeling and pilot studies may be necessary to evaluate MLI interventions. Measurement and evaluation of team and organizational interventions are especially needed in cancer care, as are attention to the context of health-care reform, eHealth technology, and genomics-based medicine. Future progress in MLI research requires greater attention to developing and supporting relevant metrics of level effects and interactions and evaluating MLI interventions. MLI research holds an unrealized promise for understanding how to improve cancer care delivery.

Are physicians' recommendations for colorectal cancer screening guideline-consistent?

BACKGROUND: Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians' recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities. METHODS: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians' screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models. RESULTS: Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice.

Mediating factors in the relationship between income and mammography use in low-income insured women.

AIM: We used secondary data from a prospective randomized mammography recruitment trial to examine whether attitudinal and facilitating characteristics mediate the observed relationship between annual household income and mammogram receipt among women in an integrated health plan. METHODS: We compared 1419 women due for a screening mammogram based on the 1995 annual household income poverty definition for a family of four (<$15,000 vs. >$15,000). A telephone survey was used to collect information on household income, demographics, health behavior, attitudinal and facilitating variables. Administrative databases were used to document mammography receipt. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of subsequent mammography use separately for women with and without a prior mammogram. RESULTS: Several variables, including employment, living alone, believing that mammograms are unnecessary, having friends supportive of mammography, and ease of arranging transportation, completely mediated the effect of income on mammography use. In multivariable models, the direct predictive effect of income on mammography was reduced to nonsignificance (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82-1.54 in women with previous mammogram and HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.41-2.00 in women without previous mammogram). CONCLUSIONS: Providing insurance does not ensure low-income populations will seek screening mammography. Efficacious interventions that address attitudes and facilitating conditions may motivate mammography use among low-income women with insurance.

Building a research consortium of large health systems: the Cancer Research Network.

Critical questions about cancer prevention, care, and outcomes increasingly require research involving large patient populations and their care delivery organizations. The Cancer Research Network (CRN) includes 11 integrated health systems funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to conduct collaborative cancer research. This article describes the challenges of constructing a productive consortium of large health systems, and explores the CRN's responses. The CRN was initially funded through an NCI cooperative agreement in 1999 and has since received a second 4-year grant. Leadership and policy development are provided through a steering committee, subcommittees, and an external advisory committee. The CRN includes integral and affiliated research projects supported by a Scientific and Data Resources Core. Three characteristics of the CRN intensified the general challenges of consortium research: 1) its members are large health systems with legitimate concerns about confidentiality of data about enrollees, providers, and the organization; 2) CRN research projects often generate highly sensitive data about quality of care; and therefore 3) each participating organization wants a strong voice in CRN direction. CRN experience to date confirms that a consortium of health systems with internal research capacity can address a range of important cancer research questions that would be difficult to study in other venues. The advantages and challenges of consortium research are explored, with suggestions for the development, execution, and management of multisystem population laboratories.