Association between racial residential segregation and screening uptake for colorectal and cervical cancer among Black and White patients in five US health care systems.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased recognition that structural racism contributes to poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, there are knowledge gaps about how current patterns of racial residential segregation are associated with cancer screening uptake. The authors examined associations between Black residential segregation and screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of CRC and cervical cancer screening-eligible adults from five health care systems within the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) Consortium (cohort entry, 2010-2012). Residential segregation was measured using site-specific quartiles of the Black local isolation score (LIS). The outcome was receipt of CRC or cervical cancer screening within 3 years of cohort entry (2010-2015). Logistic regression was used to calculate associations between the LIS and screening completion, adjusting for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: Among CRC (n = 642,661) and cervical cancer (n = 163,340) screening-eligible patients, 456,526 (71.0%) and 106,124 (65.0%), respectively, received screening. Across PROSPR sites, living in neighborhoods with higher LIS tended to be associated with lower odds of CRC screening (Kaiser Permanente Northern California: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] LIS trend in Black patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.98 [p < .001]; Kaiser Permanente Southern California: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 0.98 [p = .026]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.01 [p = .023]; Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.97 [p = .002]. However, for cervical cancer screening, associations with the LIS varied by site and race (Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; Mass General Brigham: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 1.12 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.03 [p < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Across five diverse health care systems, the direction of the association between Black residential segregation and screening varied by PROSPR site, race, and screening type. Additional research, including studies that examine multiple dimensions of segregation and structural racism using intersectional approaches, are needed to further disentangle these relationships.

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up. METHODS: We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines. RESULTS: Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities. IMPACT: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings in Older Adults With a History of Colorectal Adenomas.

Importance: Postpolypectomy surveillance is a common colonoscopy indication in older adults; however, guidelines provide little direction on when to stop surveillance in this population. Objective: To estimate surveillance colonoscopy yields in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study included individuals 70 to 85 years of age who received surveillance colonoscopy at a large, community-based US health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019; had an adenoma detected 12 or more months previously; and had at least 1 year of health plan enrollment before surveillance. Individuals were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer (CRC), hereditary CRC syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or prior colectomy or if the surveillance colonoscopy had an inadequate bowel preparation or was incomplete. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to February 22, 2024. Exposures: Age (70-74, 75-79, or 80-85 years) at surveillance colonoscopy and prior adenoma finding (ie, advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yields of CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia overall (all ages) by age group and by both age group and prior adenoma finding. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with advanced neoplasia detection at surveillance. Results: Of 9740 surveillance colonoscopies among 9601 patients, 5895 (60.5%) were in men, and 5738 (58.9%), 3225 (33.1%), and 777 (8.0%) were performed in those aged 70-74, 75-79, and 80-85 years, respectively. Overall, CRC yields were found in 28 procedures (0.3%), advanced adenoma in 1141 (11.7%), and advanced neoplasia in 1169 (12.0%); yields did not differ significantly across age groups. Overall, CRC yields were higher for colonoscopies among patients with a prior advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma (12 of 2305 [0.5%] vs 16 of 7435 [0.2%]; P = .02), and the same was observed for advanced neoplasia (380 of 2305 [16.5%] vs 789 of 7435 [10.6%]; P < .001). Factors associated with advanced neoplasia at surveillance were prior advanced adenoma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88), body mass index of 30 or greater vs less than 25 (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44), and having ever smoked tobacco (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Asian or Pacific Islander race was inversely associated with advanced neoplasia (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of surveillance colonoscopy yield in older adults, CRC detection was rare regardless of prior adenoma finding, whereas the advanced neoplasia yield was 12.0% overall. Yields were higher among those with a prior advanced adenoma than among those with prior nonadvanced adenoma and did not increase significantly with age. These findings can help inform whether to continue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults.

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Validation of human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis codes among women enrollees of a U.S. health plan.

BACKGROUND: Efficiently identifying patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) using administrative health care data (e.g., claims) can facilitate research on their quality of care and health outcomes. No prior study has validated the use of only ICD-10-CM HIV diagnosis codes to identify patients with HIV. METHODS: We validated HIV diagnosis codes among women enrolled in a large U.S. integrated health care system during 2010-2020. We examined HIV diagnosis code-based algorithms that varied by type, frequency, and timing of the codes in patients' claims data. We calculated the positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the algorithms using a medical record-confirmed diagnosis of HIV as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 272 women with ≥ 1 HIV diagnosis code in the administrative claims data were identified and medical records were reviewed for all 272 women. The PPV of an algorithm classifying women as having HIV as of the first HIV diagnosis code during the observation period was 80.5% (95% CI: 75.4-84.8%), and it was 93.9% (95% CI: 90.0-96.3%) as of the second. Little additional increase in PPV was observed when a third code was required. The PPV of an algorithm based on ICD-10-CM-era codes was similar to one based on ICD-9-CM-era codes. CONCLUSION: If the accuracy measure of greatest interest is PPV, our findings suggest that use of ≥ 2 HIV diagnosis codes to identify patients with HIV may perform well. However, health care coding practices may vary across settings, which may impact generalizability of our results.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Related Hospitalization among Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity among a growing population of cancer survivors. We describe the association of infection and related hospitalization by recency of cancer diagnosis in a large U.S. cohort. METHODS: Participants were sent electronic surveys between April 2020 and January 2021 to collect information on SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential COVID-19-related risk factors. SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified using survey report of a COVID-19-positive test and electronic health record data. Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated up to 365 days from baseline survey and stratified by recency of cancer diagnosis. Among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection, we used logistic regression to estimate the association between recency of cancer diagnosis and hospitalization within 30 days of infection. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at 365 days was 3.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.2%-3.5%] among those without cancer history and ranged from 2.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.5%) to 3.7% (95% CI, 2.9%-4.7%) among those with a history of cancer depending on recency. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of hospitalization within 30 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection by cancer diagnosis recency. CONCLUSIONS: Our null findings are consistent with other studies on COVID-19 infection risk in cancer survivors, where COVID-19 severity and sequelae were independent of cancer history and were likely associated with factors such as intensive care unit admission, noncancer comorbid conditions, and long-term care residency. IMPACT: This study can inform COVID-19 risk-counseling of cancer survivors and their caregivers as we continue to contend with COVID-19.

Timing of Colposcopy and Risk of Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system. RESULTS: Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a higher risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening. METHODS: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer. IMPACT: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Factors associated with shorter-interval cervical cancer screening for young women in three United States healthcare systems.

Frequently changing cervical cancer screening guidelines over the past two decades have been inconsistently adopted in the United States. Current guidelines set the recommended screening interval to three years for average-risk women aged 21-29 years. Few studies have evaluated how patient and provider factors are associated with implementation of cervical cancer screening intervals among younger women. This study evaluated multilevel factors associated with screening interval length among 69,939 women aged 21-29 years with an initial negative Pap screen between 2010 and 2015 across three large health systems in the U.S. Shorter-interval screening was defined as a second screening Pap within 2.5 years of an initial negative Pap. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed for each site to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with shorter-interval screening. The odds of shorter-interval screening decreased over the study period across all sites, though the proportion of patients screened within 2.5 years remained between 7.5% and 20.7% across sites in 2014-2015. Patient factors including insurance, race/ethnicity, and pregnancy were associated with shorter-interval screening, though the patterns differed across sites. At one site, the variation in shorter-interval screening explained by the provider was 10.6%, whereas at the other two sites, the provider accounted for < 2% of the variation in shorter-interval screening. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in factors driving cervical cancer screening interval across health systems and point to the need for tailored approaches targeted to both providers and patients to improve guideline-concordant screening.

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.

Provider- and Facility-Level Variation in Precancerous Cervical Biopsy Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: Reproducibility of cervical biopsy diagnoses is low and may vary based on where the diagnostic test is performed and by whom. Our objective was to measure multilevel variation in diagnoses across colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. METHODS: We cross-sectionally examined variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses within the 5 sites of the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium within levels defined by colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. Patients aged 18 to 65 years with a colposcopy with biopsy performed were included, with diagnoses categorized as normal, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1), grade 2 (CIN2), and grade 3 (CIN3). Using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo methods, we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for biopsy diagnoses and presented median odds ratios (MORs), which reflect the variability within each level. Median odds ratios can be interpreted as the average increased odds a patient would have for a given outcome (e.g., CIN2 or CIN3 vs normal or CIN1) when switching to a provider with higher odds of diagnosing that outcome. The MOR is always 1 or greater, and a value of 1 indicates no variation in outcome for that level, with higher values indicating greater variation. RESULTS: A total of 130,110 patients were included who received care across 82 laboratory facilities, 2,620 colposcopists, and 489 pathologists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses was found at each level, with the most occurring between laboratory facilities, followed by pathologists and colposcopists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses of CIN2 or CIN3 (vs normal or CIN1) was present between laboratory facilities (MOR: 1.26; 95% credible interval = 1.19-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Improving consistency in cervical biopsy diagnoses is needed to reduce underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment resulting from variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. RESULTS: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. IMPACT: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Gaps in the screening process for women diagnosed with cervical cancer in four diverse US health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Potential care gaps in the cervical cancer screening process among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in an era with increased human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have not been extensively evaluated. METHODS: Women diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 21 and 65 at four study sites between 2010 and 2014 were included. Screening histories were ascertained from 0.5 to 4 years prior to cervical cancer diagnosis. We identified potential care gaps in the screening history for each woman and classified them into one of three mutually exclusive types: lack of a screening test, screening test failure, and diagnostic/treatment care gap. Distributions of care gaps were tabulated by stage, histology, and study site. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to examine the associations between demographic and cancer characteristics and type of care gap. RESULTS: Of 499 women evaluated, 46% lacked a screening test in the time window examined, 31% experienced a screening test failure, and 22% experienced a diagnostic/treatment care gap. More than half of the women with advanced cancer and squamous cell carcinoma lacked a screening test compared to 31% and 24% of women with localized cancer and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Women aged 21-29 at diagnosis were more likely to experience screening test failure and diagnostic/treatment care gap, while those aged 50-65 were more likely to lack a screening test, compared to women aged 30-39. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a continuing need to develop interventions targeting unscreened and under-screened women and improve detection and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in women undergoing cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up.

Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems.

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers' beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care.

Factors associated with timely colposcopy following an abnormal cervical cancer test result.

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.