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.

Dietary Factors Differ Between Young-Onset and Older-Onset Colorectal Cancer Patients.

We aimed to evaluate differences in dietary factors between young-onset (diagnosed at ages <50) and older-onset colorectal cancer (CRC). CRC patients diagnosed from 1998 to 2018 reported to the Puget Sound Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry were recruited using mail and telephone. Consented patients completed questionnaires assessing demographics, medical history, and CRC risk factors, including dietary factors. We used multi-variable logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing dietary intake in young-onset vs. older-onset CRC. Analyses included 1,087 young- and 2,554 older-onset CRC patients. Compared to older-onset CRC, young-onset CRC patients had lower intake of vegetables (OR for highest intake vs. lowest = 0.59 CI: 0.55, 0.64) and fruit (OR for highest intake vs. lowest = 0.94 CI: 0.88, 0.99) and higher intake of processed meat (OR for highest intake vs. lowest = 1.82 CI: 1.11, 2.99) and spicy food (OR for highest intake vs. lowest = 1.69 CI: 1.09, 2.61). There was no statistically significant difference between young- and older-onset CRC patients for red meat consumption. Dietary patterns differed between young- and older-onset CRC; young-onset CRC patients had lower intake of vegetables and fruit and higher intakes of processed meat and spicy food.

Colorectal cancer pre-diagnostic symptoms are associated with anatomic cancer site.

BACKGROUND: Signs and red flag symptoms in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who are below the recommended screening age are often overlooked, leading to delayed diagnosis and worse prognosis. This study investigates how patient pre-diagnostic symptoms are associated with anatomic site of their cancer and whether the association varies by age at CRC diagnosis. METHODS: We ascertained CRC patients' experienced symptoms and screening through medical abstractions from an ongoing population-based study of CRC patients identified through a SEER cancer registry (N = 626). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between symptoms and CRC anatomic site. Additional analyses were stratified by age at diagnosis. Early-onset was defined as less than 50 years of age at CRC diagnosis. RESULTS: Participants who experienced blood in stool were more likely (odds ratio (95% confidence interval)) to have rectal (vs. colon) cancer (4.37 (3.02, 6.33)), as were patients who experienced changes to stool (1.78 (1.21, 2.60)). Patients diagnosed with colon cancer were more likely to present with abdominal pain (0.30 (0.19, 0.47)), anemia (0.40 (0.21, 0.75)), other symptoms (0.33 (0.19, 0.55)) and no symptoms (0.68 (0.44, 1.04)). When stratifying by age at diagnosis, we found that the association between blood in stool and rectal tumor location was particularly pronounced for patients with early-onset CRC (6.48 (2.73, 15.41)). CONCLUSIONS: Common pre-diagnostic red flag symptoms are associated with CRC anatomic site. These findings can inform best practices for gastroenterologist triage of care and early evaluation of CRC and are of key importance given the rise of early-onset (pre-screening age) CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable to this study and analysis.

Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Depression, anxiety, & loneliness among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression, anxiety, and loneliness between those with and without a history of cancer. DESIGN: This prospective observational study used a quantitative approach. PARTICIPANTS: Adult members of the Kaiser Permanente Research Bank (N = 104,640). METHODS: Participants completed a series of surveys from May to December 2020. The difference in score of depression, anxiety, and loneliness were estimated using linear mixed regression. FINDINGS: Among cancer survivors, 21% and 19% met the thresholds for increased risk of depression and anxiety. Among cancer survivors, younger age groups and females reported increased depression, anxiety, and loneliness scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the continued necessity of addressing mental health needs and social support in cancer survivors during and after a public health emergency. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS: Cancer survivors may need particular resources after cancer treatment to strengthen resilience and improve quality of life.

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.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

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.

Uptake of novel systemic therapy: Real world patterns among adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based chemotherapy to immunotherapy and targeted therapies associated with improved survival in clinical trials. As new therapies are approved for use, examining variations in use for treating patients in community practice can generate additional evidence as to the magnitude of their benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1,442 patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC between 3/1/2012 and 12/31/2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns are described overall and by type of first- and second-line systemic therapy received. Prevalence ratios estimate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with receipt of first-line therapy. RESULTS: Within 180 days of diagnosis, 949 (66%) patients received first-line systemic therapy, increasing from 53% in 2012 to 71% in 2020 (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients receiving first-line immunotherapy+/-chemotherapy (IMO) increased from 14%-66% (p<0.0001). Overall, 380 (26%) patients received both first- and second-line treatment, varying by year between 16%-36% (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients receiving second-line IMO increased from 13%-37% (p<0.0001). Older age and current smoking status were inversely associated with receipt of first-line therapy. Higher BMI, receipt of radiation, and diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of first-line therapy. No association was found for race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: The proportion of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first- and second-line treatment increased over time, particularly for IMO treatments. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of these therapies on patient outcomes, including short-term, long-term, and financial toxicities. MICROABSTRACT: Systemic treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based therapies to immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Using de novo stage IV NSCLC patients identified from 4 healthcare systems, we examine trends in systemic therapy. We saw an increase in the portion of patients receiving any systemic therapy and a sharp increase in the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). RESULTS: Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. CONCLUSIONS: We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping.

BACKGROUND: Identifying key determinants is crucial for improving program implementation and achieving long-term sustainment within healthcare organizations. Organizational-level complexity and heterogeneity across multiple stakeholders can complicate our understanding of program implementation. We describe two data visualization methods used to operationalize implementation success and to consolidate and select implementation factors for further analysis. METHODS: We used a combination of process mapping and matrix heat mapping to systematically synthesize and visualize qualitative data from 66 stakeholder interviews across nine healthcare organizations, to characterize universal tumor screening programs of all newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancers and understand the influence of contextual factors on implementation. We constructed visual representations of protocols to compare processes and score process optimization components. We also used color-coded matrices to systematically code, summarize, and consolidate contextual data using factors from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Combined scores were visualized in a final data matrix heat map. RESULTS: Nineteen process maps were created to visually represent each protocol. Process maps identified the following gaps and inefficiencies: inconsistent execution of the protocol, no routine reflex testing, inconsistent referrals after a positive screen, no evidence of data tracking, and a lack of quality assurance measures. These barriers in patient care helped us define five process optimization components and used these to quantify program optimization on a scale from 0 (no program) to 5 (optimized), representing the degree to which a program is implemented and optimally maintained. Combined scores within the final data matrix heat map revealed patterns of contextual factors across optimized programs, non-optimized programs, and organizations with no program. CONCLUSIONS: Process mapping provided an efficient method to visually compare processes including patient flow, provider interactions, and process gaps and inefficiencies across sites, thereby measuring implementation success via optimization scores. Matrix heat mapping proved useful for data visualization and consolidation, resulting in a summary matrix for cross-site comparisons and selection of relevant CFIR factors. Combining these tools enabled a systematic and transparent approach to understanding complex organizational heterogeneity prior to formal coincidence analysis, introducing a stepwise approach to data consolidation and factor selection.

Demographic, Clinical, and Behavioral Factors Associated With Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use in a Large Cohort in the United States.

Introduction: Our primary purpose is to understand comorbidities and health outcomes associated with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use. Methods: Study participants were Kaiser Permanente (KP) members from eight US regions who joined the Kaiser Permanente Research Bank (KPRB) from September 2015 through December 2019 and completed a questionnaire assessing demographic and behavioral factors, including ENDS and traditional cigarette use. Medical history and health outcomes were obtained from electronic health records. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of current and former ENDS use according to member characteristics, behavioral factors, and clinical history. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs comparing risk of health outcomes according to ENDS use. Results: Of 119 593 participants, 1594 (1%) reported current ENDS use and 5603 (5%) reported past ENDS use. ENDS users were more likely to be younger, male, gay or lesbian, and American Indian / Alaskan Native or Asian. After adjustment for confounding, current ENDS use was associated with current traditional cigarette use (OR = 39.55; CI:33.44-46.77), current marijuana use (OR = 6.72; CI:5.61-8.05), history of lung cancer (OR = 2.64; CI:1.42-4.92), non-stroke cerebral vascular disease (OR = 1.55; CI:1.21-1.99), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 2.16; CI:1.77-2.63). Current ENDS use was also associated with increased risk of emergency room (ER) visits (HR = 1.17; CI: 1.05-1.30) and death (HR = 1.84; CI:1.02-3.32). Conclusions: Concurrent traditional cigarette use, marijuana use, and comorbidities were prevalent among those who used ENDS, and current ENDS use was associated with an increased risk of ER visits and death. Additional research focused on health risks associated with concurrent ENDS and traditional cigarette use in those with underlying comorbidities is needed.

Percentage Up to Date With Chest Computed Tomography Among Those Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Authors aimed to calculate the percentage up-to-date with testing in the context of lung cancer screening across 5 healthcare systems and evaluate differences according to patient and health system characteristics. METHODS: Lung cancer screening‒eligible individuals receiving care within the five systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung consortium from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 were included in analyses. Data collection was completed on June 15, 2021; final analyses were completed on April 1, 2022. Chest computed tomography scans and patient characteristics were obtained through electronic health records and used to calculate the percentage completing a chest computed tomography scan in the previous 12 months (considered up-to-date). The association of patient and healthcare system factors with being up-to-date was evaluated with adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs using log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: There were 29,417 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as of September 30, 2019; 8,333 (28.3%) were up-to-date with testing. Those aged 65-74 years (prevalence ratio=1.19; CI=1.15, 1.24, versus ages 55-64), those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence ratio=2.05; CI=1.98, 2.13), and those in higher SES census tracts (prevalence ratio=1.22; CI=1.16, 1.30, highest quintile versus lowest) were more likely to be up-to-date. Currently smoking (prevalence ratio=0.91; CI=0.88, 0.95), having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (prevalence ratio=0.83; CI=0.77, 0.88), identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (prevalence ratio=0.79; CI=0.68, 0.92), and having a decentralized lung cancer screening program (prevalence ratio=0.77; CI=0.74, 0.80) were inversely associated with being up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage up-to-date with testing among those eligible for lung cancer screening is well below up-to-date estimates for other types of cancer screening, and disparities in lung cancer screening participation remain.

Social risk factors among individuals with a history of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and its economic consequences may disproportionately impact cancer survivors and their overall health-related quality of life. The objective of this study was to examine whether cancer survivors experienced higher levels of financial strain or food insecurity compared to those without a history of cancer. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Research Bank (KPRB) study participants were invited to complete a series of electronic surveys starting April 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants who completed the initial survey and one follow-up survey were included. The odds of financial strain and food insecurity in those with and without a history of cancer were estimated using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Cancer survivors (n = 16,231) had lower odds of reporting "somewhat hard" (AOR = 0.77) and "very hard" (AOR = 0.67) financial strain, and food insecurity "sometimes" (AOR = 0.70) and "often" (AOR = 0.55) compared to those with no history of cancer (n = 88,409). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black and Hispanic cancer survivors had higher odds compared to NH Whites of reporting financial strain and food insecurity. Smokers and those with multiple comorbidities had higher odds of reporting financial strain and food insecurity among cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: While cancer survivors overall did not report greater financial strain or food insecurity than individuals without a history of cancer, subsets of cancer survivors are experiencing greater social risks during the pandemic and should be prioritized for screening for social risk factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Incorporating screening for social risk factors into care coordination workflows for subsets of cancer survivors should be a priority.

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.