Variation in State-Level Mammography Use, 2012 and 2020.

OBJECTIVES: Mammography is a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Uptake in screening use in states can be influenced by Medicaid coverage and eligibility policies, public health outreach efforts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. We described state-specific mammography use in 2020 and changes as compared with 2012. METHODS: We estimated the proportion of women aged ≥40 years who reported receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years, by age group, state, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, using 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We also compared 2020 state estimates with 2012 estimates. RESULTS: The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who received a mammogram in the past 2 years was 78.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-78.8%) in 2020. Across measures of socioeconomic status, mammography use was generally lower among women who did not have health insurance (52.0%; 95% CI, 48.3%-55.6%) than among those who did (79.9%; 95% CI, 79.3%-80.6%) and among those who had a usual source of care (49.4%; 95% CI, 46.1%-52.7%) than among those who did not (81.0%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.7%). Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography use varied across states, from a low of 65.2% (95% CI, 61.4%-69.0%) in Wyoming to a high of 86.1% (95% CI, 83.8%-88.3%) in Massachusetts. Four states had significant increases in mammography use from 2012 to 2020, and 8 states had significant declines. CONCLUSION: Mammography use varied widely among states. Use of evidence-based interventions tailored to the needs of local populations and communities may help close gaps in the use of mammography.

Consensus-based framework for evaluating data modernization initiatives: the case of cancer registration and electronic reporting.

As part of its data modernization initiative (DMI), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control is testing and implementing innovative solutions to improve cancer surveillance data quality and timeliness. We describe a consensus-based effort to create a framework to guide the evaluation of cancer surveillance modernization efforts by addressing specific context, processes, and costs related to cancer registration. We drew on prior theories, consulted with experts, and sought feedback from cancer registry staff. We developed the cancer surveillance systems, context, outcomes, and process evaluation (CS-SCOPE) framework to explain the ways in which cancer registry data quality, timeliness, and efficiency are impacted by external and internal contextual factors and interrelated process and content factors. The framework includes implementation measures to understand acceptability of process changes along with outcome measures to assess DMI initiation and ongoing sustainability. The framework's components and structures can be tailored for use in other DMI evaluations.

Factors That Support Sustainability of Health Systems Change to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. RESULTS: Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

Improving the efficiency of integrated cancer screening delivery across multiple cancers: case studies from Idaho, Rhode Island, and Nebraska.

BACKGROUND: Three current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects. METHODS: The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders. RESULTS: In Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings. Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success. CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Factors that support readiness to implement integrated evidence-based practice to increase cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake. RESULTS: We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners' readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities. DISCUSSION: The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics' readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

Integrated approaches to delivering cancer screenings to address disparities: lessons learned from the evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening among groups with low screening uptake. This engagement has enabled the health systems participating in the program to enhance infrastructure, systems, and process to implement interventions for colorectal cancer screening. These improvements have enabled other health promotion innovations such as the delivery of integrated interventions and supporting activities (referred to as integrated approaches) for multiple cancers. Using implementation science frameworks, the program evaluation team has examined these integrated approaches to capture the experiences of the awardees, health systems, and clinics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The findings from this comprehensive evaluation are presented in a series of 3 manuscripts. The first manuscript provides a conceptual framework for integrated approaches for cancer screening to support comprehensive evaluations and offers recommendations for future research. The second manuscript presents findings on key factors that support readiness for implementing integrated approaches based on qualitative interviews guided by implementation science constructs. The final manuscript reports on the challenges and benefits of integrated approaches to increase cancer screening in primary care facilities based on lessons learned from three real-world implementation case studies. CONCLUSION: Integrated models for implementing cancer screening could offer cost-effective approaches to reduce healthcare disparities. Additional implementation science-based systematic evaluations are needed to ensure integrated approaches are optimized, and cost-efficient models are scaled up.

Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Operational Characteristics of Central Cancer Registries that Support the Generation of High-Quality Surveillance Data.

Objectives: We aim to assess external and internal attributes and operations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) central cancer registries by their consistency in meeting national data quality standards. Methods: The NPCR 2017 Program Evaluation Instrument (PEI) data were used to assess registry operational attributes, including adoption of electronic reporting, compliance with reporting, staffing, and software used among 46 NPCR registries. These factors were stratified by (1) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards for all years 2014-2017; (2) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards at least once in 2014-2017 and met the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017; and (3) registries that did not meet the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017. Statistical tests helped identify significant differences among registries that consistently, sometimes, or seldom/never achieved data standards. Results: Registries that always met the standards had a higher level of electronic reporting and a higher compliance with reporting among hospitals than registries that sometimes or seldom/never met the standards. Although not a statistically significant finding, the same registries also had a higher proportion of staffing positions filled, a higher proportion of certified tumor registrars, and more quality assurance and information technology staff. Conclusions: This information may be used to understand the importance of various factors and characteristics, including the adoption of electronic reporting, that may be associated with a registry's ability to consistently meet NPCR standards. The findings may be helpful in identifying best practices for processing high-quality cancer data.

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Part 2: Patient Economic Burden Associated With Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries provide annual information about cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. Part 1 of this annual report focuses on national cancer statistics. This study is part 2, which quantifies patient economic burden associated with cancer care. METHODS: We used complementary data sources, linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to develop comprehensive estimates of patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and patient time costs, associated with cancer care. The 2000-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were used to estimate net patient out-of-pocket costs among adults aged 65 years and older for the initial, continuing, and end-of-life phases of care for all cancer sites combined and separately for the 21 most common cancer sites. The 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to calculate out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with cancer among adults aged 18-64 years and 65 years and older. RESULTS: Across all cancer sites, annualized net out-of-pocket costs for medical services and prescriptions drugs covered through a pharmacy benefit among adults aged 65 years and older were highest in the initial ($2200 and $243, respectively) and end-of-life phases ($3823 and $448, respectively) and lowest in the continuing phase ($466 and $127, respectively), with substantial variation by cancer site. Out-of-pocket costs were generally higher for patients diagnosed with later-stage disease. Net annual time costs associated with cancer were $304.3 (95% confidence interval = $257.9 to $350.9) and $279.1 (95% confidence interval = $215.1 to $343.3) for adults aged 18-64 years and ≥65 years, respectively, with higher time costs among more recently diagnosed survivors. National patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and time costs, associated with cancer care was projected to be $21.1 billion in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive study found that the patient economic burden associated with cancer care is substantial in the United States at the national and patient levels.

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Electronic Data Reporting and Outcomes Among Selected Central Cancer Registries of the National Program of Cancer Registries.

PURPOSE: The CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries has expanded the use of electronic reporting to collect more timely information on newly diagnosed cancers. The adoption, implementation, and use of electronic reporting vary significantly among central cancer registries. We identify factors affecting the adoption of electronic reporting among these registries. METHODS: Directors and data managers of nine National Program of Cancer Registries took part in separate 1-hour telephone interviews in early 2019. Directors were asked about their registry's key data quality goals; staffing, resources, and tools used to aid processes; their definition and self-perception of electronic reporting adoption; key helpers and challenges; and cost and sustainability implications for adoption of electronic reporting. Data managers were asked about specific data collection processes, software applications, electronic reporting adoption and self-perception, information technology infrastructure, and helpers and challenges to data collection and processing, data quality, and sustainability of approach. RESULTS: Larger registries identified organizational capacity and technical expertise as key aides. Other help for implementing electronic reporting processes came from partnerships, funding availability, management support, legislation, and access to an interstate data exchange. Common challenges among lower adopters included lack of capacity at both registry and data source levels, insufficient staffing, and a lack of information technology or technical support. Other challenges consisted of automation and interoperability of software, volume of cases received, state political environment, and quality of data received. CONCLUSION: Feedback from the formative evaluation yielded several useful solutions that can guide implementation of electronic reporting and help refine the technical assistance provided to registries. Our findings may help guide future process and economic evaluations of electronic reporting and identify best practices to strengthen registry operations.

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Part 1: National Cancer Statistics.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries collaborate to provide annual updates on cancer incidence and mortality and trends by cancer type, sex, age group, and racial/ethnic group in the United States. In this report, we also examine trends in stage-specific survival for melanoma of the skin (melanoma). METHODS: Incidence data for all cancers from 2001 through 2017 and survival data for melanoma cases diagnosed during 2001-2014 and followed-up through 2016 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- and National Cancer Institute-funded population-based cancer registry programs compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Data on cancer deaths from 2001 to 2018 were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics' National Vital Statistics System. Trends in age-standardized incidence and death rates and 2-year relative survival were estimated by joinpoint analysis, and trends in incidence and mortality were expressed as average annual percent change (AAPC) during the most recent 5 years (2013-2017 for incidence and 2014-2018 for mortality). RESULTS: Overall cancer incidence rates (per 100 000 population) for all ages during 2013-2017 were 487.4 among males and 422.4 among females. During this period, incidence rates remained stable among males but slightly increased in females (AAPC = 0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1% to 0.2%). Overall cancer death rates (per 100 000 population) during 2014-2018 were 185.5 among males and 133.5 among females. During this period, overall death rates decreased in both males (AAPC = -2.2%, 95% CI = -2.5% to -1.9%) and females (AAPC = -1.7%, 95% CI = -2.1% to -1.4%); death rates decreased for 11 of the 19 most common cancers among males and for 14 of the 20 most common cancers among females, but increased for 5 cancers in each sex. During 2014-2018, the declines in death rates accelerated for lung cancer and melanoma, slowed down for colorectal and female breast cancers, and leveled off for prostate cancer. Among children younger than age 15 years and adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 years, cancer death rates continued to decrease in contrast to the increasing incidence rates. Two-year relative survival for distant-stage skin melanoma was stable for those diagnosed during 2001-2009 but increased by 3.1% (95% CI = 2.8% to 3.5%) per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, with comparable trends among males and females. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer death rates in the United States continue to decline overall and for many cancer types, with the decline accelerated for lung cancer and melanoma. For several other major cancers, however, death rates continue to increase or previous declines in rates have slowed or ceased. Moreover, overall incidence rates continue to increase among females, children, and adolescents and young adults. These findings inform efforts related to prevention, early detection, and treatment and for broad and equitable implementation of effective interventions, especially among under resourced populations.

Utility of linking survey and registry data to evaluate interventions and policies to address disparities in breast cancer survivorship among young women.

PURPOSE: There is limited research linking data sources to evaluate the multifactorial impacts on the quality of treatment received and financial burden among young women with breast cancer. To address this gap and support future evaluation efforts, we examined the utility of combining patient survey and cancer registry data. PATIENT AND METHODS: We administered a survey to women, aged 18-39 years, with breast cancer from four U.S. states. We conducted a systematic response-rate analysis and evaluated differences between racial groups. Survey responses were linked with cancer registry data to assess whether surveys could reliably supplement registry data. RESULTS: A total of 830 women completed the survey for a response rate of 28.4 %. Blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders were half as likely to respond as white women. Concordance between survey and registry data was high for demographic variables (Cohen's kappa [k]: 0.879 to 0.949), moderate to high for treatments received (k: 0.467 to 0.854), and low for hormone receptor status (k: 0.167 to 0.553). Survey items related to insurance status, employment, and symptoms revealed racial differences. CONCLUSION: Cancer registry data, supplemented by patient surveys, can provide a broader understanding of the quality of care and financial impacts of breast cancer among young women.

Late-Stage Diagnosis and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Treatment in Two State Medicaid Programs.

INTRODUCTION: To assess timing of Medicaid enrollment with late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and estimate treatment costs by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed 2000-2009 California and Texas Medicaid data linked with cancer registry data. We assessed the association of Medicaid enrollment timing with late-stage colorectal cancer and estimated total and incremental 6-month treatment costs to Medicaid by stage using a noncancer comparison group matched on age group and sex. RESULTS: Compared with Medicaid enrollment before diagnosis, enrolling after diagnosis was associated with late-stage diagnosis. Incremental per-person treatment costs were $31,063, $39,834, and $47,161 for localized, regional, and distant stage in California, respectively; and $28,701, $38,212, and $49,634 in Texas, respectively. DISCUSSION: In California and Texas, Medicaid enrollment after CRC diagnosis was associated with later-stage disease and higher treatment costs. Facilitating timely and continuous Medicaid enrollment may lead to earlier stage at diagnosis, reduced costs, and improved outcomes.

Geographic Disparities in Late-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosis Rates and Their Persistence Over Time.

Background: Other than skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Lower uptake of mammography screening is associated with higher rates of late-stage breast cancers. This study aims to show geographic patterns in the United States, where rates of late-stage breast cancer are high and persistent over time, and examines factors associated with these patterns. Materials and Methods: We examined all primary breast cancers diagnosed among all counties in 43 U.S. states with available data. We used spatial cluster analysis to identify hot spots (i.e., spatial clusters with above average late-stage diagnosis rates among counties). Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were compared between persistent hot spots and those counties that were never hot spots. Results: Of the 2,599 counties examined in 43 states, 219 were identified as persistent hot spots. Counties with persistent hot spots (compared with counties that were never hot spots) were located in more deprived areas with worse housing characteristics, lower socioeconomic status, lower levels of health insurance, worse access to mammography, more isolated American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, or Hispanic neighborhoods, and larger income disparity. In addition, persistent hot spots were significantly more likely to be observed among poor, rural, African American, or Hispanic communities, but not among poor, rural, White communities. This analysis includes a broader range of socioeconomic conditions than those included in previous literature. Conclusion: We found geographic disparities in late-stage breast cancer diagnosis rates, with some communities experiencing persistent disparities over time. Our findings can guide public health efforts aimed at reducing disparities in stage of diagnosis for breast cancer.

Pursuing Data Modernization in Cancer Surveillance by Developing a Cloud-Based Computing Platform: Real-Time Cancer Case Collection.

Cancer surveillance is a field focused on collection of data to evaluate the burden of cancer and apply public health strategies to prevent and control cancer in the community. A key challenge facing the cancer surveillance community is the number of manual tasks required to collect cancer surveillance data, thereby resulting in possible delays in analysis and use of the information. To modernize and automate cancer data collection and reporting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning, developing, and piloting a cancer surveillance cloud-based computing platform (CS-CBCP) with standardized electronic reporting from laboratories and health-care providers. With this system, automation of the cancer case collection process and access to real-time cancer case data can be achieved, which could not be done before. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of continuity of operations plans, and the CS-CBCP has the potential to provide such a platform suitable for remote operations of central cancer registries.

Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago.

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.

As an awardee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, the California Department of Public Health partnered with Neighborhood Healthcare to implement evidence-based interventions and provider incentives (incentives offered to support staff, e.g., medical assistants, phlebotomists, front office staff, lab technicians) to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the provider incentive intervention implemented by Neighborhood Healthcare to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. We collected and analyzed process and cost data to assess fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates to the health centers and the number of completed FIT kits. We estimated the costs of the preexisting interventions and the new interventions. Analyses were conducted for two time periods: preimplementation and implementation. Most Neighborhood Healthcare health centers experienced an increase in the percentage of FIT kit returns (average of 3.6 percentage points) and individuals screened (an average increase of 111 FIT kits per month) from the baseline period through the implementation period. The cost of the incentive intervention for each additional screen was $66.79. In conclusion, the results indicate that incentive programs can have an overall positive impact on both the percentage of FIT kits returned and the number of individuals screened.