University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence.

Drawing from insights from communication science and behavioral economics, the University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence (Penn TRACE) is designing and testing telehealth strategies with the potential to transform access to care, care quality, outcomes, health equity, and health-care efficiency across the cancer care continuum, with an emphasis on understanding mechanisms of action. Penn TRACE uses lung cancer care as an exemplar model for telehealth across the care continuum, from screening to treatment to survivorship. We bring together a diverse and interdisciplinary team of international experts and incorporate rapid-cycle approaches and mixed methods evaluation in all center projects. Our initiatives include a pragmatic sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of telehealth strategies to increase shared decision-making for lung cancer screening and 2 pilot projects to test the effectiveness of telehealth to improve cancer care, identify multilevel mechanisms of action, and lay the foundation for future pragmatic trials. Penn TRACE aims to produce new fundamental knowledge and advance telehealth science in cancer care at Penn and nationally.

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors. METHODS: The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps. RESULTS: The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels.

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions.

This cross-sectional study describes the development and testing the accuracy of using 2 yes or no questions to estimate pack-year eligibility for lung cancer screening.

Factors Associated With Primary Care Physician Decision-making When Making Medication Recommendations vs Surgical Referrals.

Importance: Although objective data are used routinely in prescription drug recommendations, it is unclear how referring physicians apply evidence when making surgeon or hospital recommendations for surgery. Objective: To compare the factors associated with the hospital or surgeon referral decision-making process with that used for prescription medication recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study comprised interviews conducted between April 26 and May 18, 2021, of a purposive sample of 21 primary care physicians from a large primary care network in the Northeast US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the factors considered when making prescription medication recommendations vs referral recommendations to specific surgeons or hospitals for surgery. Results: All 21 participant primary care physicians (14 women [66.7%]) reported use of evidence-based decision support tools and patient attributes for prescription medication recommendations. In contrast, for surgeon and hospital referral recommendations, primary care physicians relied on professional experience and training, personal beliefs about surgical quality, and perceived convenience. Primary care physicians cited perceived limitations of existing data on surgical quality as a barrier to the use of such data in the process of making surgical referrals. Conclusions and Relevance: As opposed to the widespread use of objective decision support tools for guidance on medication recommendations, primary care physicians relied on subjective factors when making referrals to specific surgeons and hospitals. The findings of this study highlight the potential to improve surgical outcomes by introducing accessible, reliable data as an imperative step in the surgical referral process.

One Barrier to Colorectal Cancer Screening Eliminated: On to the Next.

Colorectal cancer screening is one of the best proven and most cost-effective of all preventive interventions. Screening lowers both incidence and mortality. Bearing some of the costs of colonoscopy, also known as cost-sharing, has been a barrier to completion of colonoscopy, both as a primary screen and as a second test to complete screening after an abnormal initial stool or radiologic screening test. While a newly published model concludes that eliminating cost-sharing for colonoscopy after an initial screen is cost-effective, the desired outcome has already been achieved. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services has announced the plan to eliminate this final out of pocket expense starting in 2023. While this is an important step, many barriers to screening for colorectal cancer and all other cancers remain. Eliminating downstream costs that result from an abnormal screen is a difficult to achieve but important goal. See related article by Fendrick et al., p. 653.

Community-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Clinics in Medically Underserved Neighborhoods to Improve Access and Equity, Philadelphia, 2021-2022.

Vaccination remains key to reducing the risk of COVID-19-related severe illness and death. Because of historic medical exclusion and barriers to access, Black communities have had lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination than White communities. We describe the efforts of an academic medical institution to implement community-based COVID-19 vaccine clinics in medically underserved neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Over a 13-month period (April 2021-April 2022), the initiative delivered 9038 vaccine doses to community members, a majority of whom (57%) identified as Black. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(12):1721-1725. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307030).

Collective pursuit for equity in cancer care: The National Navigation Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: The evidence continues to build in support of implementing patient navigation to reduce barriers and increase access to care. However, health disparities remain in cancer outcomes. The goal of the National Navigation Roundtable (NNRT) is to serve as a convener to help support the field of navigation to address equity. METHODS: To examine the progress and opportunities for navigation, the NNRT submitted a collection of articles based on the results from 2 dedicated surveys and contributions from member organizations. The intent was to help inform what we know about patient navigation since the last dedicated examination in this journal 10 years ago. RESULTS: The online survey of >700 people described navigators and examined sustainability and policy issues and the longevity, specific role and function, and impact of clinical and nonclinical navigators in addition to the role of training and supervision. In addition, a full examination of coronavirus disease 2019 and contributions from member organizations helped further define progress and future opportunities to meet the needs of patients through patient navigation. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve equity in cancer care will demand the sustained action of virtually every component of the cancer care system. It is the hope and intent of the NNRT that the information presented in this supplement will be a catalyst for action in this collective action approach.

How Referring Providers Choose Specialists for Their Patients: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Physician referrals are a critical step in directing patients to high-quality specialists. Despite efforts to encourage referrals to high-volume hospitals, many patients receive treatment at low-volume centers with worse outcomes. We aimed to determine the most important factors considered by referring providers when selecting specialists for their patients through a systematic review of medical and surgical literature. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched from January 2000 to July 2021 using terms related to referrals, specialty, surgery, primary care, and decision-making. We included survey and interview studies reporting the factors considered by healthcare providers as they refer patients to specialists in the USA. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Quality was assessed using the CASP Checklist. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize common decision factors across studies. RESULTS: We screened 1,972 abstracts and identified 7 studies for inclusion, reporting on 1,575 providers. Thematic analysis showed that referring providers consider factors related to the specialist's clinical expertise (skill, training, outcomes, and assessments), interactions between the patient and specialist (prior experience, rapport, location, scheduling, preference, and insurance), and interactions between the referring physician and specialist (personal relationships, communication, reputation, reciprocity, and practice or system affiliation). Notably, studies did not describe how providers assess clinical or technical skills. CONCLUSIONS: Referring providers rely on subjective factors and assessments to evaluate quality when selecting a specialist. There may be a role for guidelines and objective measures of quality to inform the choice of specialist by referring providers.

Increasing Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care.

Screening for cancer has contributed to substantial reductions in death from several cancers and is one of the most cost-effective preventive interventions in all of health care. In the United States, primary care clinicians, their clinical teams, and the systems in which they work are primarily responsible for ensuring that screening occurs. In order to achieve the highest possible population-wide screening rates, primary care clinicians must embrace the responsibility to screen their entire enrolled patient population, institute several overarching general approaches to screening, and implement a combination of evidence-based interventions.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019.

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS: Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable: Past Performance, Current and Future Goals.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) is an organization of organizations with staffing, funding and leadership provided by the American Cancer Society (ACS) and guidance and funding by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2014, ACS, CDC, and the NCCRT launched the 80% by 2018 campaign. This highly successful initiative activated hundreds of organizations to prioritize colorectal cancer screening, disseminated smart, evidence-based interventions, and ultimately led to 9.3 million more Americans being up to date with screening compared with the precampaign rate. It's new campaign, 80% in Every Community, is designed to address persistent screening disparities.

Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: A blueprint for practice, research, and policy.

Although cancer mortality rates declined in the United States in recent decades, some populations experienced little benefit from advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship care. In fact, some cancer disparities between populations of low and high socioeconomic status widened during this period. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths continue to occur, and disadvantaged populations bear a disproportionate burden. Reducing the burden of cancer and eliminating cancer-related disparities will require more focused and coordinated action across multiple sectors and in partnership with communities. This article, part of the American Cancer Society's Cancer Control Blueprint series, introduces a framework for understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity and presents actionable recommendations for practice, research, and policy. The article aims to accelerate progress toward eliminating disparities in cancer and achieving health equity.