Screening Beyond the Evidence: Patterns of Age and Comorbidity for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide continuation of screening beyond the recommended ages of national guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, although increasing age and comorbidity burden is likely to reduce the screening benefit of lower mortality. OBJECTIVE: Characterize screening after recommended stopping ages, by age and comorbidities in a large, diverse sample. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals in the PROSPR-I consortium cohorts from 75 to 89 years of age for breast cancer screening, 66-89 years of age for cervical cancer screening, and 76-89 years of age for colorectal cancer screening from 2011 to 2013. The lower age thresholds were based on the guidelines for each respective cancer type. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of annual screening by cancer type in relation to age and Charlson comorbidity score and median years of screening past guideline age. We estimated the likelihood of screening past the guideline-based age as a function of age and comorbidity using logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: The study cohorts included individuals screening for breast (n = 33,475); cervical (n = 459,318); and colorectal (n = 556,356) cancers. In the year following aging out, approximately 30% of the population was screened for breast cancer, 2% of the population was screened for cervical, and almost 5% for colorectal cancer. The median number of years screened past the guideline-based recommendation was 5, 3, and 4 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Of those screening > 10 years past the guideline-based age,15%, 46%, and 25% had ≥ 3 comorbidities respectively. Colorectal cancer screening had the smallest decline in the likelihood of screening beyond the age-based recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of screening past guideline-based age decreased with comorbidity burden for breast and cervical cancer screening but not for colorectal. These findings suggest the need to evaluate shared decision tools to help patients understand whether screening is appropriate and to generate more evidence in older populations.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

De-implementation of cervical cancer screening before age 21.

In 2012, United States consensus guidelines were modified to recommend that cervical cancer screening not begin before age 21 and, since 2014, the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a health plan quality measurement too, has included a measure for non-recommended cervical cancer screening among females ages 16-20. Our goal was to describe prevalence over time of cervical cancer screening before age 21 following the 2012 guideline change, and provide information to help understand how rapidly new guidelines may be disseminated and implemented into clinical practice. We used longitudinal clinical and administrative data from three diverse healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium to examine annual trends in screening before age 21. We identified 55,316 average-risk, screening-eligible females ages 18-20 between 2011 and 2017. For each calendar year, we estimated the proportion of females who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. We observed a steady decline in the proportion of females under age 21 who received a Pap test, from an average of 8.3% in 2011 to <1% in 2017 across the sites. The observed steady decline suggests growing adherence to the 2012 consensus guidelines. This trend was consistent across diverse geographic regions, healthcare systems, and patient populations, strengthening the generalizability of the results; however, since we only had 1-2 years of study data prior to the consensus guidelines, we cannot discern whether screening under age 21 was already in decline. Nonetheless, these results provide data to compare with other guideline changes to de-implement non-recommended screening practices.

Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. METHODS: We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type. RESULTS: The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium.

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice.

Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems. METHODS: A total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status. RESULTS: Even within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion.

Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density.

IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer screening examinations using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to be associated with decreased false-positive test results and increased breast cancer detection compared with digital mammography (DM). Little is known regarding the size and stage of breast cancer types detected and their association with age and breast density. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether screening examinations using DBT detect breast cancers that are associated with an improved prognosis and to compare the detection rates by patient age and breast density. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from 3 research centers in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium included data of women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent screening examinations using DM and DBT from January 1, 2011, through September 30, 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from November 8, 2017, to August 14, 2018. EXPOSURES: Use of DBT as a supplement to DM at breast cancer screening examination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, biopsy rate, and distribution of invasive cancer subtypes. RESULTS: Among 96 269 women (mean [SD] patient age for all examinations, 55.9 [9.0] years), patient age was 56.4 (9.0) years for DM and 54.6 (8.9) years for DBT. Of 180 340 breast cancer screening examinations, 129 369 examinations (71.7%) used DM and 50 971 examinations (28.3%) used DBT. Screening examination with DBT (73 of 99 women [73.7%]) was associated with the detection of smaller, more often node-negative, HER2-negative, invasive cancers compared with DM (276 of 422 women [65.4%]). Screening examination with DBT was also associated with lower recall (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; P < .001) and higher cancer detection (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .02) compared with DM for all age groups even when stratified by breast density. The largest increase in cancer detection rate and the greatest shift toward smaller, node-negative invasive cancers detected with DBT was for women aged 40 to 49 years. For women aged 40 to 49 years with nondense breasts, the cancer detection rate for examinations using DBT was 1.70 per 1000 women higher compared with the rate using DM; for women with dense breasts, the cancer detection rate was 2.27 per 1000 women higher for DBT. For these younger women, screening with DBT was associated with only 7 of 28 breast cancers (25.0%) categorized as poor prognosis compared with 19 of 47 breast cancers (40.4%) when screening with DM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings suggest that screening with DBT is associated with increased specificity and an increased proportion of breast cancers detected with better prognosis compared with DM. In the subgroup of women aged 40 to 49 years, routine DBT screening may have a favorable risk-benefit ratio.

Receipt of Colonoscopy Following Diagnosis of Advanced Adenomas: An Analysis within Integrated Healthcare Delivery Systems.

BACKGROUND: To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval. METHODS: We describe patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan-Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%-27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%-65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60-74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas. IMPACT: Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed.

Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort.

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.

Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population.

Background: U.S. women of ages 50-74 years are recommended to receive screening mammography at least biennially. Our objective was to evaluate multilevel predictors of nonadherence among screened women, as these are not well known. Materials and Methods: A cohort study was conducted among women of ages 50-74 years with a screening mammogram in 2011 with a negative finding (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) within Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium research centers. We evaluated the association between woman-level factors, radiology facility, and PROSPR research center, and nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines, defined as not receiving breast imaging within 27 months of an index screening mammogram. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Nonadherence to guideline-recommended screening interval was 15.5% among 51,241 women with a screening mammogram. Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander women, women of other races, heavier women, and women of ages 50-59 years had a greater odds of nonadherence. There was no association with ZIP code median income. Nonadherence varied by research center and radiology facility (variance = 0.10, standard error = 0.03). Adjusted radiology facility nonadherence rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.5%. One research center evaluated radiology facility communication practices for screening reminders and scheduling, but these were not associated with nonadherence. Conclusions: Breast cancer screening interval nonadherence rates in screened women varied across radiology facilities even after adjustment for woman-level characteristics and research center. Future studies should investigate other characteristics of facilities, practices, and health systems to determine factors integral to increasing continued adherence to breast cancer screening.

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.

Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

BACKGROUND: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PARTICIPANTS: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY RESULTS: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.

PURPOSE: To assess indication for examination for four breast imaging modalities and describe the complexity and heterogeneity of data sources and ascertainment methods. METHODS: Indication was evaluated among the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) breast cancer research centers (PRCs). Indication data were reported overall and separately for four breast imaging modalities: digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: The breast PRCs contributed 236,262 women with 607,735 breast imaging records from 31 radiology facilities. We found a high degree of heterogeneity for indication within and across six data sources. Structured codes within a data source were used most often to identify indication for mammography (59% DM, 85% DBT) and text analytics for US (45%) and MRI (44%). Indication could not be identified for 17% of US and 26% of MRI compared with 2% of mammography examinations (1% DM, 3% DBT). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple and diverse data sources, heterogeneity of ascertainment methods, and nonstandardization of codes within and across data systems for determining indication were found. Consideration of data sources and standardized methodology for determining indication is needed to assure accurate measurement of cancer screening rates and performance in clinical practice and research.

Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium.

PURPOSE: Although United States clinical guidelines differ, the earliest recommended age for average risk breast cancer screening is 40 years. Little is known about factors influencing screening initiation. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study within the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We identified 3413 women on their 40th birthday in primary care networks at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (DH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) during 2011-2013 with no prior breast imaging or breast cancer. Cumulative incidence curves and Cox modeling were used to determine time from the 40th birthday to first breast cancer screening, cohort exit, or 42nd birthday. We calculated hazards ratios and 95 % confidence intervals from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Breast cancer screening cumulative incidence by the 42nd birthday was 62.9 % (BWH) and 39.8 % (DH). Factors associated with screening initiation were: a primary care visit within a year (HR 4.99, 95 % CI 4.23-5.89), an increasing number of primary care visits within a year (p for trend <0.0001), ZIP code of residence annual median household income ≤$52,000 (HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.68-0.92), and health insurance type (Medicaid HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58-0.88; Medicare HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.39-0.77; uninsured HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.25-0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening uptake after the 40th birthday varies by health system, primary care visits, median household income, and health insurance type, suggesting the need for further exploration. Future research should evaluate screening performance metrics after initiation and consider cumulative benefits and risks associated with breast cancer screening over time.

Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study.

Background: About half of the United States has legislation requiring radiology facilities to disclose mammographic breast density information to women, often with language recommending discussion of supplemental screening options for women with dense breasts. Objective: To examine variation in breast density assessment across radiologists in clinical practice. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of prospectively collected observational data. Setting: 30 radiology facilities within the 3 breast cancer screening research centers of the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. Participants: Radiologists who interpreted at least 500 screening mammograms during 2011 to 2013 (n = 83). Data on 216 783 screening mammograms from 145 123 women aged 40 to 89 years were included. Measurements: Mammographic breast density, as clinically recorded using the 4 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories (heterogeneously dense and extremely dense categories were considered "dense" for analyses), and patient age, race, and body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, 36.9% of mammograms were rated as showing dense breasts. Across radiologists, this percentage ranged from 6.3% to 84.5% (median, 38.7% [interquartile range, 28.9% to 50.9%]), with multivariable adjustment for patient characteristics having little effect (interquartile range, 29.9% to 50.8%). Examination of patient subgroups revealed that variation in density assessment across radiologists was pervasive in all but the most extreme patient age and BMI combinations. Among women with consecutive mammograms interpreted by different radiologists, 17.2% (5909 of 34 271) had discordant assessments of dense versus nondense status. Limitation: Quantitative measures of mammographic breast density were not available for comparison. Conclusion: There is wide variation in density assessment across radiologists that should be carefully considered by providers and policymakers when considering supplemental screening strategies. The likelihood of a woman being told she has dense breasts varies substantially according to which radiologist interprets her mammogram. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). DESIGN: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY RESULTS: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.

Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

BACKGROUND: Population outreach strategies are increasingly used to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The influence of primary care on cancer screening in this context is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between primary care provider (PCP) visits and receipt of CRC screening and colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 968,072 patients ages 50-74 years who were not up to date with CRC screening in 2011 in four integrated healthcare systems (three with screening outreach programs using FIT kits) in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, PCP visit, and CRC screening data were obtained from electronic health records and administrative databases. We examined associations between PCP visits in 2011 and receipt of FIT/FOBT, screening colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (CRC screening) in 2012 and follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months of a positive FIT/FOBT in 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score models to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of eligible patients completed a CRC screening test in 2012, most by FIT. Those with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of CRC screening at all sites. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had nearly twice the adjusted-odds of CRC screening (OR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.86-1.89). Overall, 79.6 % of patients with a positive FIT/FOBT completed colonoscopy within 3 months. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had 30 % higher adjusted odds of completing colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT (OR = 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.22-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of both incident CRC screening and colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT, even in health systems with active population health outreach programs. In this era of virtual care and population outreach, primary care visits remain an important mechanism for engaging patients in cancer screening.