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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data. RESULTS: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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.

A History of Health Economics and Healthcare Delivery Research at the National Cancer Institute.

With increased attention to the financing and structure of healthcare, dramatic increases in the cost of diagnosing and treating cancer, and corresponding disparities in access, the study of healthcare economics and delivery has become increasingly important. The Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was formed in 2015 to provide a hub for cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics research. However, the roots of this program trace back much farther, at least to the formation of the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in 1983. The creation of a division focused on understanding and explaining trends in cancer morbidity and mortality was instrumental in setting the direction of cancer-related healthcare delivery and health economics research over the subsequent decades. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of health economics and healthcare delivery research at NCI, describing the organizational structure and highlighting key initiatives developed by the division, and also briefly discuss future directions. HDRP and its predecessors have supported the growth and evolution of these fields through the funding of grants and contracts; the development of data, tools, and other research resources; and thought leadership including stimulation of research on previously understudied topics. As the availability of new data, methods, and computing capacity to evaluate cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics expand, HDRP aims to continue to support this growth and evolution.

Examination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in military and civilian men: analysis of the 2018 behavioral risk factor surveillance system.

PURPOSE: To determine whether military men report different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates than civilian men and if shared decision-making (SDM) is associated with PSA screening. METHODS: We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 101,901 men (26,363 military and 75,538 civilian men) in the analysis conducted in 2021. We conducted binomial logistic regression analyses to determine covariate-adjusted associations between military status and receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years. We then added patient reports of SDM to the model. Finally, we looked at the joint effects of military status and SDM on the receipt of a PSA test in the last 2 years. RESULTS: Military men had 1.1 times the odds of PSA testing compared to civilian men (95% CI 1.1, 1.2) after adjusting for SDM and sociodemographic and health covariates. When examining the joint effect of military status and SDM, military and civilian men had over three times the odds of receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years if they had reported SDM (OR 3.5 and OR 3.4, respectively) compared to civilian men who did not experience SDM. CONCLUSION: Military men are slightly more likely to report receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years compared to civilian men. Additionally, results show SDM plays a role in the receipt of a PSA test in both populations. These findings can serve as a foundation for tailored interventions to promote appropriate SDM for PSA screening in civilian, active duty, and veteran healthcare systems.

The National Cancer Institute's Role in Advancing Health-Care Delivery Research.

Improvements in cancer care delivery have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from cancer, however, challenges to delivery of recommended care limit progress. These challenges include growing demands for care, increasing treatment complexity, inadequate care coordination, dramatic increases in costs, persistent disparities in care, and insufficient use of evidence-based guidelines. Recognizing the important role of research in understanding and addressing these challenges, the National Cancer Institute created the Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in 2015 as a catalyst for expanding work in this area. Health-care delivery research is a multidisciplinary effort which recognizes that care delivery occurs in a multilevel system encompassing individuals, health-care systems, and communities. HDRP staff use a range of activities to fulfill the program's mission of advancing innovative research to improve delivery of care across the cancer control continuum. In addition to developing funding opportunities, HDRP staff; support and facilitate the use of research infrastructure for conducting health-care delivery research; oversee publicly available data that can be used to evaluate patterns, costs, and patient experiences of care; contribute to development and dissemination of standardized health measurement tools for public use; and support professional development and training to build capacity within the field and grow the workforce. As HDRP enters its sixth year, we appreciate the opportunity to reflect on the program's progress in advancing the science of health-care delivery. At the same time, we recognize the need for the program to evolve and develop additional resources and opportunities to address new and emerging challenges.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Objective: To provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer. Exposures: Screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies. Results: Estimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

Measures of longitudinal adherence to fecal-based colorectal cancer screening: Literature review and recommended approaches.

The success of fecal occult blood-based colorectal cancer screening programs is dependent on repeating screening at short intervals (ie, every 1-2 years). We conducted a literature review to assess measures that have been used to assess longitudinal adherence to fecal-based screening. Among 46 citations identified and included in this review, six broad classifications of longitudinal adherence were identified: (a) stratified single-round attendance, (b) all possible adherence permutations, (c) consistent/inconsistent/never attendance, (d) number of times attended, (e) program adherence and (f) proportion of time covered. Advantages and disadvantages of these measures are described, and recommendations on which measures to use based on data availability and scientific question are also given. Stratified single round attendance is particularly useful for describing the yield of screening, while programmatic adherence measures are best suited to evaluating screening efficacy. We recommend that screening programs collect detailed longitudinal, individual-level data, not only for the screening tests themselves but additionally for diagnostic follow-up and surveillance exams, to allow for maximum flexibility in reporting adherence patterns using the measure of choice.

Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018.

Screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality from these cancers.* However, screening test receipt has been below national targets with disparities observed in certain populations (1,2). National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2018 were analyzed to estimate percentages of adults up to date with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendations. Screening test receipt remained below national Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) targets, although CRC test receipt neared the target. Disparities were evident, with particularly low test receipt among persons who were uninsured or did not have usual sources of care. Continued monitoring helps assess progress toward targets and could inform efforts to promote screening and reduce barriers for underserved populations.

The effect of using fecal testing after a negative sigmoidoscopy on the risk of death from colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether receiving a fecal occult blood test after a negative sigmoidoscopy reduced mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS: We used a nested case-control design with incidence-density matching in historical cohorts of 1,877,740 50-90-year-old persons during 2006-2012, in an integrated health-system setting. We selected 1758 average risk patients who died from colorectal cancer and 3503 matched colorectal cancer-free persons. Colorectal cancer-specific death was ascertained from cancer and mortality registries. Screening histories were determined from electronic and chart-audit clinical data in the 5- to 10-year period prior to the reference date. We evaluated receipt of subsequent fecal occult blood test within five years of the reference date among patients with negative sigmoidoscopy two to six years before the reference date. RESULTS: Of the 5261 patients, 831 patients (204 colorectal cancer deaths/627 controls) had either negative sigmoidoscopy only (n = 592) or negative sigmoidoscopy with subsequent screening fecal occult blood test (n = 239). Fifty-six (27.5%) of the 204 patients dying of colorectal cancer and 183 (29.2%) of the 627 colorectal cancer-free patients received fecal occult blood test following a negative sigmoidoscopy. Conditional regressions found no significant association between fecal occult blood test receipt and colorectal cancer death risk, overall (adjusted odds ratio = 0.93, confidence interval: 0.65-1.33), or for right (odds ratio = 1.02, confidence interval: 0.65-1.60) or left-colon/rectum (odds ratio = 0.77, confidence interval: 0.39-1.52) cancers. Similar results were obtained in sensitivity analyses with alternative exposure ascertainment windows or timing of fecal occult blood test. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that receipt of at least one fecal occult blood test during the several years after a negative sigmoidoscopy did not substantially reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Accuracy of Self-reported Colonic Polyps: Results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial Study of Colonoscopy Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy follow-up recommendations depend on the presence or absence of polyps, and if found, their number, size, and histology. Patients may be responsible for conveying results between primary and specialty care or providing medical information to family members; thus, accurate reporting is critical. This analysis assessed the accuracy of self-reported colonoscopy findings. METHODS: 3,986 participants from the Study of Colonoscopy Utilization, an ancillary study nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial, were included. Self-reports of polyp and adenoma were compared to medical records, and measures of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Correlates of accurate self-report of polyp were assessed using logistic regression and weighted to account for study sampling. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported polyp findings were 88% and 85%, respectively, and for adenoma 11% and 99%, respectively. Among participants with a polyp, older age was associated with lower likelihood while polyp severity and non-white race were associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among participants without a polyp, having multiple colonoscopies was associated with lower likelihood while family history of colorectal cancer was associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among both groups, longer time since colonoscopy was associated with lower likelihood of accurate recall. CONCLUSIONS: Participants recalled with reasonable accuracy whether they had a prior polyp; however, recall of histology, specifically adenoma, was much less accurate. IMPACT: Identification of strategies to increase accurate self-report of colonic polyps are needed, particularly for patient-provider communications and patient reporting of results to family members.

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.