Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up. METHODS: We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus [HPV] test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US] or more severe cytology) among women 25-65 years old at three U.S. healthcare systems during 2010-2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines. RESULTS: Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with ASC-US/HPV-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I and 90% for patients with CIN II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese BMI, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, though suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities. IMPACT: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further work is needed to understand barriers to appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.

Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). DESIGN: Clustered stepped-wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps." INTERVENTION: Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. MAIN MEASURES: Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps." CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04585919.

Vulnerability and Colorectal screening during the pandemic.

Objective: Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence across United States neighborhoods may reflect social inequities that create barriers to accessing and completing preventive health services. Our objective was to identify whether neighborhood social vulnerability was associated with a change in CRC screening prevalence in Boston neighborhoods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Adults ages 50-74 years due for CRC screening who received primary care at one of 35 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital or Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA), 3/1/2020 to 3/1/2022. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is an aggregate measure of neighborhood social factors often used by public health authorities to examine neighborhood susceptibility to many health outcomes. Results: In 2020, 74.9 % of eligible individuals were up to date with CRC screening and this fell to 67.4 % in 2022 (p < 0.001). In 2020, 36.2 % of eligible patients lived in a neighborhood above the 80th percentile of SVI, consistent with high social vulnerability, while the same value was 35.1 % in 2022. There was no association between the change in screening prevalence and SVI: a decrease of 5.5 % screened in neighborhoods with SVI ≤ 80 compared to a decrease of 3.6 % in neighborhoods with SVI > 80 (p = 0.79). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic equalized the prevalence of CRC screening across Boston-area neighborhoods despite pre-existing geographic disparities in screening prevalence and SVI. Strategies to ensure equitable participation in CRC screening to promote health equity should be considered to promote equitable pandemic recovery.

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.

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

Population models of cancer reflect the overall US population by drawing on numerous existing data resources for parameter inputs and calibration targets. Models require data inputs that are appropriately representative, collected in a harmonized manner, have minimal missing or inaccurate values, and reflect adequate sample sizes. Data resource priorities for population modeling to support cancer health equity include increasing the availability of data that 1) arise from uninsured and underinsured individuals and those traditionally not included in health-care delivery studies, 2) reflect relevant exposures for groups historically and intentionally excluded across the full cancer control continuum, 3) disaggregate categories (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and their intersections that conceal important variation in health outcomes, 4) identify specific populations of interest in clinical databases whose health outcomes have been understudied, 5) enhance health records through expanded data elements and linkage with other data types (eg, patient surveys, provider and/or facility level information, neighborhood data), 6) decrease missing and misclassified data from historically underrecognized populations, and 7) capture potential measures or effects of systemic racism and corresponding intervenable targets for change.

A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021. Intervention: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk. Results: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result. Conclusions and Relevance: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

Timing of Colposcopy and Risk of Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system. RESULTS: Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a higher risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months.

Multilevel barriers and facilitators to widespread use of preconception carrier screening in the United States.

PURPOSE: Although preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is preferred to screening during pregnancy, population-wide preconception screening is not routinely performed in the United States. We explored the multilevel barriers to the widespread adoption of preconception RGCS in the United States via key informant interviews. METHODS: Semi-structured virtual video interviews were conducted with 29 informants with a breadth of professional expertise between May and October 2022. Data collection and qualitative analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and socioecological model. Analysis focused on identifying barriers to delivering preconception RGCS at and across different levels of health care and exploring potential facilitators of preconception RGCS delivery. RESULTS: Barriers to preconception RGCS were identified at the levels of test characteristics, patients and couples, clinicians and care teams, and the external health care and policy environments. Across the different levels of care delivery, 3 themes of barriers emerged: (1) fragmentation and inconsistencies hinder care delivery, (2) gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainties about RGCS are pervasive, and (3) expanding preconception RGCS in the diverse US population presents unique implementation challenges. Potential solutions were detailed by informants. CONCLUSION: Identifying individual and thematic barriers to preconception RGCS delivery may help to define strategies to alleviate obstacles.

Factors associated with shorter-interval cervical cancer screening for young women in three United States healthcare systems.

Frequently changing cervical cancer screening guidelines over the past two decades have been inconsistently adopted in the United States. Current guidelines set the recommended screening interval to three years for average-risk women aged 21-29 years. Few studies have evaluated how patient and provider factors are associated with implementation of cervical cancer screening intervals among younger women. This study evaluated multilevel factors associated with screening interval length among 69,939 women aged 21-29 years with an initial negative Pap screen between 2010 and 2015 across three large health systems in the U.S. Shorter-interval screening was defined as a second screening Pap within 2.5 years of an initial negative Pap. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed for each site to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with shorter-interval screening. The odds of shorter-interval screening decreased over the study period across all sites, though the proportion of patients screened within 2.5 years remained between 7.5% and 20.7% across sites in 2014-2015. Patient factors including insurance, race/ethnicity, and pregnancy were associated with shorter-interval screening, though the patterns differed across sites. At one site, the variation in shorter-interval screening explained by the provider was 10.6%, whereas at the other two sites, the provider accounted for < 2% of the variation in shorter-interval screening. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in factors driving cervical cancer screening interval across health systems and point to the need for tailored approaches targeted to both providers and patients to improve guideline-concordant screening.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening From Three U.S. Healthcare Settings.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. METHODS: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. RESULTS: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p<0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations.

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.

Real-world treatment persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating DMARDs in Germany-a health insurance claims data analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Germany who had previously received conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Patients with RA who initiated treatment with a csDMARD, bDMARD, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor between 2017 and 2018 and who had previously received csDMARD or bDMARD therapy were retrospectively selected from the Institute for Applied Health Research Berlin GmbH (InGef). Time on treatment and discontinuation risk were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression identified variables associated with an increased discontinuation risk. RESULTS: A total of 990 patients had received prior csDMARD therapy; 375 had received prior bDMARD therapy. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors and JAK inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed DMARD class in those previously treated with a csDMARD or bDMARD, respectively. In both cohorts, more patients received DMARD monotherapy than combination therapy. In the prior csDMARD cohort, median time on treatment was 276, 252, and 148 days with JAK inhibitors, TNF­α inhibitors, and csDMARDs, respectively, and those treated with JAK or TNF­α inhibitors were less likely to discontinue treatment than those on csDMARDs (log-rank test p-value < 0.01 for both comparisons); no significant differences were found within the prior bDMARD cohort. CONCLUSION: This is among the first detailed analyses of RA treatment patterns in a real-world setting in Germany since the introduction of JAK inhibitors. TNF­α inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed DMARD after failure of an initial csDMARD, while JAK inhibitors were the most common among patients previously treated with a bDMARD. In both groups, monotherapy with bDMARD or targeted synthetic DMARD was common. In the prior csDMARD cohort, treatment duration was significantly longer with JAK or TNF­α inhibitors than with csDMARDs.

Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems.

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers' beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care.

Leveraging the Clinical Timepoints in Lung Cancer Screening to Engage Individuals in Tobacco Treatment.

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening (LCS) to promote early lung cancer detection, and tobacco cessation services are strongly recommended in adjunct. Screen ASSIST (NCT03611881) is a randomized factorial trial to ascertain the best tobacco treatment intervention for smokers undergoing LCS; trial outreach is conducted during 3 recruitment points (RPs): when LCS is ordered (RP1), at screening (RP2), and following results (RP3). Among 177 enrollees enrolled from April 2019 to March 2020, 31.6% enrolled at RP1, 13.0% at RP2, and 55.4% at RP3. The average number of enrollees (per 1000 recruitment days) was 2.26 in RP1, 3.37 in RP2, and 1.04 in RP3. LCS provides an opportunity to offer tobacco treatment at multiple clinical timepoints. Repeated and proactive outreach throughout the LCS experience was beneficial to enrolling patients in tobacco cessation services.

Association of Patient and Site-of-Care Characteristics With Reproductive Carrier Screening Timing in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Reproductive genetic carrier screening can be performed prior to or during pregnancy to assess a reproductive couple's risk of having a child with a recessively inherited disorder. Although professional societies endorse preconception screening as preferable to prenatal screening to allow for greater reproductive choice, implementation of preconception screening is challenging. Objective: To determine how carrier screening timing varies by multilevel factors associated with health care delivery including patient, clinician, and location across a large integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a mixed-methods approach including (1) quantitative analysis of multilevel factors associated with the timing of reproductive carrier screening and (2) qualitative analyses of data from interviews conducted with clinicians ordering carrier screenings. The setting was the Mass General Brigham, a large integrated health care system in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Participants included adult female patients who completed reproductive carrier screening performed by Myriad Women's Health between October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Exposures: Site of care (ordering clinical location and hospital affiliate), ordering clinician specialty, and patient characteristics, including age at date of test collection, self-reported race and ethnicity, primary insurance payor, and number of comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the timing of carrier screening (preconception vs prenatal). A series of 4 multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to measure the relative contribution of site, clinician, and patient-level factors on the timing of screening. Interviews with ordering clinicians (N = 9) were analyzed using a framework approach to explore barriers to preconception screening. Results: Among 6509 adult female patients who completed carrier screenings, 770 (12%) were Asian, 352 (5%) were Hispanic, 640 (10%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3844 (59%) were non-Hispanic White, 858 (13%) were other or multiple races and ethnicities, and 2611 (40%) were aged 31 to 35 years; 4701 (63%) had prenatal screening and 2438 (37%) had preconception screening; screenings were ordered by 161 distinct clinicians across 32 clinical locations affiliated with 4 hospitals. In model 1, adjusted for hospital (fixed effect), clinic and clinician (random effects), 49% of the variability in timing was associated with clinician-level effects (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.49) and 28% was associated with clinic-level effects (ICC, 0.28). Clinician specialty explained the greatest amount of variation in screening timing. Interviewed clinicians (N = 9) supported preconception screening but cited several barriers to offering population-based preconception screening. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, multilevel factors were associated with carrier screening timing. These findings suggest that increasing access to preconception screening may involve engaging specific medical specialties.

Factors associated with timely colposcopy following an abnormal cervical cancer test result.

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results.

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.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Primary Care Practitioner Perceptions on the Follow-up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.

Importance: Health care systems focus on delivering routine cancer screening to eligible individuals, yet little is known about the perceptions of primary care practitioners (PCPs) about barriers to timely follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To describe PCP perceptions about factors associated with the follow-up of abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study of PCPs from 3 primary care practice networks in New England between February and October 2020, prior to participating in a randomized clinical trial to improve follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Participants were physicians and advanced practice clinicians from participating practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported process, attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction about the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Results: Overall, 275 (56.7%) PCPs completed the survey (range by site, 34.9%-71.9%) with more female PCPs (61.8% [170 of 275]) and general internists (73.1% [201 of 275]); overall, 28,7% (79 of 275) were aged 40 to 49 years. Most PCPs felt responsible for managing abnormal cancer screening test results with the specific cancer type being the best factor (range, 63.6% [175 of 275] for breast to 81.1% [223 of 275] for lung; P < .001). The PCPs reported limited support for following up on overdue abnormal cancer screening test results. Standard processes such as automated reports, reminder letters, or outreach workers were infrequently reported. Major barriers to follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results across all cancer types included limited electronic health record tools (range, 28.5% [75 of 263]-36.5%[96 of 263]), whereas 50% of PCPs felt that there were major social barriers to receiving care for abnormal cancer screening test results for colorectal cancer. Fewer than half reported being very satisfied with the process of managing abnormal cancer screening test results, with satisfaction being greatest for breast cancer (46.9% [127 of 271]) and lowest for cervical (21.8% [59 of 271]) and lung cancer (22.4% [60 of 268]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of PCPs, important deficiencies in systems for managing abnormal cancer screening test results were reported. These findings suggest a need for comprehensive organ-agnostic systems to promote timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results using a primary care-focused approach across the range of cancer screening tests.