Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

Incidence and Survival for Patients Diagnosed With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer in an Integrated System.

INTRODUCTION: Documenting trends in cancer incidence and survival is a national priority. This study estimated age- and sex-adjusted incidence and 5-year relative survival among patients with cancer diagnosed within Kaiser Permanente compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) estimates. METHODS: The cohort included Kaiser Permanente health plan members diagnosed with breast (BC), colorectal (CRC), or lung cancer (LC) between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018. Incidence was computed as age-adjusted rates per 100,000 member-years. SEER*Stat was used to compute 5-year relative survival. RESULTS: Kaiser Permanente BC incidence rates were persistently higher than SEER from 2004 (126.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 123.2-129.9] vs 122.6 [95% CI = 121.3-123.2]) through 2013 (132.06 [95% CI = 129.5-135.7] vs 126.7 [95% CI = 125.9-127.5]). Kaiser Permanente CRC and LC incidence rates were lower than SEER for all years except 2008, showing a spike in CRC incidence (51.5 [95% CI = 49.9-53.0] vs 46.1 [95% CI = 45.7-46.4]). Kaiser Permanente BC, CRC, and LC survival estimates for all stages were higher than SEER. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence rates for all-stage and localized-stage BC were consistently higher for Kaiser Permanente than for SEER. CRC and LC rates were lower. Kaiser Permanente survival rates were consistently higher than for SEER. The strengths of these findings are associated with the ability to capture "gold-standard" cancer registry data on defined Kaiser Permanente populations. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously given differences in the underlying populations and secular and regional differences between Kaiser Permanente and SEER. The Kaiser Permanente population is younger and more racially diverse than SEER aggregate populations, and Kaiser Permanente members are insured with access to preventive care (eg, smoking cessation programs, cancer screening).

Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening Less Likely to Receive Screening When Enrolled in Health Plans With Deductibles.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and commercial insurance plans began covering lung cancer screening (LCS) without patient cost-sharing for all plans. We explore the impact of enrolling into a deductible plan on the utilization of LCS services despite having no out-of-pocket cost requirement. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium. Our cohort included non-Medicare LCS-eligible individuals enrolled in managed care organizations between February 5, 2015, and February 28, 2019. We estimate a series of sequential logistic regression models examining utilization across the sequence of events required for baseline LCS. We report the marginal effects of enrollment into deductible plans compared with enrollment in no-deductible plans. RESULTS: The total effect of deductible plan enrollment was a 1.8 percentage-point (PP) decrease in baseline LCS. Sequential logistic regression results that explore each transition separately indicate deductible plan enrollment was associated with a 4.3 PP decrease in receipt of clinician visit, a 1.7 PP decrease in receipt of LCS order, and a 7.0 PP decrease in receipt of baseline LCS. Reductions persisted across all observable races and ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest individuals enrolled in deductible plans are more likely to forgo preventive LCS services despite requiring no out-of-pocket costs. This result may indicate that increased cost-sharing is associated with suboptimal choices to forgo recommended LCS. Alternatively, this effect may indicate individuals enrolling into deductible plans prefer less health care utilization. Patient outreach interventions at the health plan level may improve LCS.

Application of team science best practices to the project management of a large, multi-site lung cancer screening research consortium.

Research is increasingly conducted through multi-institutional consortia, and best practices for establishing multi-site research collaborations must be employed to ensure efficient, effective, and productive translational research teams. In this manuscript, we describe how the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Center (PROSPR-Lung) utilized evidence-based Science of Team Science (SciTS) best practices to establish the consortium's infrastructure and processes to promote translational research in lung cancer screening. We provide specific, actionable examples of how we: (1) developed and reinforced a shared mission, vision, and goals; (2) maintained a transparent and representative leadership structure; (3) employed strong research support systems; (4) provided efficient and effective data management; (5) promoted interdisciplinary conversations; and (6) built a culture of trust. We offer guidance for managing a multi-site research center and data repository that may be applied to a variety of settings. Finally, we detail specific project management tools and processes used to drive collaboration, efficiency, and scientific productivity.

Uptake of novel systemic therapy: Real world patterns among adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based chemotherapy to immunotherapy and targeted therapies associated with improved survival in clinical trials. As new therapies are approved for use, examining variations in use for treating patients in community practice can generate additional evidence as to the magnitude of their benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1,442 patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC between 3/1/2012 and 12/31/2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns are described overall and by type of first- and second-line systemic therapy received. Prevalence ratios estimate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with receipt of first-line therapy. RESULTS: Within 180 days of diagnosis, 949 (66%) patients received first-line systemic therapy, increasing from 53% in 2012 to 71% in 2020 (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients receiving first-line immunotherapy+/-chemotherapy (IMO) increased from 14%-66% (p<0.0001). Overall, 380 (26%) patients received both first- and second-line treatment, varying by year between 16%-36% (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients receiving second-line IMO increased from 13%-37% (p<0.0001). Older age and current smoking status were inversely associated with receipt of first-line therapy. Higher BMI, receipt of radiation, and diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of first-line therapy. No association was found for race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: The proportion of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first- and second-line treatment increased over time, particularly for IMO treatments. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of these therapies on patient outcomes, including short-term, long-term, and financial toxicities. MICROABSTRACT: Systemic treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based therapies to immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Using de novo stage IV NSCLC patients identified from 4 healthcare systems, we examine trends in systemic therapy. We saw an increase in the portion of patients receiving any systemic therapy and a sharp increase in the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy.

The Pathways to Prevention program: nutrition as prevention for improved cancer outcomes.

Adequate nutrition is central to well-being and health and can enhance recovery during illness. Although it is well known that malnutrition, both undernutrition and overnutrition, poses an added challenge for patients with cancer diagnoses, it remains unclear when and how to intervene and if such nutritional interventions improve clinical outcomes. In July 2022, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop to examine key questions, identify related knowledge gaps, and provide recommendations to advance understanding about the effects of nutritional interventions. Evidence presented at the workshop found substantial heterogeneity among published randomized clinical trials, with a majority rated as low quality and yielding mostly inconsistent results. Other research cited trials in limited populations that showed potential for nutritional interventions to reduce the adverse effects associated with malnutrition in people with cancer. After review of the relevant literature and expert presentations, an independent expert panel recommends baseline screening for malnutrition risk using a validated instrument following cancer diagnosis and repeated screening during and after treatment to monitor nutritional well-being. Those at risk of malnutrition should be referred to registered dietitians for more in-depth nutritional assessment and intervention. The panel emphasizes the need for further rigorous, well-defined nutritional intervention studies to evaluate the effects on symptoms and cancer-specific outcomes as well as effects of intentional weight loss before or during treatment in people with overweight or obesity. Finally, although data on intervention effectiveness are needed first, robust data collection during trials is recommended to assess cost-effectiveness and inform coverage and implementation decisions.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). RESULTS: Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. CONCLUSIONS: We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

Impact of COVID-19 on Trends in Outpatient Clinic Utilization: A Tale of 2 Departments.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many US health care organizations to shift from mostly in-person care to a hybrid of virtual visits (VV) and in-person visits (IPV). While there was an expected and immediate shift to virtual care (VC) early in the pandemic, little is known about trends in VC use after restrictions eased. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using data from 3 health care systems. All completed visits from adult primary care (APC) and behavioral health (BH) were extracted from the electronic health record of adults aged 19 years and older from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. Standardized weekly visit rates were calculated by department and site and analyzed using time series analysis. RESULTS: There was an immediate decrease in APC visits following the onset of the pandemic. IPV were quickly replaced by VV such that VV accounted for most APC visits early in the pandemic. By 2021, VV rates declined, and VC visits accounted for <50% of all APC visits. By Spring 2021, all 3 health care systems saw a resumption of APC visits as rates neared or returned to prepandemic levels. In contrast, BH visit rates remained constant or slightly increased. By April 2020, almost all BH visits were being delivered virtually at each of the 3 sites and continue to do so without changes to utilization. CONCLUSIONS: VC use peaked during the early pandemic period. While rates of VC are higher than prepandemic levels, IPV are the predominant visit type in APC. In contrast, VC use has sustained in BH, even after restrictions eased.

Patient Factors Associated With Use of Adult Primary Care and Virtual Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of adult primary care (APC) shifted from predominately in-person to modes of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear how these shifts impacted the likelihood of APC use during the pandemic, or how patient characteristics may be associated with the use of virtual care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using person-month level datasets from 3 geographically disparate integrated health care systems was conducted for the observation period of January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. We estimated a 2-stage model, first adjusting for patient-level sociodemographic, clinical, and cost-sharing factors, using generalized estimating equations with a logit distribution, along with a second-stage multinomial generalized estimating equations model that included an inverse propensity score treatment weight to adjust for the likelihood of APC use. Factors associated with APC use and virtual care use were separately assessed for the 3 sites. RESULTS: Included in the first-stage models were datasets with total person-months of 7,055,549, 11,014,430, and 4,176,934, respectively. Older age, female sex, greater comorbidity, and Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were associated with higher likelihood of any APC use in any month; measures of greater patient cost-sharing were associated with a lower likelihood. Conditional on APC use, older age, and adults identifying as Black, Asian, or Hispanic were less likely to use virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: As the transition in health care continues to evolve, our findings suggest that to ensure vulnerable patient groups receive high quality health care, outreach interventions to reduce barriers to virtual care use may be warranted.

Virtual Care and Urinary Tract Infection Management: Comparing Ancillary Service Orders and Patient Order Fulfillments Between Virtual and In-person Encounters During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, more health care issues were being managed remotely. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are being managed more often using telehealth although few reports compare the rate of UTI ancillary service orders placed and fulfilled during these visits. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare the rate of ancillary service orders and order fulfillments in incident UTI diagnoses between virtual and in-person encounters. RESEARCH DESIGN: The retrospective cohort study involved 3 integrated health care systems: Kaiser Permanente (KP) Colorado, KP Georgia, and KP Mid-Atlantic States. SUBJECTS: We included incident UTI encounters from adult primary care data from January 2019 to June 2021. MEASURES: Data were categorized as: prepandemic (January 2019-March 2020), COVID-19 Era 1 (April 2020-June 2020), and COVID-19 Era 2 (July 2020-June 2021). UTI-specific ancillary services included medication, laboratory, and imaging. Orders and order fulfillments were dichotomized for analyses. Weighted percentages for orders and fulfillments were calculated using inverse probability treatment weighting from logistic regression and compared between virtual and in-person encounters using χ2 tests. RESULTS: We identified 123,907 incident encounters. Virtual encounters increased from 13.4% prepandemic to 39.1% in COVID-19 Era 2. Ancillary service orders from virtual encounters were not placed as often as in-person encounters. However, the weighted percentage for ancillary service order fulfillment across all services remained above 65.3% across sites and eras, with many fulfillment percentages above 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reported a high rate of order fulfillment for both virtual and in-person encounters. Health care systems should encourage providers to place ancillary service orders for uncomplicated diagnoses, such as UTI, to provide enhanced access to patient-centered care.

Management of Neck or Back Pain in Ambulatory Care: Did Visit Mode or the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Provider Practice or Patient Adherence?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 2 circumstances have changed provider-patient interactions in ambulatory care: (1) the replacement of virtual for in-person visits and (2) the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the potential impact of each event on provider practice and patient adherence by comparing the frequency of the association of provider orders, and patient fulfillment of those orders, by visit mode and pandemic period, for incident neck or back pain (NBP) visits in ambulatory care. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente regions (Colorado, Georgia, and Mid-Atlantic States) from January 2017 to June 2021. Incident NBP visits were defined from ICD-10 coded as primary or first listed diagnoses on adult, family medicine, or urgent care visits separated by at least 180 days. Visit modes were classified as virtual or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic (before April 2020 or the beginning of the national emergency) or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of provider orders for, and patient fulfillment of orders, were measured for 5 service classes and compared on: virtual versus in-person visits, and prepandemic versus recovery periods. Comparisons were balanced on patient case-mix using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Ancillary services in all 5 categories at each of the 3 Kaiser Permanente regions were substantially ordered less frequently on virtual compared with in-person visits in both the prepandemic and recovery periods (both P ≤ 0.001). Conditional on an order, patient fulfillment within 30 days was high (typically ≥70%) and not likely meaningfully different between visit modes or pandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: Ancillary services for incident NBP visits were ordered less frequently during virtual than in-person visits in both prepandemic and recovery periods. Patient fulfillment of orders was high, and not significantly different by mode or period.

Did Access to Ambulatory Care Moderate the Associations Between Visit Mode and Ancillary Services Utilization Across the COVID-19 Pandemic Period?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 2 circumstances changed provider-patient interactions in primary care: the substitution of virtual (eg, video) for in-person visits and the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied whether access to care might affect patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders for ambulatory diagnosis and management of incident neck or back pain (NBP) and incident urinary tract infection (UTI) for virtual versus in-person visits. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente Regions to identify incident NBP and UTI visits from January 2016 through June 2021. Visit modes were classified as virtual (Internet-mediated synchronous chats, telephone visits, or video visits) or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic [before the beginning of the national emergency (April 2020)] or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders were measured for 5 service classes each for NBP and UTI. Differences in percentages of fulfillments were compared between modes within periods and between periods within the mode to assess the possible impact of 3 moderators: distance from residence to primary care clinic, high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment, and prior use of a mail-order pharmacy program. RESULTS: For diagnostic radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services, percentages of fulfilled orders were generally >70-80%. Given an incident NBP or UTI visit, longer distance to the clinic and higher cost-sharing due to HDHP enrollment did not significantly suppress patients' fulfillment of ancillary services orders. Prior use of mail-order prescriptions significantly promoted medication order fulfillments on virtual NBP visits compared with in-person NBP visits in the prepandemic period (5.9% vs. 2.0%, P=0.01) and in the recovery period (5.2% vs. 1.6%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Distance to the clinic or HDHP enrollment had minimal impact on the fulfillment of diagnostic or prescribed medication services associated with incident NBP or UTI visits delivered virtually or in-person; however, prior use of mail-order pharmacy option promoted fulfillment of prescribed medication orders associated with NBP visits.

Health-care-Related Practices in Virtual Behavioral Health Treatment for Major Depression Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The abrupt shift to virtual care at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had the potential to disrupt care practices in virtual behavioral health encounters. We examined changes over time in virtual behavioral health-care-related practices for patient encounters with diagnoses of major depression. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized electronic health record data from 3 integrated health care systems. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariates across 3 time periods, prepandemic (January 2019-March 2020), peak-pandemic shift to virtual care (April 2020-June 2020), and recovery of health care operations (July 2020-June 2021). First virtual follow-up behavioral health department encounters after an incident diagnostic encounter were examined for differences across the time periods in rates of antidepressant medication orders and fulfillments, and completion of patient-reported symptoms screeners in service of measurement-based care. RESULTS: Antidepressant medication orders declined modestly but significantly in 2 of the 3 systems during the peak-pandemic period but rebounded during the recovery period. There were no significant changes in patient fulfillment of ordered antidepressant medications. Completion of symptom screeners increased significantly in all 3 systems during the peak-pandemic period and continued to increase significantly in the subsequent period. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift to virtual behavioral health care was possible without compromising health-care-related practices. The transition and subsequent adjustment period have instead been marked by improved adherence to measurement-based care practices in virtual visits, signaling a potential new capacity for virtual health care delivery.

Development of a Common Data Model for a Multisite and Multiyear Study of Virtual Visit Implementation: A Case Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In multisite studies, a common data model (CDM) standardizes dataset organization, variable definitions, and variable code structures and can support distributed data processing. We describe the development of a CDM for a study of virtual visit implementation in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. METHODS: We conducted several scoping reviews to inform our study's CDM design: (1) virtual visit mode, implementation timing, and scope (targeted clinical conditions and departments); and (2) extant sources of electronic health record data to specify study measures. Our study covered the period from 2017 through June 2021. Integrity of the CDM was assessed by a chart review of random samples of virtual and in-person visits, overall and by specific conditions of interest (neck or back pain, urinary tract infection, major depression). RESULTS: The scoping reviews identified a need to address differences in virtual visit programs across the 3 KP regionsto harmonize measurement specifications for our research analyses. The final CDM contained patient-level, provider-level, and system-level measures on 7,476,604 person-years for KP members aged 19 years and above. Utilization included 2,966,112 virtual visits (synchronous chats, telephone visits, video visits) and 10,004,195 in-person visits. Chart review indicated the CDM correctly identified visit mode on>96% (n=444) of visits, and presenting diagnosis on >91% (n=482) of visits. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront design and implementation of CDMs may be resource intensive. Once implemented, CDMs, like the one we developed for our study, provide downstream programming and analytic efficiencies by harmonizing, in a consistent framework, otherwise idiosyncratic temporal and study site differences in source data.

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.

Percentage Up to Date With Chest Computed Tomography Among Those Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Authors aimed to calculate the percentage up-to-date with testing in the context of lung cancer screening across 5 healthcare systems and evaluate differences according to patient and health system characteristics. METHODS: Lung cancer screening‒eligible individuals receiving care within the five systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung consortium from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 were included in analyses. Data collection was completed on June 15, 2021; final analyses were completed on April 1, 2022. Chest computed tomography scans and patient characteristics were obtained through electronic health records and used to calculate the percentage completing a chest computed tomography scan in the previous 12 months (considered up-to-date). The association of patient and healthcare system factors with being up-to-date was evaluated with adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs using log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: There were 29,417 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as of September 30, 2019; 8,333 (28.3%) were up-to-date with testing. Those aged 65-74 years (prevalence ratio=1.19; CI=1.15, 1.24, versus ages 55-64), those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence ratio=2.05; CI=1.98, 2.13), and those in higher SES census tracts (prevalence ratio=1.22; CI=1.16, 1.30, highest quintile versus lowest) were more likely to be up-to-date. Currently smoking (prevalence ratio=0.91; CI=0.88, 0.95), having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (prevalence ratio=0.83; CI=0.77, 0.88), identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (prevalence ratio=0.79; CI=0.68, 0.92), and having a decentralized lung cancer screening program (prevalence ratio=0.77; CI=0.74, 0.80) were inversely associated with being up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage up-to-date with testing among those eligible for lung cancer screening is well below up-to-date estimates for other types of cancer screening, and disparities in lung cancer screening participation remain.

Equitable implementation of S.A.F.E. Firearm: A multi-method pilot study.

Attention to health equity is critical in the implementation of firearm safety efforts. We present our operationalization of equity-oriented recommendations in preparation for launch of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial focused on firearm safety promotion in pediatric primary care as a universal suicide prevention strategy. In Step 1 of our process, pre-trial engagement with clinican partners and literature review alerted us that delivery of a firearm safety program may vary by patients' medical complexity, race, and ethnicity. In Step 2, we selected the Health Equity Implementation Framework to inform our understanding of contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators). In Step 3, we leveraged an implementation pilot across 5 pediatric primary care clinics in 2 health system sites to study signals of inequities. Eligible well-child visits for 694 patients and 47 clinicians were included. Our results suggested that medical complexity was not associated with program delivery. We did see potential signals of inequities by race and ethnicity but must interpret with caution. Though we did not initially plan to examine differences by sex assigned at birth, we discovered that clinicians may be more likely to deliver the program to parents of male than female patients. Seven qualitative interviews with clinicians provided additional context. In Step 4, we interrogated equity considerations (e.g., why and how do these inequities exist). In Step 5, we will develop a plan to probe potential inequities related to race, ethnicity, and sex in the fully powered trial. Our process highlights that prospective, rigorous, exploratory work is vital for equity-informed implementation trials.

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.