Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests across European countries: a cross-sectional analysis of the European health interview survey 2018-2020.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, and most European countries have started to implement CRC screening programs in the past 20 years. Consequently, this study aimed to estimate the utilization of fecal tests and colonoscopy, as well as investigate factors associated with their utilization based on specific screening program characteristics in European countries. Methods: We analyzed data from the European Health Interview Survey 2018-2020 to determine the utilization of fecal tests [guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT)] within the preceding 2 years or colonoscopy within the preceding 10 years among people aged 50-74 years, based on the type of screening offered in each country. Using multivariable logistic regression and sub-group meta-analysis, factors associated with screening use were determined. Findings: The analyses included data from 129,750 respondents across 29 European countries, with participant counts ranging from 1511 individuals in Iceland to 11,755 individuals in Germany. Unit response rates ranged from 22% to 88%. The use of either test was highest among countries with fully rolled-out programs with fecal tests [from 37.7% (867/2379) in Croatia to 74.9% (2321/3085) in Denmark] and in countries offering colonoscopy as an alternative screening method [from 26.2% (854/3329) in Greece to 75.4% (1192/1760) in Luxembourg]. We observed the lowest utilization of either test in countries with no program or small-scale programs [6.3% (195/3179) in Bulgaria to 34.2% (722/2144) in Latvia]. Across all types of screening offers, younger age, being without a partner, low education, rural residence, and living in large households were associated with lower utilization, as were poor lifestyle scores and prolonged periods without physician consultation. Interpretation: Our findings point to large disparities and much room for improvement in CRC screening offers and utilization across Europe. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

Addressing differences in cancer: a framework for synergistic programming in cancer prevention and control.

Background: Cancer remains a leading cause of death worldwide and continues to disproportionately impact certain populations. Several frameworks have been developed that illustrate the multiple determinants of cancer. Expanding upon the work of others, we present an applied framework for cancer prevention and control designed to help clinicians, as well as public health practitioners and researchers, better address differences in cancer outcomes. Methods: The framework was developed by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's Health Behaviors Workgroup. An initial framework draft was developed based on workgroup discussion, public health theory, and rapid literature review on the determinants of cancer. The framework was refined through interviews and focus groups with Federally Qualified Health Center providers (n=2) and cancer patients (n=2); participants were asked to provide feedback on the framework's causal pathways, completeness, and applicability to their work and personal life. Results: The framework provides an overview of the relationships between sociodemographic inequalities, social and structural determinants, and key risk factors associated with cancer diagnosis, survivorship, and cancer morbidity and mortality across the lifespan. The framework emphasizes how health-risk behaviors like cigarette smoking interact with psychological, psychosocial, biological, and psychosocial risk factors, as well as healthcare-related behavior and other chronic diseases. Importantly, the framework emphasizes addressing social and structural determinants that influence health behaviors to reduce the burden of cancer and improve health equity. Aligned with previous theory, our framework underscores the importance of addressing co-occurring risk factors and disease states, understanding the complex relationships between factors that influence cancer, and assessing how multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage intersect to increase cancer risk across the lifespan. Conclusions: This paper presents an applied framework for cancer prevention and control to address cancer differences. Because the framework highlights determinants and factors that influence cancer risk at multiple levels, it can be used to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions to address cancer morbidity and mortality.

Prevalence and predictors of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters: The United States Firefighter Cancer Assessment and Prevention Study.

BACKGROUND: Although firefighters have increased risk for colon and prostate cancer, limited information exists on screening practices for these cancers in volunteer firefighters who compose two-thirds of the US fire service. We estimated the prevalence of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from 4 evidence-based screening recommendations and evaluated factors influencing screening. METHODS: We evaluated colon (n = 569) and prostate (n = 498) cancer screening prevalence in a sample of US volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF), National Fire Protection Association, American Cancer Society, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. We assessed associations with fire service experience, demographics, and cancer risk perception based on USPSTF guidelines. RESULTS: For those eligible based on USPSTF guidelines, colon and prostate cancer screening prevalence was 51.7% (95% CI: 45.7, 57.8) and 48.8% (95% CI: 40.0, 57.6), respectively. Higher odds of colon and prostate cancer screening were observed with older age and with some college education compared to those with less education. Fire service experience and cancer risk perception were not associated with screening practices. CONCLUSION: This is the first large study to assess colon and prostate cancer screening among US volunteer firefighters based on different screening guidelines. Our findings suggest gaps in cancer prevention efforts in the US volunteer fire service. Promoting cancer screening education and opportunities for volunteer firefighters by their fire departments, healthcare professionals, and public health practitioners, may help to address the gaps.

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment.

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Implementation science (IS) has made advances in translating research to practice but has not achieved the initial promise for cancer prevention and control (CPC). We discuss five crosscutting issues to enhance CPC that implementation and behavioral science are well positioned to address. These include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative program adaptations; innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We then detail changes made in our research approach from studying specific interventions and strategies from the research literature to working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners. In summary, progress in achieving lasting equitable improvements in health and healthcare will be greatly aided by use of flexible, accessible conceptual models, and approaches that help guide collaborators to design and adapt programs. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice of translational behavioral medicine.

Insights from Research Network Collaborators on How to Reach Rural Communities with Cancer Prevention and Control Programs.

PURPOSE: This paper examines community leaders' and researchers' recommendations for reaching rural communities in a southeastern U.S. state with cancer prevention and control programming. RESEARCH DESIGN: A qualitative inquiry of a grant network's research and community councils was conducted to explore members' opinions on how to engage rural communities and obtain input on how to recruit rural organizations for a mini-grants program. STUDY SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION: Telephone/virtual interviews were conducted with all 13 council members. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis and findings were examined within the context of system-centric and patient-centric dimensions. RESULTS: Council members discussed limited education, lack of insurance, low socioeconomic status, health care avoidance, and transportation as barriers to cancer prevention and control. They recommended reaching rural populations by partnering with community and faith-based organizations, use of targeted multi-media, and tailored cancer education trainings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are used for guiding outreach with rural communities and recruitment of rural organizations for a cancer-focused mini-grants initiative.

Ambiguity in cancer-related recommendations among young adults: Relationships with health behaviors and psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Young adulthood represents a sensitive period in which cancer-related lifestyle behaviors (e.g., substance use, poor physical activity) are developed and sustained into adulthood, having consequences for cancer morbidity and mortality. However, cancer prevention and control (CPC) recommendations are often ambiguous and multifaceted which may increase health-compromising behaviors and psychological distress among this vulnerable young adult (YA) population. OBJECTIVE: We examined relationships between ambiguity in CPC recommendations and health behaviors and psychological distress. METHODS: YAs (n = 811, aged 18-39) without cancer were drawn from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2019 data. RESULTS: Regression analyses indicated that higher perceived CPC ambiguity was associated with higher health behavior recommendations not being met and higher psychological distress. CONCLUSION: Focusing on elucidating CPC recommendations may reduce engagement in negative health behaviors and promote well-being. Future research may benefit from developing effective communication strategies aimed at elucidating health behavior recommendations to help educate this YA population. PRACTICAL VALUE: Health care providers should be more aware of, and ready to address the potential ambiguity surrounding CPC recommendations and what that means for engagement in health-promoting and health-compromising behaviors and for psychological well-being.

Prevalence and predictors of skin cancer screening among a sample of US volunteer firefighters.

BACKGROUND: Firefighters have a higher risk of melanoma incidence and mortality compared to the general population. In the United States (US), the National Fire Protection Association recommends all firefighters receive annual skin cancer screening through visual skin examination by a clinician. However, there is limited information on skin cancer screening practices among volunteer firefighters who comprise two-thirds of the US fire service. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 552 US volunteer firefighters estimated the prevalence of skin cancer screening and evaluated associations with their fire service experience, demographics, sun protection practices, and cancer risk perception. RESULTS: The prevalence of receiving skin cancer screening among volunteer firefighters was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.4, 29.8). The odds of being screened for skin cancer, compared to not being screened, were twice as high for firefighters who used sunscreen (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.73) and who perceived their skin likely to burn with prolonged sun exposure (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.10, 3.00). Older age, some college education, and family history of skin cancer were also positively associated with skin cancer screening. A positive exposure-response relationship was observed between more monthly firefighting calls and receiving screening. Cancer risk perception was not associated with screening. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first large study to assess skin cancer screening among US volunteer firefighters. Our findings suggest gaps in skin cancer prevention efforts in the volunteer fire service. Additional assessment of skin cancer prevention practices within volunteer fire departments could help address these gaps.

Dietary Oncopharmacognosy as a Crosswalk between Precision Oncology and Precision Nutrition.

While diet and nutrition are modifiable risk factors for many chronic and infectious diseases, their role in cancer prevention and control remains under investigation. The lack of clarity of some diet-cancer relationships reflects the ongoing debate about the relative contribution of genetic factors, environmental exposures, and replicative errors in stem cell division as determinate drivers of cancer risk. In addition, dietary guidance has often been based upon research assuming that the effects of diet and nutrition on carcinogenesis would be uniform across populations and for various tumor types arising in a specific organ, i.e., that one size fits all. Herein, we present a paradigm for investigating precision dietary patterns that leverages the approaches that led to successful small-molecule inhibitors in cancer treatment, namely understanding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of small molecules for targeting carcinogenic mechanisms. We challenge the scientific community to refine the paradigm presented and to conduct proof-in-concept experiments that integrate existing knowledge (drug development, natural products, and the food metabolome) with developments in artificial intelligence to design and then test dietary patterns predicted to elicit drug-like effects on target tissues for cancer prevention and control. We refer to this precision approach as dietary oncopharmacognosy and envision it as the crosswalk between the currently defined fields of precision oncology and precision nutrition with the goal of reducing cancer deaths.

Rural research capacity: a co-created model for research success.

PURPOSE: The United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) have long challenged academia to improve clinical trial enrollment, especially in underrepresented populations; inclusive of geography, age, disability status, racial and ethnic minorities. It has been shown that rural and urban residents enrolled in clinical trials have similar outcomes, yet, rural healthcare systems struggle to provide opportunities to rural residents to participate in clinical trials when infrastructure is limited or unsupportive of research programs and/or research staffing levels are insufficient. To fully address the barriers to clinical trial access in rural areas, it is not adequate to simply open more trials. Community receptivity of research as well as organizational and community capacity must be considered. This project was determined by the Oregon Health and Science University's Institutional Review Board to be generalizable research across the chosen counties and was approved to operate under a waiver of written consent. Participants received a cash incentive in appreciation for their time and verbally agreed to participate after reviewing a project information sheet. METHODS: The research team co-created a community-responsive approach to the receipt, review, and acceptance of clinical trials in a rural community setting. An adapted 5 step Implementation Mapping approach was used to develop a systematic strategy intended to increase the success, and therefore, the number of clinical trials offered in a rural community. RESULTS: The research team and participating rural community members pilot-tested the implementation of a co-designed research review strategy, inclusive of a Regional Cultural Landscape and three co-created project submission and feasibility review forms, with a cancer early detection clinical trial. The proposed clinical trial required engagement from primary care and oncology. Utilizing the research review strategy demonstrated strong researcher-community stakeholder communication and negotiation, which resulted in early identification and resolution of potential barriers, hiring a local clinical research coordinator, and timely trial opening. CONCLUSION: To the knowledge of the research team, the work described is the first to use a community-engaged approach for creating a clinical trial implementation strategy directly supportive of rural-sitting community stakeholders in receiving, reviewing, and approving cancer-related clinical trials in their community. Participating community members and leaders had the chance to negotiate research protocol changes or considerations directly with researchers interested in conducting a cancer clinical trial in their rural setting.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

Challenges in the management of colorectal cancer in low- and middle-income countries.

AIM: This narrative review aims to describe colorectal cancer (CRC) management landscape in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), presenting the most recent and relevant papers on the topic. As a secondary aim, the authors suggest new ways of improving CRC patient care in LMICs. BACKGROUND: Several studies show that the incidence of colon cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is rising. In addition to the increasing incidence, lack of early detection and impeded access to optimal multidisciplinary treatment may worsen survival outcomes. CONCLUSION: Developing quality diagnostic services in the proper health context is crucial for early diagnosis and successful therapy of CRC patients, and applying a resource-sensitive approach to prioritize essential treatments based on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is key to overcoming barriers in LMICs, with clinical research collaborations between high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs being a helpful strategy to improve health indicators and prevent the burnout of health workers.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

Identifying research practices toward achieving health equity principles within the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.

PURPOSE: Although there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations. METHODS: The CPCRN's Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network's experience and collaborations. RESULTS: Data from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research. CONCLUSIONS: The toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.

Effectiveness of a Breast Cancer Education Screening and NavigaTion (BEST) Intervention among Hispanic Women.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, breast cancer remains one of the most diagnosed cancers among females and remains the second leading cause of cancer death. In addition, breast cancer is most likely diagnosed at an advanced stage among Hispanic females in the United States due to lower mammogram utilization. AIMS: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a multilevel, multicomponent community-based breast cancer screening intervention called the Breast Cancer Education Screening and NavigaTion (BEST) program. The primary outcome was the completion of a screening mammogram 4 months post-intervention. METHOD: We used a pragmatic approach for evaluation, utilizing a quasi-experimental delayed intervention design. We recruited women from the community aged between 50 and 75, uninsured or underinsured, and overdue for screening. RESULTS: Six hundred participants were recruited (300 intervention and 300 control). Among completers, the screening rate was 97% in the intervention group and 4.4% in the control group (RR = 22.2, 95% CI: 12.5-39.7, p < .001). In multivariable analysis, age ≥ 65 (RR = 1.29, p = .047), perceived benefits (RR = 1.04, p = .026), curability (RR = 1.24, p < .001), subjective norms (RR = 1.14, p = .014), and fatalism (RR = .96, p = .004) remained significantly associated with screening outcome. CONCLUSION: A multicomponent, bilingual, and culturally tailored intervention effectively facilitated breast cancer screening completion in an underserved population of Hispanic women. Individuals with improved screening outcomes were more likely to have higher positive beliefs. Our study has important implications regarding using multicomponent interventions in increasing breast cancer screening completion in poorly screened populations. It also highlights differences in health belief motivation for breast cancer screening completion.

Improving Comprehensive Cancer Control State Plans for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Four Corners Region of the United States.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities continue to persist in the four corners region (states of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado) of the United States. The Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) state plans provide a policy and practice snapshot on how a state identifies and addresses its cancer burden. This study critically examines the four state plans to identify gaps and opportunities for cancer prevention and control. Using a conventional content analysis approach, we reviewed the CCC plans for CRC screening-related information, culminating in a conceptual framework that highlights three themes. First, states reported their cancer burden using national data from American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Although these data informed specific goals and objectives, not all plans reported state-level data on CRC differences by specific social determinants of health and other characteristics. Second, it was not clear whether the interventions chosen to address state plan objectives were evidence-based and whether or not clearly described criteria were used for the selection of the interventions. Third, very limited information was provided in terms of state-specific contextual challenges and practical implementation of interventions. Study findings highlight opportunities to improve state-level cancer prevention and control efforts: first, by promoting the selection and adaptation of contextually relevant evidence-based interventions for this unique region; and second, through multidirectional engagement with communities, researchers, and policy and practice stakeholders. Such synergies in research and policies are vital for a coordinated and integrated approach to cancer prevention and control.

Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions to Increase Cancer Screening Rates in Hispanic/Latinx Populations: A Scoping Review.

Hispanic/Latinx persons have disproportionately lower breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates than non-Hispanic White (NHW) persons. This low participation in cancer screening results in late-stage cancer diagnosis among Hispanic persons compared to NHW persons. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions effectively improve cancer screening rates in the general population; however, few reviews about mHealth interventions are tailored to Hispanic populations. This is important to investigate given that Hispanic persons differ from NHW persons with regard to culture, language, and health care utilization. Therefore, in this study, we investigated: (a) What types of mHealth interventions have been undertaken to increase cancer screening rates among Hispanic persons in the United States? (b) How effective have these interventions been? and (c) What features of these interventions help increase cancer screening rates? Searches conducted during December 2020 identified 10 articles published between January 2017 and December 2020 that met our inclusion criteria. The review revealed that mHealth interventions mainly provided education about cancer and cancer screening using videos, PowerPoint slides, and interactive multimedia. mHealth interventions that effectively improved screening behavior were mainly for easy-to-screen cancers like skin and cervical cancer. Finally, reviewed studies did not provide details on how cultural adaptations were made, and it is unclear what specific features of mHealth interventions increase cancer screening rates among Hispanic persons. Future research should identify and evaluate the effects of different components of culturally tailored interventions on cancer screening. Public health practitioners and health care providers should tailor mHealth approaches to their clients or patients and practice environment.

Health Equity and Colorectal Cancer Awareness: a Community Health Educator Initiative.

Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality persist in rural and underserved communities. Our Community Outreach and Engagement (COE) activities are grounded in a bi-directional Community-to-Bench model in which the National Outreach Network Community Health Educator (NON CHE) Screen to Save (S2S) initiative was implemented. In this study, we assessed the impact of the NON CHE S2S in rural and underserved communities. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used to examine the role of the NON CHE S2S on CRC knowledge and CRC screening intent. Data included demographics, current CRC knowledge, awareness, and future CRC health plans. A multivariate linear regression was fit to survey scores for CRC knowledge. The NON CHE S2S engaged 441 participants with 170 surveys completed. The difference in participants' CRC knowledge before and after the NON CHE S2S intervention had an overall mean of 0.92 with a standard deviation of 2.56. At baseline, White participants had significantly higher CRC knowledge scores, correctly answering 1.94 (p = 0.007) more questions on average than Black participants. After the NON CHE S2S intervention, this difference was not statistically significant. Greater than 95% of participants agreed that the NON CHE S2S sessions impacted their intent to get screened for CRC. Equity of access to health information and the health care system can be achieved with precision public health strategies. The COE bi-directional Community-to-Bench model facilitated community connections through the NON CHE and increased awareness of CRC risk reduction, screening, treatment, and research. The NON CHE combined with S2S is a powerful tool to engage communities with the greatest health care needs and positively impact an individual's intent to "get screened" for CRC.

High Positive Predictive Value of Multitarget Stool DNA After Aerodigestive Tract Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) is approved for average-risk colorectal cancer screening; test performance in persons with prior radiation therapy (RT) has not been studied. RT can induce gastrointestinal bleeding and alter DNA methylation, which may affect mt-sDNA accuracy. Among patients previously treated with RT, we aimed to measure the positive predictive value (PPV) of mt-sDNA and compare these results to historical estimates of mt-sDNA PPV among average-risk patients. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of a multisite academic and community-based practice. Patients with RT and subsequent mt-sDNA use during the study period (2014-2016) were identified. The findings at diagnostic colonoscopy were compared with published reports among average-risk patients. Nominal P values were generated by 2-tailed Fisher's exact testing in comparisons of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) rates between groups. RESULTS: There were 220 patients who had RT before mt-sDNA testing. RT was delivered along the aerodigestive tract in 108 patients. Mt-sDNA tests were positive in 45 of 220 patients (20%), and colonoscopy findings were available for 42; 31 of 42 patients (74%) had CRN. PPV by mt-sDNA was similar when stratified by site of prior RT (along vs outside the aerodigestive tract; P = 1.00). Detection of advanced CRN (36%) was nominally higher than previously published retrospective (27%) and prospective (20%) studies. The median time from the start of RT to mt-sDNA use was 7 (interquartile range, 3-14) years. CONCLUSION: With a test positivity rate and PPV for CRN similar to reports among average-risk patients, prior RT does not appear to adversely affect mt-sDNA performance.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9-12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices. RESULTS: There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening. CONCLUSIONS: Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.