Screening and surveillance for second malignant neoplasms in adult survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood cancer may develop a second malignant neoplasm during adulthood and therefore require regular surveillance. OBJECTIVE: To examine adherence to population cancer screening guidelines by survivors at average risk for a second malignant neoplasm and adherence to cancer surveillance guidelines by survivors at high risk for a second malignant neoplasm. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), a 26-center study of long-term survivors of childhood cancer that was diagnosed between 1970 and 1986. PATIENTS: 4329 male and 4018 female survivors of childhood cancer who completed a CCSS questionnaire assessing screening and surveillance for new cases of cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-reported receipt and timing of mammography, Papanicolaou smear, colonoscopy, or skin examination was categorized as adherent to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for survivors at average risk for breast or cervical cancer or the Children's Oncology Group guidelines for survivors at high risk for breast, colorectal, or skin cancer as a result of cancer therapy. RESULTS: In average-risk female survivors, 2743 of 3392 (80.9%) reported having a Papanicolaou smear within the recommended period, and 140 of 209 (67.0%) reported mammography within the recommended period. In high-risk survivors, rates of recommended mammography among women were only 241 of 522 (46.2%) and the rates of colonoscopy and complete skin examinations among both sexes were 91 of 794 (11.5%) and 1290 of 4850 (26.6%), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Data were self-reported. Participants in the CCSS are a selected group of survivors, and their adherence may not be representative of all survivors of childhood cancer. CONCLUSION: Female survivors at average risk for a second malignant neoplasm show reasonable rates of screening for cervical and breast cancer. However, surveillance for new cases of cancer is very low in survivors at the highest risk for colon, breast, or skin cancer, suggesting that survivors and their physicians need education about their risks and recommended surveillance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

Transitioning to Remote Clinic Visits in a Smoking Cessation Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has caused disruptions in ongoing clinical trials and is expected to accelerate interest in conducting research studies remotely. OBJECTIVE: A quasi-experimental, mixed methods approach was used to examine the rates of visit completion as well as the opinions and experiences of participants enrolled in an ongoing clinical trial of smoking cessation who were required to change from in-person clinic visits to remote visits using video or telephone conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For quantitative comparisons, we used a quasi-experimental design, comparing a cohort of participants followed during the pandemic (n=23, COVID-19 cohort) to a comparable cohort of participants followed over a similar time period in the calendar years 2018 and 2019 (n=51, pre-COVID-19 cohort) to examine the rates of completion of scheduled visits and biospecimen collection. For the qualitative component, interviews were conducted with participants who experienced the transition from in-person to remote visits. RESULTS: Participants in the COVID-19 cohort completed an average of 83.6% of remote clinic visits (95% CI 73.1%-91.2%), which was not significantly different than the in-person completion rate of 89.8% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Participants in the COVID-19 cohort returned an average of 93.2% (95% CI 83.5%-98.1%) of saliva specimens for remote clinic visits completed, which was not significantly different than the in-person saliva specimen completion rate of 100% in the pre-COVID-19 cohort. Two broad themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the benefits of remote visits and (2) the challenges of remote counseling compared to in-person counseling. Despite limited experience with telehealth prior to this transition, most participants expressed a willingness to engage in remote visits in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the context of a rapid transition from in-person to remote visits necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of visit completion and return of biospecimens remained high. Participants were generally accepting of the transition. Further research is needed to identify the optimal mix of in-person and remote visits beyond the pandemic context and to better understand how these changes may impact study outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03262662.

Examining Lung Cancer Screening Behaviors in the Primary Care Setting: A Mixed Methods Approach.

While the National Lung Screening Trials (NLST) demonstrated the efficacy of low dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer early detection, utilization of LDCT remains suboptimal. The purpose of this formative study was to understand attitudes and beliefs among primary care clinicians regarding LDCT lung cancer screening as well as to assess gaps in knowledge to identify opportunities for reinforcing personalized lung cancer screening that is accessible and evidence-based. A 20-item closed and open-ended interview was conducted with a targeted group of primary care clinicians (38 respondents; 33 physicians and 5 NPs/PAs). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics while qualitative data was analyzed thematically. Although 50.0% of clinicians characterized LDCT as "very effective", only 47.4% of clinicians reported that they frequently or often recommend LDCT as a lung cancer screening tool. Respondents were generally unconcerned with the high rate of false positive test results. The majority of clinicians were referring patients for LDCT based on smoking history, however other factors were also considered (e.g., health status, sex, family history, past medical history, and occupational exposures.) The majority of respondents were knowledgeable about the use of LDCT as a lung screening tool but were unsure about its effectiveness for lung cancer early detection. Some clinicians are recommending patients for LDCT based on factors which are inconsistent with evidence-based guidelines.