Search

Purpose: National screening estimates mask county-level variations. We aimed to generate county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence estimates for 2018 among adults aged 50-75 years and identify counties with low screening prevalence., Methods: We combined individual-level county data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 204,947) with the 2018 American Community Survey county poverty data as a covariate, and the 2018 U.S. Census county population count data to generate county-level prevalence estimates for being current with any CRC screening test, colonoscopy, and home stool blood test. Because BRFSS is a state-based survey, and because some counties did not have samples for analysis, we used correlation coefficients to test internal consistency between model-based and BRFSS state estimates., Results: Correlation coefficients tests were ≥0.97. Model-based national prevalence for any test was 69.9% (95% CI, 69.5% -70.4%) suggesting 30% are not current with screening test use. State mean estimates ranged from 62.1% in Alaska and Wyoming to 76.6% in Maine and Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 42.2% in Alaska to 80.0% in Florida and Rhode Island. Most tests were performed with colonoscopy., Conclusions: Estimates across all U.S. counties showed large variations. Estimates may be informative for planning by states and local screening programs., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Evidence shows underutilization of cancer genetics services. To explore the reasons behind this underutilization, this study evaluated characteristics of women who were referred for genetic counseling and/or had undergone BRCA1/2 testing., Methods: An ovarian cancer risk perception study stratified 16,720 eligible women from the Henry Ford Health System into average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups based on family history. We randomly selected 3,307 subjects and interviewed 2,524 of them (76.3% response rate)., Results: Among the average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups, 2.3, 10.1, and 20.2%, respectively, reported genetic counseling referrals, and 0.8, 3.3, and 9.5%, respectively, reported having undergone BRCA testing. Personal breast cancer history, high risk, and perceived ovarian cancer risk were associated with both referral and testing. Discussion of family history with a doctor predicted counseling referral, whereas belief that family history influenced risk was the strongest BRCA testing predictor. Women perceiving their cancer risk as much higher than other women their age were twice as likely (95% confidence interval: 2.0-9.6) to report genetic counseling referral., Conclusion: In a health system with ready access to cancer genetic counseling and BRCA testing, women who were at high risk underutilized these services. There were strong associations between perceived ovarian cancer risk and genetic counseling referral, and between a belief that family history influenced risk and BRCA testing.

Given the continued growth in the number of persons with cancer in the United States, the primary prevention of cancer remains an urgent public health priority. As the field of cancer prevention continues to mature and scientific knowledge evolves, it is imperative to challenge the status quo and embrace new approaches to cancer prevention. In this commentary, we summarize recent trends and some of the scientific advances that have been made over the past few decades regarding the complex process of cancer development and the interaction of individual and social risk factors. We examine some of the assumptions and terminology that have characterized cancer prevention approaches for more than a quarter century and the impact of these assumptions and our use of terminology. We propose that it is possible for today's youth to experience lower cancer incidence rates as adults compared with previous generations. To accomplish this goal, a more transdisciplinary and multifaceted approach is needed, adapted as appropriate for different populations and stages of life. The greatest improvements in cancer prevention may occur as a result of innovative, multilevel interventions that build on the expanding scientific evidence base., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To describe the development and psychometric testing of items measuring connection to the cancer experience through a close friend or relative., Methods: Ten items assess four aspects of connection to cancer: emotional and cognitive involvement, kind and amount of shared experience, perceived similarity to the affected person, and negative change witnessed. Interviews were conducted with 2200 women close to someone with cancer. The sample was split into two samples for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Sample 1 (n=1342) was used to examine the underlying structure of the items. Sample 2 (n=858) was used for CFA. Internal consistency and reliability analysis were also conducted., Results: Three factors with moderate correlation were extracted: general closeness, resemblance, and cognitive processing. Results from the CFA analysis confirmed a good fit of the three-factor model (Bentler-Bonett NIF=0.973, Bentler-Bonett NNFI=0.975, RMSEA=0.040 and CFI=0.984) and all path coefficients were statistically significant., Conclusion: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and construct validity of the CONNECS scale in measuring individuals' connection to the cancer experience through a close friend or relative., Practice Implications: CONNECS may be a useful tool for examining the impact of the cancer experience on risk perceptions, cancer worry, and medical decision making., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objective: To examine the risk of subsequent primary ovarian cancer among women diagnosed previously with cancer (subsequent cohort) and to compare demographic and tumor characteristics affecting overall survival of these women and women diagnosed with first primary ovarian cancer (index cohort)., Methods: We identified the two cohorts of women using the 1973-2005 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) result data. We calculated relative risk of subsequent primary ovarian cancer and estimated 5-year risks of dying (hazard-ratios) after diagnosis of the first or subsequent primary ovarian cancer in the two cohorts, respectively using Cox modeling., Results: Women diagnosed with index cancers of the corpus uteri, colon, cervix, and melanoma at age younger than 50 had increased risk of ovarian cancer within 5 years after diagnosis (p<0.05); young breast cancer survivors had continued risk beyond 20 years. In 5-year follow-up survival analysis, the factors associated with a better survival (p<0.05) were similar in both cohorts and included more recent diagnosis; localized or regional disease; age <50 years at diagnosis; and being white versus black. A lower risk of dying from mucinous, endometrioid, or non-epithelial tumors than from serous was seen after 15 months (p<0.01), or after 32 months from diagnosis of the index and subsequent cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: Age, stage, and histology affect ovarian cancer survival. The increased risk of ovarian cancer over time, especially among breast and colon cancer survivors who are less than 50 years of age, suggests common etiologies and necessitates careful surveillance by health care providers and increased survivors awareness through educational efforts., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)