Search

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are already being marketed as noninvasive, convenient opportunities to test for multiple cancer types with a single blood sample. The technology varies-involving detection of circulating tumor DNA, fragments of DNA, RNA, or proteins unique to each targeted cancer. The priorities and tradeoffs of reaching diagnostic resolution in the setting of possible false positives and negatives remain under active study. Given the well-established role of imaging in lesion detection and characterization for most cancers, radiologists have an essential role to play in selecting diagnostic pathways, determining the validity of test results, resolving false-positive MCED test results, and evaluating tradeoffs for clinical policy. Appropriate access to and use of imaging tests will also factor into clinical guidelines. Thus, all clinicians potentially involved with MCED tests for cancer screening will need to weigh the benefits and harms of MCED testing, including consideration of how the tests will be used alongside or in place of other screening options, how diagnostic confirmation tests should be selected, and what the implications are for policy and reimbursement decisions. Further, patients will need regular support to make informed decisions about screening using MCED tests in the context of their personal cancer risks, health-related values, and access to care., (© RSNA, 2025.)

Background: Cancer survivors treated with any dose of radiation to the abdomen, pelvis, spine, or total body irradiation (TBI) are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population. Since earlier detection of CRC is strongly associated with improved survival, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines recommend that these high-risk cancer survivors begin CRC screening via a colonoscopy or a multitarget stool DNA test at the age of 30 years or 5 years following the radiation treatment (whichever occurs last). However, only 37% (95% CI 34.1-39.9%) of high-risk survivors adhere to CRC surveillance. The Activating cancer Survivors and their Primary care providers (PCP) to Increase colorectal cancer Screening (ASPIRES) study is designed to assess the efficacy of an intervention to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors through interactive, educational text-messages and resources provided to participants, and CRC screening resources provided to their PCPs., Methods: ASPIRES is a three-arm, hybrid type II effectiveness and implementation study designed to simultaneously evaluate the efficacy of an intervention and assess the implementation process among participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), a North American longitudinal cohort of childhood cancer survivors. The Control (C) arm participants receive electronic resources, participants in Treatment arm 1 receive electronic resources as well as interactive text messages, and participants in Treatment arm 2 receive electronic educational resources, interactive text messages, and their PCP's receive faxed materials. We describe our plan to collect quantitative (questionnaires, medical records, study logs, CCSS data) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) intervention outcome data as well as quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) data on the implementation process., Discussion: There is a critical need to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors. This hybrid effectiveness-implementation study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an mHealth intervention consisting of interactive text-messages, electronic tools, and primary care provider resources. Findings from this research will advance CRC prevention efforts by enhancing understanding of the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention and highlighting factors that determine the successful implementation of this intervention within the high-risk cancer survivor population., Trial Registration: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05084833 ) on October 20, 2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to increase the uptake of screening mammography among high-risk women who were treated for a childhood cancer with chest radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Two hundred four female survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were treated with chest radiotherapy with 20 Gy or greater, age 25 to 50 years, and without breast imaging in the past 24 months were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive a mailed informational packet followed by a tailored telephone-delivered brief motivational interview (intervention) versus an attention control. Primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants who completed a screening mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis. Stratum-adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes included the completion of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and barriers to screening and moderating factors., Results: Women in the intervention group were significantly more likely than those in the control group to report a mammogram (45 [33.1%] of 136 v 12 [17.6%] of 68; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3). The intervention was more successful among women age 25 to 39 years (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.7) than among those age 40 to 50 years (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2). The proportion of women who reported a breast MRI at 12 months was similar between the two groups: 16.2% (intervention) compared with 13.2% (control; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5). Primary barriers to completing a screening mammogram and/or breast MRI included lack of physician recommendation, deferred action by survivor, cost, and absence of symptoms., Conclusion: Use of mailed materials followed by telephone-delivered counseling increased mammography screening rates in survivors at high risk for breast cancer; however, this approach did not increase the rate of breast MRI. Cost of imaging and physician recommendation were important barriers that should be addressed in future studies.

Purpose: During ongoing controversies about mammography screening, many investigators have stated that performance improvements in screening mammography may mitigate concerns about harms. However, there have been few attempts to quantify performance improvements required to recommend mammography screening. Based on USPSTF benchmarks, we utilized revealed preference methods to ascertain quantitative thresholds at which screening mammography would be recommended beyond biennial screening in women 50 and older., Methods: Benefits of routine screening mammography (breast cancer deaths averted) were from published USPSTF meta-analyses. Potential harms (10-year cumulative probability of at least one false-positive) were from published Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium estimates. We identified the implicit threshold (benefit/harm ratio) to recommend biennial screening starting at age 50. Using this threshold, we ascertained reductions of false-positives required to recommend more frequent screening and screening initiation under age 50 using revealed preference analyses., Results: Using USPSTF implied benefit/harm ratio, routine biennial screening would be recommended starting at 40 if false-positives declined by at least 62%. Reductions of false-positive proportions of 74% would be required to recommend annual screening starting at 40 and reductions of false-positive proportions of 31% would be required to support annual screening starting at 50., Conclusions: Using USPSTF revealed preferences, 31-74% reductions in false-positives would be required to recommend mammography screening beyond biennial screening starting at age 50. Widespread implementation of tomosynthesis and reducing recall rates to the lower end of recommended recall rates (5-12%) would provide support for expanding screening beyond biennial screening in women age 50.

Background: Rates of screening mammography have plateaued, and the number of mammography facilities has declined in the past decade. The objective of this study was to assess changes over time and geographic disparities in the availability of mammography services., Methods: Using information from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Census, county-level mammography capacity was defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. Cross-sectional variation and longitudinal changes in capacity were examined in relation to county characteristics., Results: Between 2000 and 2010, the number of mammography facilities declined 10% from 9434 to 8469, the number of mammography machines declined 10% from 13,100 to 11,762, and the median county mammography capacity decreased nearly 20% from 1.77 to 1.42 machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. In cross-sectional analysis, counties with greater percentages of uninsured residents, less educated residents, greater population density, and higher managed care penetration had lower mammography capacity. Conversely, counties with more hospital beds per 100,000 population had higher capacity. High initial mammography capacity, growth in both the percentage of the population aged ≥ 65 years and the percentage living in poverty, and increased managed care penetration were all associated with a decrease in mammography capacity between 2000 and 2010. Only the percentage of rural residents was associated with an increase in capacity., Conclusions: Geographic variation in mammography capacity and declines in capacity over time are associated with demographic, socioeconomic, and health care market characteristics. Maldistribution of mammography resources may explain geographic disparities in breast cancer screening rates., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Objective: To assess the impact of mammography capacity on appointment wait times., Methods: We surveyed by telephone all mammography facilities federally certified in 2008 in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, and New York using a simulated patient format. County-level mammography capacity, defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged 40 and older, was estimated from FDA facility certification records and US Census data., Results: 1,614 (86%) of 1,882 mammography facilities completed the survey. Time until next available screening mammogram appointment was <1 week at 55% of facilities, 1-4 weeks at 34% of facilities, and >1 month at 11% of facilities. Facilities in counties with lower capacity had longer wait times, and a one-unit increase in county capacity was associated with 21% lower odds of a facility reporting a wait time >1 month (p < 0.01). There was no association between wait time and the availability of evening or weekend appointments or digital mammography., Conclusion: Lower mammography capacity is associated with longer wait times for screening mammograms., Impact: Enhancement of mammography resources in areas with limited capacity may reduce wait times for screening mammogram appointments, thereby increasing access to services and rates of breast cancer screening.

Scientific advances have improved our ability to target cancer interventions to individuals who will benefit most and spare the risks and costs to those who will derive little benefit or even be harmed. Several approaches are currently used for targeting interventions for cancer risk reduction, screening, and treatment, including risk prediction algorithms for identifying high-risk subgroups and diagnostic tests for tumor markers and germline genetic mutations. Economic evaluation can inform decisions about the use of targeted interventions, which may be more costly than traditional strategies. However, assessing the impact of a targeted intervention on costs and health outcomes requires explicit consideration of the method of targeting. In this study, we describe the importance of this principle by reviewing published cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted interventions in breast cancer. Few studies we identified explicitly evaluated the relationships among the method of targeting, the accuracy of the targeting test, and outcomes of the targeted intervention. Those that did found that characteristics of targeting tests had a substantial impact on outcomes. We posit that the method of targeting and the outcomes of a targeted intervention are inextricably linked and recommend that cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted interventions explicitly consider costs and outcomes of the method of targeting.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person‐years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network‐validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit‐to‐radiation‐risk ratios from LCS and follow‐up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50–80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low‐dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50–80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack‐year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision‐making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.Methods: We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results: Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.Conclusion: All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advances in treatment have increased childhood cancer 5-year survival rates to greater than 80%. However, children previously treated with radiation are at significantly increased risk of developing subsequent neoplasms, the most common of which are skin cancers. The National Cancer Institute and Children's Oncology Group have issued recommendations for survivors treated with radiation to perform monthly skin self-examinations and receive a physician skin examination at least annually, as early detection has demonstrated markedly improved outcomes in the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers. The goal of the present study is to increase rates of skin self-examinations and clinical skin examinations among adult survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiation.Methods/design: This randomized controlled trial uses a 3-group comparative effectiveness design comparing: (1) Patient Activation and Education (PAE) including text messaging, print and web-based tutorials over 12 months; (2) PAE plus physician activation (PAE + MD) adding physician activation/educational materials about survivors' increased skin cancer risk and conducting full-body skin exams; and (3) PAE plus physician activation, plus teledermoscopy (PAE + MD + TD) adding participant receipt of a dermatoscope intended to empower them to photograph suspect moles or lesions for review by the study dermatologist.Discussion: The current study addresses barriers to screening in this population by providing educational and motivational information for both survivors and physicians regarding the value of periodic skin examinations. It also utilizes innovative mobile health technology to encourage and motivate (that is activate) survivors to conduct skin self-examinations, request physician exams, and obtain treatment when worrisome lesions are found. Finally, as a comparative effectiveness trial, this study isolates the effects of adding specific components to the patient activation intervention to test the most effective intervention for enhancing skin examination vigilance among this high-risk group.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02046811 ; Registration date: 22 January 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation can increase colorectal cancer screening rates. The net economic impact of a colonoscopy patient navigator program was evaluated in an urban public hospital setting. METHODS: Cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses were performed of a colonoscopy patient navigation program at 3 urban public hospitals in the period from 2003 to 2007. Program effectiveness was assessed in a 2-group, pre- and post-program, nonrandomized evaluation, comparing program hospitals with comparison hospitals that served similar populations. Costs were assessed from the provider's perspective. Outcomes included colonoscopy volume, colonoscopy completion rate, program cost, incremental cost-effectiveness, and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Patient navigation was associated with a 61% increase in average monthly colonoscopy volume at program hospitals, from 114 procedures to 184 procedures, compared with a 12% increase at comparison hospitals. Adjusted for other factors, the navigator program increased colonoscopy volume by 44 to 67 additional procedures per month. Average program cost varied from $50 to $300 per patient referred to a navigator. Incremental cost-effectiveness varied from $200 to $700 per additional colonoscopy. At 2 hospitals, net revenue associated with increased colonoscopy volume exceeded the program cost per additional colonoscopy, yielding a net financial benefit; at the third hospital, the program yielded a net cost. Variation between hospitals in the program's economic impact was primarily attributable to differences in personnel costs. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluation of this colonoscopy patient navigator program in an urban public hospital setting suggests that such programs can be a cost-effective use of limited resources and yield a net financial benefit for providers. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]