Search

Objective: Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods., Methods: We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up)., Results: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%)., Discussion: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Information on long-term benefits and harms of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with or without supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed for clinical and policy discussions, particularly for patients with dense breasts., Objective: To project long-term population-based outcomes for breast cancer mammography screening strategies (DBT or digital mammography) with or without supplemental MRI by breast density., Design, Setting, and Participants: Collaborative modeling using 3 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation models informed by US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. Simulated women born in 1980 with average breast cancer risk were included. Modeling analyses were conducted from January 2020 to December 2023., Intervention: Annual or biennial mammography screening with or without supplemental MRI by breast density starting at ages 40, 45, or 50 years through age 74 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive recall and false-positive biopsy recommendations per 1000 simulated women followed-up from age 40 years to death summarized as means and ranges across models., Results: Biennial DBT screening for all simulated women started at age 50 vs 40 years averted 7.4 vs 8.5 breast cancer deaths, respectively, and led to 884 vs 1392 false-positive recalls and 151 vs 221 false-positive biopsy recommendations, respectively. Biennial digital mammography had similar deaths averted and slightly more false-positive test results than DBT screening. Adding MRI for women with extremely dense breasts to biennial DBT screening for women aged 50 to 74 years increased deaths averted (7.6 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (919 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (180 vs 151). Extending supplemental MRI to women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts further increased deaths averted (8.0 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (1088 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (343 vs 151). The same strategy for women aged 40 to 74 years averted 9.5 deaths but led to 1850 false-positive recalls and 628 false-positive biopsy recommendations. Annual screening modestly increased estimated deaths averted but markedly increased estimated false-positive results., Conclusions and Relevance: In this model-based comparative effectiveness analysis, supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts added to DBT screening led to greater benefits and increased harms. The balance of this trade-off for supplemental MRI use was more favorable when MRI was targeted to women with extremely dense breasts who comprise approximately 10% of the population.

Background: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence., Methods: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders., Discussion: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings., Registration: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Limited evidence-based implementation strategies exist for maintaining lung cancer screening. We evaluated the Lung Cancer Screening Program at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) to develop multilevel interventions to improve screening adherence., Methods: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study 1) to measure adherence to repeat screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT); 2) to interview KPWA stakeholders to understand the Lung Cancer Screening Program; and 3) to conduct codesign workshops with KPWA members and researchers. We used descriptive statistics to describe adherence, and rapid qualitative data analysis for stakeholder interviews and workshops., Results: Between 2015 and 2019, 2089 KPWA members had initial LDCT scans with negative, benign or short-interval follow-up results. Among those with sufficient follow-up, the proportion with on-time repeat screening after a negative LDCT was 26.4% after the initial scan, and increased to 43.1% on subsequent scans. Opportunities for health-care system improvement included clarification of clinical roles and responsibilities, care coordination across providers, ongoing training in lung cancer screening, and revising electronic health record tools. From patient perspectives, facilitators to repeat screening were making screening personalized and convenient; offering consistent messages and reminders in different modes; increasing patient knowledge about benefits, harms, and expectations of LDCT; and providing nonfinancial and financial incentives for adherence. From a storyboard exercise, we identified 10 design features for lung cancer screening interventions, including versatility of communication, social support, and knowledge., Conclusion: We identified clear gaps in adherence to lung cancer screenings, organizational and clinical barriers to care, and design features for patient-centered interventions to improve lung cancer screening in US settings.

Background: Supplemental breast cancer screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk of breast cancer. To the authors' knowledge, recent national trends in breast MRI use are unknown., Methods: The authors used claims data from a large national insurer to calculate screening breast MRI rates from 2006 to 2016 in a US cohort of 10 million women aged 20 to 64 years. Use was stratified by subgroups of women with a BRCA mutation, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast cancer history and stratified by age. Joinpoint regression evaluated annual changes in trends., Results: The total sample included 37,447 screening breast MRI examinations in 25,617 women. Overall screening breast MRI rates were low and increased from 2.9 to 12.1 examinations per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. MRI use in women with a BRCA mutation increased by 21% on average annually from 210.8 per 10,000 women to 1562.0 per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. By 2016, women aged 50 to 64 years who had a BRCA mutation had the highest use of breast MRI (1669.6 MRI examinations per 10,000 women) compared with younger women (1198.4 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, 1519.1 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, and 1567.2 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, respectively, among women aged 20-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years). Women with a BRCA mutation comprised <1% of the current study population but received approximately 9% of screening breast MRI examinations. Breast MRI rates among women with a family history of breast cancer or prior breast cancer history initially increased from 2006 to 2008, but then stabilized or decreased., Conclusions: The increases in breast MRI use observed in the current study have indicated improvements in concordance with breast imaging guidelines. However, women with BRCA mutations remain underscreened, particularly younger women, thereby identifying a clear gap with which to enhance access., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC., Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity., Results: Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I 2  = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I 2  = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I 2  = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I 2  = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I 2  = 44%)., Conclusions: Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems., Methods: A total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status., Results: Even within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system., Conclusions: This study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can efficiently screen for colorectal cancer (CRC), but little is known on the timing to their completion. We investigate the time to return of a FIT following an order and describe patient characteristics associated with FIT return., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Methods: We identified 63,478 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington, aged 50 to 74 years, who received a FIT order from 2011 through 2012. Patient characteristics were ascertained through administrative and electronic health record data sources. We compared time from FIT order to return by patient characteristics using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods., Results: About half (53.7%) of members completed a FIT. Median time from order to return was 13 days (mean, 44.5 days; interquartile range, 6-42 days). There was higher completion of FITs among Asian patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.48), black patients (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19), and Hispanic patients (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16) compared with white patients; among patients with recent CRC testing (vs no testing in past 2 years; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.86-1.95); and among patients with Medicare insurance (vs commercial; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37). Factors associated with decreased FIT completion included younger age (50-54 years vs 70-74 years; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.92), obesity (vs normal body mass index; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91), and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥3 vs 0; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87)., Conclusions: Time to return of FIT varies by patient characteristics. We observed greater FIT completion among people of color, suggesting that racial disparities in CRC may not be due to patient completion of the test after an order is received.

Background: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest for lung cancer screening of heavy smokers was given a 'B' rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, and gained widespread insurance coverage in the U.S. in 2015. Lung cancer screening has since had low uptake. However, for those that do choose to screen, little is known about patient motivations for completing screening in real-world practice., Objective: To explore the motivations for screening-eligible patients to screen for lung cancer., Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 LDCT screen-completed men and women who were members of an integrated mixed-model healthcare system in Washington State. From June to September 2015, participants were recruited and individual interviews performed about motivations to screen for lung cancer. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis by three investigators., Results: Four primary themes emerged as motivations for completing LDCT lung cancer screening: 1) trust in the referring clinician; 2) early-detection benefit; 3) low or limited harm perception; and 4) friends or family with advanced cancer., Conclusion: Participants in our study were primarily motivated to screen for lung cancer based on perceived benefit of early-detection, absence of safety concerns, and personal relationships. Our findings provide new insights about patient motivations to screen, and can potentially be used to improve lung cancer screening uptake and shared decision-making processes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection., Materials and Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use., Results: Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74)., Conclusions: While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.

Background: Breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women, but MRI uptake may be increasing rapidly among low- and average-risk women for whom benefits are unestablished. Comparatively little is known about use of screening MRI in community practice., Objective: To assess relative utilization of MRI among women who do and do not meet professional society guidelines for supplemental screening, and describe utilization according to breast cancer risk indications., Design: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2007 and 2014., Participants: In five regional imaging registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), 348,955 women received a screening mammogram, of whom 1499 underwent screening MRI., Main Measures: Lifetime breast cancer risk (< 20% or ≥ 20%) estimated by family history of two or more first-degree relatives, and Gail model risk estimates. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density and benign breast diseases also were assessed. Relative risks (RR) for undergoing screening MRI were estimated using Poisson regression., Key Results: Among women with < 20% lifetime risk, which does not meet professional guidelines for supplementary MRI screening, and no first-degree breast cancer family history, screening MRI utilization was elevated among those with extremely dense breasts [RR 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.8] relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and among women with atypia (RR 7.4; 95% CI 3.9-14.3.) or lobular carcinoma in situ (RR 33.1; 95% CI 18.0-60.9) relative to women with non-proliferative disease. Approximately 82.9% (95% CI 80.8%-84.7%) of screening MRIs occurred among women who did not meet professional guidelines and 35.5% (95% CI 33.1-37.9%) among women considered at low-to-average breast cancer risk., Conclusion: Utilization of screening MRI in community settings is not consistent with current professional guidelines and the goal of delivery of high-value care.

Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 years and shared decision-making for women aged 40-49 years for breast cancer screening. We evaluated changes in mammography screening interval after the 2009 recommendations., Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of women aged 40-74 years who received 821,052 screening mammograms between 2006 and 2012 using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We compared changes in screening intervals and stratified intervals based on whether the mammogram at the end of the interval occurred before or after the 2009 recommendation. Differences in mean interval length by woman-level characteristics were compared using linear regression., Results: The mean interval (in months) minimally decreased after the 2009 USPSTF recommendations. Among women aged 40-49 years, the mean interval decreased from 17.2 months to 17.1 months (difference -0.16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to -0.01). Similar small reductions were seen for most age groups. The largest change in interval length in the post-USPSTF period was declines among women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (difference -0.68%, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.54) or a 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% (difference -0.58%, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.44)., Conclusions: The 2009 USPSTF recommendation did not lengthen the average mammography interval among women routinely participating in mammography screening. Future studies should evaluate whether breast cancer screening intervals lengthen toward biennial intervals following new national 2016 breast cancer screening recommendations, particularly among women less than 50 years of age.

Background: Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening., Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients' decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation., Methods: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews., Results: Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding., Conclusion: The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Skin cancer, primarily melanoma, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States., Objective: To provide an updated systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force regarding clinical skin cancer screening among adults., Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies published from January 1, 1995, through June 1, 2015, with surveillance through February 16, 2016., Study Selection: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations 15 years and older at general risk for skin cancer., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated., Main Outcomes and Measures: Melanoma incidence and mortality, harms from cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy, and stage distribution., Results: No randomized clinical trials were identified. There was limited evidence on the association between skin cancer screening and mortality. A German ecologic study (n = 360,288) found a decrease of 0.8 per 100,000 melanoma deaths in a region with population-based skin cancer screening compared with no change or slight increases in comparison regions. The number of excisions needed to detect 1 skin cancer from clinical visual skin examinations varied by age and sex; for example, 22 for women 65 years or older compared with 41 for women aged 20 to 34 years. In 2 studies of performing visual skin examination, sensitivity to detect melanoma was 40.2% and specificity was 86.1% when conducted by primary care physicians (n = 16,383). Sensitivity was 49.0% and specificity was 97.6% when skin examinations were performed by dermatologists (n = 7436). In a case-control study of melanoma (n = 7586), cases diagnosed with thicker lesions (>0.75 mm) had an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98) for receipt of a physician skin examination in the prior 3 years compared with controls. Eight cohort studies (n = 236,485) demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the degree of disease involvement at diagnosis and melanoma mortality, regardless of the characterization of the stage or lesion thickness. Tumor thickness greater than 4.0 mm was associated with increased melanoma mortality compared with thinner lesions, and late stage at diagnosis was associated with increased all-cause mortality., Conclusions and Relevance: Only limited evidence was identified for skin cancer screening, particularly regarding potential benefit of skin cancer screening on melanoma mortality. Future research on skin cancer screening should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of targeted screening in those considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

Background: We describe patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake in a U.S. insured population as individuals become newly eligible for screening at age 50 and assess temporal trends and patient characteristics with screening uptake., Methods: We identified a cohort of 81,223 men and women who were members of Group Health and turned 50 years old from 1996 to 2010. We ascertained receipt of colorectal cancer screening within five years. Time to screening was estimated by year of cohort entry using cumulative incidence curves and Cox proportional hazards models-estimated patient characteristics associated with screening uptake., Results: Stool-based screening tests were the most common, 72% of first screening tests. The proportion of individuals initiating colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy increased from 8% in 1996 to 1998 to 33% in 2008 to 2010. Patient factors associated with increased colorectal cancer screening were: turning 50 more recently (2008-2010; Ptrend < 0.0001) or Asian race [HR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.10-1.19]. Patient factors associated with decreased screening were: being a woman (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.68-0.72), Native American (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78), or Pacific Islander race (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), and having prevalent diabetes (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.82) and higher body mass index (Ptrend < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patient characteristics associated with initiation of colorectal cancer screening in a newly eligible population are similar to characteristics associated with overall screening participation in all age-eligible adults. Our results identify patient populations to target in outreach programs., Impact: Disparities in receipt of colorectal cancer screening are evident from onset of an age-eligible cohort, identifying key groups for future interventions for screening., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Reducing colorectal cancer mortality by promoting screening has been a national goal for two decades. The NCI's Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium is the first federal initiative to foster coordinated, transdisciplinary research evaluating the entire cancer screening process in community settings. PROSPR is creating a central data repository to facilitate research evaluating the breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening process across different patient populations, provider types, and delivery systems. Data are being collected and organized at the multiple levels in which individuals are nested (e.g., healthcare systems, facilities, providers, and patients). Here, we describe a conceptual model of the colorectal cancer screening process guiding data collection and highlight critical research questions that will be addressed through pooled data. We also describe the three research centers focused on colorectal cancer screening with respect to study populations, practice settings, and screening policies. PROSPR comprehensively elucidates the complex screening process through observational study, and has potential to improve care delivery beyond the healthcare systems studied. Findings will inform intervention designs and policies to optimize colorectal cancer screening delivery and advance the Institute of Medicine's goals of effective, efficient, coordinated, timely, and safe health care with respect to evidence-based cancer screening., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: Only 63% of the US population aged 50-75 years is adherent with recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines. Efforts are needed to increase screening for CRC., Methods: We evaluated a quality improvement intervention conducted in 2010 at Group Health in Washington State to assess the use of interactive voice response (IVR) systems to improve CRC screening. Eligible members were aged 50-81 years, received primary care from a contracted physician, and were due for CRC screening. A total of 13,279 members were identified and randomly assigned to either: (1) an intervention with IVR to encourage CRC screening (n=10,000), or (2) usual care (n=3279). The primary outcome was receipt of any recommended CRC screening test at 6 months postintervention or index date. We used Cox proportional hazards to model time until receipt of CRC screening at 6 months., Results: Adherence to CRC screening was 10.0% in the intervention arm and 7.8% in the usual care arm at 6 months. Randomization to the IVR intervention arm was associated with a 32% increased likelihood of receiving CRC screening (hazard ratio=1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.14, 1.52) compared with usual care. The difference in CRC screening uptake was apparent by 3 months and persisted for 12 months postintervention (log-rank test, P=0.0012)., Discussion: Our analysis provides "real-world" evidence that IVR is effective when delivered by a commercial health plan, and may be a useful tool for increasing adherence to screening guidelines among patients outside an integrated care practice.

Importance: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice., Objective: To describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009., Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: We calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk., Results: The overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009., Conclusions and Relevance: Use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.

Importance: Controversy exists about the frequency women should undergo screening mammography and whether screening interval should vary according to risk factors beyond age., Objective: To compare the benefits and harms of screening mammography frequencies according to age, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use., Design: Prospective cohort., Setting: Data collected January 1994 to December 2008 from mammography facilities in community practice that participate in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) mammography registries., Participants: Data were collected prospectively on 11,474 women with breast cancer and 922,624 without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participate in the BCSC., Main Outcomes and Measures: We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of advanced stage (IIb, III, or IV) and large tumors (>20 mm in diameter) and 10-year cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result by screening frequency, age, breast density, and HT use. The main predictor was screening mammography interval., Results: Mammography biennially vs annually for women aged 50 to 74 years does not increase risk of tumors with advanced stage or large size regardless of women's breast density or HT use. Among women aged 40 to 49 years with extremely dense breasts, biennial mammography vs annual is associated with increased risk of advanced-stage cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39) and large tumors (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.37-4.18). Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was high among women undergoing annual mammography with extremely dense breasts who were either aged 40 to 49 years (65.5%) or used estrogen plus progestogen (65.8%) and was lower among women aged 50 to 74 years who underwent biennial or triennial mammography with scattered fibroglandular densities (30.7% and 21.9%, respectively) or fatty breasts (17.4% and 12.1%, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Women aged 50 to 74 years, even those with high breast density or HT use, who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of false-positive results than those who undergo annual mammography. When deciding whether to undergo mammography, women aged 40 to 49 years who have extremely dense breasts should be informed that annual mammography may minimize their risk of advanced-stage disease but the cumulative risk of false-positive results is high.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.MethodsA population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.ResultsThe study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women

ObjectiveWomen are increasingly informed about their breast density due to state density reporting laws. However, accuracy of personal breast density knowledge remains unclear. We compared self-reported with clinically assessed breast density and assessed knowledge of density implications and feelings about future screening.MethodsFrom December 2017 to January 2020, we surveyed women aged 40 to 74 years without prior breast cancer, with a normal screening mammogram in the prior year, and ≥1 recorded breast density measures in four Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries with density reporting laws. We measured agreement between self-reported and BI-RADS breast density categorized as "ever-dense" if heterogeneously or extremely dense within the past 5 years or "never-dense" otherwise, knowledge of dense breast implications, and feelings about future screening.ResultsSurvey participation was 28% (1,528 of 5,408), and 59% (896 of 1,528) of participants had ever-dense breasts. Concordance between self-report versus clinical density was 76% (677 of 896) among women with ever-dense breasts and 14% (89 of 632) among women with never-dense breasts, and 34% (217 of 632) with never-dense breasts reported being told they had dense breasts. Desire for supplemental screening was more frequent among those who reported having dense breasts 29% (256 of 893) or asked to imagine having dense breasts 30% (152 of 513) versus those reporting nondense breasts 15% (15 of 102) (P = .003, P = .002, respectively). Women with never-dense breasts had 6.3-fold higher odds (95% confidence interval:3.39-11.80) of accurate knowledge in states reporting density to all compared to states reporting only to women with dense breasts.DiscussionStandardized communications of breast density results to all women may increase density knowledge and are needed to support informed screening decisions.

Prior studies of screening mammography patterns by functional status in older women show inconsistent results. We used Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-Medicare linked data (1999-2014) to investigate the association of functional limitations with adherence to screening mammography in 145,478 women aged 66-74 years. Functional limitation was represented by a claims-based function-related indicator (FRI) score which incorporated 16 items reflecting functional status. Baseline adherence was defined as mammography utilization 9-30 months after the index screening mammography. Longitudinal adherence was examined among women adherent at baseline and defined as time from the index mammography to end of the first 30-month gap in mammography. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate baseline and longitudinal adherence, respectively. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age (66-70 vs. 71-74 years). Overall, 69.6% of participants had no substantial functional limitation (FRI score 0), 23.5% had some substantial limitations (FRI score 1), and 6.8% had serious limitations (FRI score ≥ 2). Mean age at baseline was 68.5 years (SD = 2.6), 85.3% of participants were white, and 77.1% were adherent to screening mammography at baseline. Women with a higher FRI score were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (FRI ≥ 2 vs. 0: aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.20, p-trend

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous changes in delivery of healthcare services, including breast cancer screening and surveillance. Although facilities have implemented a number of strategies to provide services, women's thoughts and experiences related to breast cancer screening and surveillance during a pandemic are not well known. This focus group study with women across seven states recruited through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aims to remedy this gap in information. Thirty women ranging in age from 31 to 69 participated in five virtual focus groups, eight of whom had prior breast cancer. The first three focus groups covered a range of topics related to screening and surveillance during the pandemic while the last two groups covered experiences and then a review of sample communications to women about screening and surveillance during the pandemic to obtain reactions and recommendations. More than half of the women had screening or surveillance during the pandemic. Coding and analyses resulted in nine themes in three topic areas: decision factors, screening experiences, and preferred communications. Themes included weighing the risks of COVID-19 versus cancer; feelings that screening and surveillance were mostly safe but barriers may be heightened; feeling safe when undergoing screening but receiving a range of pandemic-specific communications from none to a lot; and wanting communications that are personalized, clear and concise. Based on these findings, providers and facilities should assure women of pandemic safety measures, review methods and content of communications, and assess for barriers to screening that may be amplified during the pandemic, including anxiety and access.

BackgroundPrevious reports suggested risk of death and breast cancer varied by comorbidity and age in older women undergoing mammography. However, impacts of functional limitations remain unclear.MethodsWe used data from 238,849 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-Medicare linked database (1999-2015) who had screening mammogram at ages 66-94 years. We estimated risk of breast cancer, breast cancer death, and non-breast cancer death by function-related indicator (FRI) which incorporated 16 claims-based items and was categorized as an ordinal variable (0, 1, and 2+). Fine and Gray proportional sub-distribution hazards models were applied with breast cancer and death treated as competing events. Risk estimates by FRI scores were adjusted by age and NCI comorbidity index separately and stratified by these factors.ResultsOverall, 9,252 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, 406 died of breast cancer, and 41,640 died from non-breast cancer causes. The 10-year age-adjusted invasive breast cancer risk slightly decreased with FRI score [FRI = 0: 4.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.8-4.1; FRI = 1: 3.9%, 95% CI = 3.7-4.2; FRI ≥ 2: 3.5%, 95% CI = 3.1-3.9). Risk of non-breast cancer death increased with FRI score (FRI = 0: 18.8%, 95% CI = 18.5-19.1; FRI = 1: 24.4%, 95% CI = 23.9-25.0; FRI ≥ 2: 39.8%, 95% CI = 38.8-40.9]. Risk of breast cancer death was low with minimal differences across FRI scores. NCI comorbidity index-adjusted models and stratified analyses yielded similar patterns.ConclusionsRisk of non-breast cancer death substantially increases with FRI score, whereas risk of breast cancer death is low regardless of functional status.ImpactOlder women with functional limitations should be informed that they may not benefit from screening mammography.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT.Subjects and methodsFacility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods.ResultsAcross five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month).ConclusionIn a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.

BackgroundBiennial screening mammography retains most of the benefits of annual breast cancer screening with reduced harms. Whether screening guidelines based on race/ethnicity and age would be more effective than age-based guidelines is unknown.MethodsMammography data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to pathology and tumor databases. The authors identified women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent annual, biennial, or triennial screening mammography between 1994 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of adverse tumor characteristics among 14,396 incident breast cancer cases and 10-year cumulative risks of false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation among 1,276,312 noncases.ResultsNo increased risk of adverse tumor characteristics associated with biennial versus annual screening were noted in white women, black women, Hispanic women aged 40 to 49 years, or Asian women aged 50 to 74 years. Hispanic women aged 50 to 74 years who screened biennially versus annually were found to have an increased risk of late-stage disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) and large tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Asian women aged 40 to 49 years who underwent biennial screening had an elevated risk of positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1). No elevated risks were associated with triennial versus biennial screening. Cumulative false-positive risks decreased markedly with a longer screening interval.ConclusionsThe authors found limited evidence of elevated risks of adverse tumor characteristics with biennial versus annual screening, whereas cumulative false-positive risks were lower. However, elevated risks of late-stage disease in Hispanic women and lymph node-positive disease in younger Asian women who screened less often than annually warrant consideration and replication.

Background Uncertainty exists about the appropriate use of screening mammography among older women because comorbid illnesses may diminish the benefit of screening. We examined the risk of adverse tumor characteristics and false positive rates according to screening interval, age, and comorbidity. Methods From January 1999 to December 2006, data were collected prospectively on 2993 older women with breast cancer and 137 949 older women without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participated in a data linkage between the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and Medicare claims. Women were aged 66 to 89 years at study entry to allow for measurement of 1 year of preexisting illnesses. We used logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds of advanced (IIb, III, IV) stage, large (>20 millimeters) tumors, and 10-year cumulative probability of false-positive mammography by screening frequency (1 vs 2 years), age, and comorbidity score. The comorbidity score was derived using the Klabunde approximation of the Charlson score. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Adverse tumor characteristics did not differ statistically significantly by comorbidity, age, or interval. Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was higher among annual screeners than biennial screeners irrespective of comorbidity: 48.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 46.1% to 49.9%) of annual screeners aged 66 to 74 years had a false-positive result compared with 29.0% (95% CI = 28.1% to 29.9%) of biennial screeners. Conclusion Women aged 66 to 89 years who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of a false-positive recommendation than annual screeners, regardless of comorbidity.

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little is known about women's confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40–74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was women's confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%–61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46–0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40–0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21–2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1—being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2—decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02980848 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.Objective: To estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.Design: Markov microsimulation model.Data Sources: SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target Population: U.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time Horizon: Lifetime.Perspective: National health payer.Intervention: Screening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome Measures: Breast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results Of Base-case Analysis: Extending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results Of Sensitivity Analysis: Costs per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.Limitation: No randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.Conclusion: Although annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women's perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws.Objective: Explore women's knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws.Design: Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017.Participants: Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Approach: Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding.Key Results: Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were "better," even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density.Conclusions: More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast density is an important breast cancer risk factor and a focus of recent national and state health policy efforts. This article describes breast density awareness, knowledge, and communication among participants in a health system-embedded trial with clinically elevated breast cancer risk 1 year before state-mandated density disclosure.Methods: Trial participants' demographics and prior health history were ascertained from electronic health records. The proportions of women reporting prior breast density awareness, knowledge of density's masking effect, and communication with a provider about their own breast density were calculated using baseline interview data collected from 2017 to 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate associations between women's characteristics and density awareness, knowledge, and communication.Results: Although the overwhelming majority of participants had heard of breast density (91%) and were aware of breast density's masking effect (87%), only 60% had ever discussed their breast density with a provider. Annual mammography screening was associated with prior breast density awareness (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.81), knowledge (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.20-6.66), and communication (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.34-6.16) compared with an infrequent or unknown screening interval. Receipt of breast biopsy was also associated with prior knowledge (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.04-2.45) and communication (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.85).Conclusions: Breast density awareness and knowledge are high among insured women participating in clinical research, even in the absence of mandated density disclosure. Patient-provider communication about personal density status is less common, particularly among women with fewer interactions with breast health specialists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: U.S. women of ages 50–74 years are recommended to receive screening mammography at least biennially. Our objective was to evaluate multilevel predictors of nonadherence among screened women, as these are not well known. Materials and Methods: A cohort study was conducted among women of ages 50–74 years with a screening mammogram in 2011 with a negative finding (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) within Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium research centers. We evaluated the association between woman-level factors, radiology facility, and PROSPR research center, and nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines, defined as not receiving breast imaging within 27 months of an index screening mammogram. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Nonadherence to guideline-recommended screening interval was 15.5% among 51,241 women with a screening mammogram. Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander women, women of other races, heavier women, and women of ages 50–59 years had a greater odds of nonadherence. There was no association with ZIP code median income. Nonadherence varied by research center and radiology facility (variance = 0.10, standard error = 0.03). Adjusted radiology facility nonadherence rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.5%. One research center evaluated radiology facility communication practices for screening reminders and scheduling, but these were not associated with nonadherence. Conclusions: Breast cancer screening interval nonadherence rates in screened women varied across radiology facilities even after adjustment for woman-level characteristics and research center. Future studies should investigate other characteristics of facilities, practices, and health systems to determine factors integral to increasing continued adherence to breast cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening women to identify individuals eligible for genetic counseling based on a priori hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) risk (i.e., risk assessment). However, risk assessment has not been widely integrated into primary care. This qualitative study explored young women's views on implementing routine HBOC risk assessment with a focus on equity and patient-centeredness. We conducted group discussions with young women (aged 21–40 years) receiving care in an integrated health care system. Discussion groups occurred in two phases and used a modified deliberative approach that included a didactic component and prioritized developing consensus. Twenty women participated in one of three initial small group discussions (phase one). All 20 were invited to participate in a subsequent large group discussion (phase two), and 15 of them attended. Key themes and recommendations were as follows. Risk assessment should be accessible, contextualized, and destigmatized to encourage participation and reduce anxiety, particularly for women who do not know their family history. Providers conducting risk assessments must be equipped to address women's informational needs, relieve emotionality, and plan next steps after positive screens. Finally, to minimize differential screening uptake, health care systems must prioritize equity in program design and contribute to external educational and outreach efforts. Young women see pragmatic opportunities for health systems to optimize HBOC screening implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women, but MRI uptake may be increasing rapidly among low- and average-risk women for whom benefits are unestablished. Comparatively little is known about use of screening MRI in community practice.Objective: To assess relative utilization of MRI among women who do and do not meet professional society guidelines for supplemental screening, and describe utilization according to breast cancer risk indications.Design: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2007 and 2014.Participants: In five regional imaging registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), 348,955 women received a screening mammogram, of whom 1499 underwent screening MRI.Main Measures: Lifetime breast cancer risk (< 20% or ≥ 20%) estimated by family history of two or more first-degree relatives, and Gail model risk estimates. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density and benign breast diseases also were assessed. Relative risks (RR) for undergoing screening MRI were estimated using Poisson regression.Key Results: Among women with < 20% lifetime risk, which does not meet professional guidelines for supplementary MRI screening, and no first-degree breast cancer family history, screening MRI utilization was elevated among those with extremely dense breasts [RR 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.8] relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and among women with atypia (RR 7.4; 95% CI 3.9-14.3.) or lobular carcinoma in situ (RR 33.1; 95% CI 18.0-60.9) relative to women with non-proliferative disease. Approximately 82.9% (95% CI 80.8%-84.7%) of screening MRIs occurred among women who did not meet professional guidelines and 35.5% (95% CI 33.1-37.9%) among women considered at low-to-average breast cancer risk.Conclusion: Utilization of screening MRI in community settings is not consistent with current professional guidelines and the goal of delivery of high-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes. Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician. Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p <.0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p =.0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p <.0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p <.0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p <.0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p =.0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p =.0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p =.0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p =.0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p =.0003). Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions. • Decisional quality is an important variable in lung cancer screening. • Decisional quality has potential to support recommended lung screening receipt. • Knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceiving the decision to be shared are the most salient variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S., guidelines recommend that women continue mammography screening until at least age 74, but recent evidence suggests declining screening rates in older women. We estimated adherence to screening mammography and multilevel factors associated with adherence in a longitudinal cohort of older women. Women aged 66-75years receiving screening mammography within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to Medicare claims (2005-2010). Claims data identified baseline adherence, defined as receiving subsequent mammography within approximately 2years, and length of time adherent to guidelines. Characteristics associated with adherence were investigated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Analyses were stratified by age to investigate variation in relationships between patient factors and adherence. Among 49,775 women, 89% were adherent at baseline. Among women 66-70years, those with less than a high school education were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (odds ratio [OR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-2.33) and remain adherent for less time (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41; 95% CI 1.11-1.80) compared to women with a college degree. Women with ≥1 versus no Charlson co-morbidities were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.31-1.62) and remain adherent for less time (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.24-1.66). Women aged 71-75 had lower adherence overall, but factors associated with non-adherence were similar. In summary, adherence to guidelines is high among Medicare-enrolled women in the U.S. receiving screening mammography. Efforts are needed to ensure that vulnerable populations attain these same high levels of adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]