Search

Background Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. Methods We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics’ definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. Results We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. Conclusions Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. Registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139

Potential care gaps in the cervical cancer screening process among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in an era with increased human papillomavirus (HPV) testing have not been extensively evaluated.Women diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 21 and 65 at four study sites between 2010 and 2014 were included. Screening histories were ascertained from 0.5 to 4 years prior to cervical cancer diagnosis. We identified potential care gaps in the screening history for each woman and classified them into one of three mutually exclusive types: lack of a screening test, screening test failure, and diagnostic/treatment care gap. Distributions of care gaps were tabulated by stage, histology, and study site. Multivariable nominal logistic regression was used to examine the associations between demographic and cancer characteristics and type of care gap.Of 499 women evaluated, 46% lacked a screening test in the time window examined, 31% experienced a screening test failure, and 22% experienced a diagnostic/treatment care gap. More than half of the women with advanced cancer and squamous cell carcinoma lacked a screening test compared to 31% and 24% of women with localized cancer and adenocarcinoma, respectively. Women aged 21-29 at diagnosis were more likely to experience screening test failure and diagnostic/treatment care gap, while those aged 50-65 were more likely to lack a screening test, compared to women aged 30-39.Our findings demonstrate a continuing need to develop interventions targeting unscreened and under-screened women and improve detection and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in women undergoing cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up.

Background: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults’ decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. Methods: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. Results: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%–0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%–1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%–0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%–0.70%) at 8 years. Conclusions: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. Impact: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults’ decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6

Supplemental Tables

Supplementary Figure 3

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers’ perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017–2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40–49, 50–74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50–74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40–49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e.

Supplementary Figure 1

Background: To reduce colorectal cancer mortality, positive fecal blood tests must be followed by colonoscopy.Methods: We identified 62,384 individuals ages 50 to 89 years with a positive fecal blood test between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012 in four health care systems within the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We estimated the probability of follow-up colonoscopy and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Kaplan–Meier method. Overall differences in cumulative incidence of follow-up across health care systems were assessed with the log-rank test. HRs and 95% CIs were estimated from multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.Results: Most patients who received a colonoscopy did so within 6 months of their positive fecal blood test, although follow-up rates varied across health care systems (P Conclusion: Individual characteristics and health care system were associated with colonoscopy after positive fecal blood tests. Patterns were consistent across health care systems, but proportions of patients receiving follow-up varied. These findings suggest that there is room to improve follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests.Impact: Understanding the timing of colonoscopy after positive fecal blood tests and characteristics associated with lack of follow-up may inform future efforts to improve follow-up. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(2); 344–50. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Table S1. Characteristics of PROSPR participants with a positive fecal occult blood test with no covariate information missing, 2011-2012 (N=47,827). Supplementary Table S2. Associations between patient characteristics and time to colonoscopy follow-up after positive fecal occult blood test in PROSPR healthcare systems, 2011-2012, over different follow-up periods.

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers’ beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P

Background: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. Methods: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. Results: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). Conclusions: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. Impact: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Objectives To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. Methods We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus “cotesting”). Results The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5–7 and 38–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4–5 and 35–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58–79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. Conclusions Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions.

Successful cervical cancer prevention requires screening and appropriate management of abnormal test results. Management includes diagnostic evaluation and treatment, if indicated, based on cervical cancer risk after most abnormal test results. There is little guidance on the optimal timing of diagnostic evaluation, and few data exist on factors associated with timely management. We quantified time-to-colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal cervical cancer screening or surveillance test result from 2010 to 2018 across three diverse healthcare systems and described factors associated with timely colposcopy. Among 21-65 year-old patients with an abnormal test result for which colposcopy was indicated (n = 28,706), we calculated the proportion who received a colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test and used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the probability of colposcopy within 12 months. Across all systems, 75.3% of patients received a colposcopy within 12 months, with site-specific estimates ranging from 70.0 to 83.0%. We fit mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of colposcopy within 12 months. The healthcare system and cytology result severity were the most important factors associated with of timely colposcopy. We observed that sites with more centralized processes had higher proportions of colposcopy completion, and patients with high-grade results were more consistently evaluated earlier than patients with low-grade results. Patient age also affected receipt of timely colposcopy, though this association differed by healthcare system and result severity. These data suggest opportunities for system-level interventions to improve management of abnormal cervical cancer test results.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers’ perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017–2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40–49, 50–74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50–74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40–49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e.

Objectives Many patients with cancer believe that something has gone wrong in their care but are reluctant to speak up. This pilot study sought to evaluate the impact of an intervention of active outreach to patients undergoing cancer treatment, wherein patients were encouraged to speak up if they had concerns about their care and to describe the types of concerns patients reported. Methods Patients receiving cancer care at two sites were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention patients received a brochure encouraging them to speak up about any concerns and an outreach telephone call during which the interviewer explicitly asked about concerns. Participants in both groups received baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing their perceptions of their care and whether anything had "gone wrong" and provided ratings of health care providers' communication and responsiveness. Qualitative content coding was used to categorize patient-reported concerns collected through the baseline and follow-up questionnaires (both groups) and during telephone outreach (intervention patients only). The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting a concern about their care. Communication and responsiveness ratings for intervention and control group patients were compared using t tests. Results Of the 60 patients in the intervention group, 34 (56.7%) reported at least one problem or concern, compared with 16 (29.1%) of the 55 patients in the control group (P = 0.003). The telephone outreach in particular resulted in more than half of those reached reporting a new concern (55.3%). We detected no impact of the intervention on patients' ratings of communication or support for speaking up. Conclusions Patients in this study reported a variety of concerns in response to active outreach, demonstrating that active outreach to patients can provide healthcare teams and systems the opportunity to offer a real-time response to the patient, identify where system improvements are needed, and implement policies, procedures, or programs to prevent recurrences.

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30–65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.

In 2012, United States consensus guidelines were modified to recommend that cervical cancer screening not begin before age 21 and, since 2014, the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a health plan quality measurement too, has included a measure for non-recommended cervical cancer screening among females ages 16-20. Our goal was to describe prevalence over time of cervical cancer screening before age 21 following the 2012 guideline change, and provide information to help understand how rapidly new guidelines may be disseminated and implemented into clinical practice. We used longitudinal clinical and administrative data from three diverse healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium to examine annual trends in screening before age 21. We identified 55,316 average-risk, screening-eligible females ages 18-20 between 2011 and 2017. For each calendar year, we estimated the proportion of females who received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test. We observed a steady decline in the proportion of females under age 21 who received a Pap test, from an average of 8.3% in 2011 to1% in 2017 across the sites. The observed steady decline suggests growing adherence to the 2012 consensus guidelines. This trend was consistent across diverse geographic regions, healthcare systems, and patient populations, strengthening the generalizability of the results; however, since we only had 1-2 years of study data prior to the consensus guidelines, we cannot discern whether screening under age 21 was already in decline. Nonetheless, these results provide data to compare with other guideline changes to de-implement non-recommended screening practices.

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case–control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus–based screening and to allow comparisons between programs.

Background Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Methods We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40–74 years; cervical: ages 21–64 years; colorectal: ages 50–75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type. Results The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Conclusions Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.

Introduction: Infection with certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) can lead to cervical cancer as well as other cancers in both men and women. However, the requirement for multiple doses may limit the vaccine’s effectiveness for cancer prevention. We conducted a pilot study to investigate barriers to HPV vaccine series completion among members of an integrated healthcare system with clinical documentation of only 1 dose. Methods: We surveyed parents or legal guardians of 11-17-year-old girls (n = 10) and boys (n = 18), as well as 18-31-year-old women (n = 20) and men (n = 9), about their reasons for not completing the HPV vaccine series. Results: Most participants (70.2%) were non-Hispanic white. Among parents of children, commonly reported barriers to HPV vaccine series completion included not being aware or informed of the need for additional doses (28.6%), as well as the inconvenience of returning for additional doses (17.9%). Concerns about the HPV vaccine or vaccines in general were more common among parents of girls (30.0%) compared with parents of boys (16.7%). Among adults, barriers to HPV vaccine series completion included the inconvenience of returning for additional doses (31.0%), not being aware or informed of the need for additional doses (10.3%), and forgetting (10.3%). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinicians and healthcare systems can play a greater role in promoting awareness of the multiple-dose requirement, addressing vaccine concerns, and increasing opportunistic vaccination in a variety of settings. Increasing these efforts may facilitate HPV vaccine completion and increase its effectiveness in cancer prevention.

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

PURPOSE: BRAF mutation and DNA hypermethylation have linked sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) to serrated colorectal cancer (CRC) in cross-sectional studies, but they have not been evaluated in a longitudinal study. We aimed to evaluate the associations between molecular markers of serrated polyps and subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: Study subjects included Kaiser Permanente Washington members aged 20–75 years who received an index colonoscopy between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/2007 and had hyperplastic polyps (HPs) or SSA/Ps according to study pathology review. Polyps from index colonoscopies were removed and assayed for BRAF mutation, CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), and MLH1 methylation. Pathology reports and biopsies from the subsequent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy through 1/1/2013 were reviewed for advanced colorectal neoplasia. We identified additional incident CRC cases through linkage to the Seattle-Puget Sound Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia, comparing index serrated polyps with different molecular markers. RESULTS: We included 553 individuals with index serrated polyps (420 HPs and 133 SSA/Ps) and 795 subsequent endoscopies. The prevalence of BRAF-mutant, CIMP-high, and MLH1-methylated serrated polyps were 51%, 4%, and 2%, respectively. BRAF and CIMP were not associated with subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. MLH1-methylated SSP/As were significantly more likely to have subsequent advanced neoplasia (OR = 4.66, 95% CI 1.06–20.51). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that BRAF-mutant and CIMP-high serrated polyps are not associated with subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. Among SSA/Ps, MLH1 methylation may be an important marker to identify high-risk CRC precursors.

Objective To incorporate blood pressure (BP), diagnoses codes, and medication fills from electronic medical records (EMR) to identify pregnant women with hypertension. Study design A retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies at three US integrated health delivery systems during 2005–2014. Main outcome measures Women were considered hypertensive if they had any of the following: (1) ≥2 high BPs (≥140/90 mmHg) within 30 days during pregnancy (High BP); (2) an antihypertensive medication fill in the 120 days before pregnancy and a hypertension diagnosis from 1 year prior to pregnancy through 20 weeks gestation (Treated Chronic Hypertension); or (3) a high BP, a hypertension diagnosis, and a prescription fill within 7 days during pregnancy (Rapid Treatment). We described characteristics of these pregnancies and conducted medical record review to understand hypertension presence and severity. Results Of 566,624 pregnancies, 27,049 (4.8%) met our hypertension case definition: 24,140 (89.2%) with High BP, 5,409 (20.0%) with Treated Chronic Hypertension, and 5,363 (19.8%) with Rapid Treatment (not mutually exclusive). Of hypertensive pregnancies, 19,298 (71.3%) received a diagnosis, 9,762 (36.1%) received treatment and 11,226 (41.5%) had a BP ≥ 160/110. In a random sample (n = 55) of the 7,559 pregnancies meeting the High BP criterion with no hypertension diagnosis, clinical statements about hypertension were found in medical records for 58% of them. Conclusion Incorporating EMR BP identified many pregnant women with hypertension who would have been missed by using diagnosis codes alone. Future studies should seek to incorporate BP to study treatment and outcomes of hypertension in pregnancy.

COVID-19 has proved enormously disruptive to the provision of cancer screening, which does not just represent an initial test but an entire process, including risk detection, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. Successful delivery of services at all points in the process has been negatively affected by the pandemic. There is a void in empirical high-quality evidence to support a specific strategy for administering cancer screening during a pandemic and its resolution phase, but several pragmatic considerations can help guide prioritization efforts. Targeting guideline-eligible people who have never been screened, or those who are significantly out of date with screening, has the potential to maximize benefits now and into the future. Disruptions to care due to the pandemic could represent an unparalleled opportunity to reassess early detection programs towards an explicit, thoughtful, and just prioritization of populations historically experiencing cancer disparities. By focusing screening services on populations that have the most to gain, and by careful and deliberate planning for the period following the pandemic, we can positively affect cancer outcomes for all.

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21–65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.

Background: Despite the importance of characterizing colonoscopy indication for quality monitoring and cancer screening program evaluation, there is no standard approach to documenting colonoscopy indication in medical records.Methods: We applied two algorithms in three health care systems to assign colonoscopy indication to persons 50–89 years old who received a colonoscopy during 2010–2013. Both algorithms used standard procedure, diagnostic, and laboratory codes. One algorithm, the KPNC algorithm, used a hierarchical approach to classify exam indication into: diagnostic, surveillance, or screening; whereas the other, the SEARCH algorithm, used a logistic regression-based algorithm to provide the probability that colonoscopy was performed for screening. Gold standard assessment of indication was from medical records abstraction.Results: There were 1,796 colonoscopy exams included in analyses; age and racial/ethnic distributions of participants differed across health care systems. The KPNC algorithm’s sensitivities and specificities for screening indication ranged from 0.78–0.82 and 0.78–0.91, respectively; sensitivities and specificities for diagnostic indication ranged from 0.78–0.89 and 0.74–0.82, respectively. The KPNC algorithm had poor sensitivities (ranging from 0.11–0.67) and high specificities for surveillance exams. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the SEARCH algorithm for screening indication ranged from 0.76–0.84 across health care systems. For screening indication, the KPNC algorithm obtained higher specificities than the SEARCH algorithm at the same sensitivity.Conclusion: Despite standardized implementation of these indication algorithms across three health care systems, the capture of colonoscopy indication data was imperfect. Thus, we recommend that standard, systematic documentation of colonoscopy indication should be added to medical records to ensure efficient and accurate data capture.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, but their relative effectiveness is unclear. We sought to evaluate the ability of each of these two modalities to reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were persons aged 70–85 years who died of CRC and were matched to up to three non-CRC controls. Receipt of endoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims and endoscopy indication assigned using a validated algorithm. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and CRC mortality. We conducted secondary analyses by race, sex, and endoscopist characteristics, and with varying duration of the look-back period. RESULTS: In the initial analysis using all available look-back years, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 35% reduction in CRC mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.89), while screening colonoscopy was associated with a 74% reduction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.23, 0.30). Sigmoidoscopy was not associated with any reduction in proximal CRC mortality. The association between colonoscopy and reduced CRC mortality was stronger in the distal than the proximal colon. Results were similar in analyses using a 5-year look-back period. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy was associated with greater reductions in CRC mortality than screening sigmoidoscopy, and with a greater reduction in the distal than the proximal colon. These results provide additional information on the relative benefits of screening for CRC with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend increased surveillance of individuals with sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), but there is uncertainty about the risk associated with SSA/Ps. We aimed to determine the association between SSA/Ps and subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: This case-control study included Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) members who received an index colonoscopy between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/2007, and had hyperplastic polyps (HPs) or SSA/Ps but no conventional adenomas according to study pathologist histologic review. Subsequent pathology reports and biopsies through 1/1/2013 were reviewed for advanced colorectal neoplasia. We linked to the Seattle-Puget Sound Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry to identify additional CRC cases. We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for advanced colorectal neoplasia, comparing those with SSA/Ps to those with HPs. RESULTS: There were 161 individuals with index SSA/Ps, 548 with HPs, and 918 subsequent endoscopies included in analyses. Of those with index SSA/Ps, 19 had subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia; 39 with HPs had subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia. Compared to those with HPs, those with SSA/Ps were not statistically significantly more likely to have subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia (adjusted OR 1.79; CI 0.98–3.28). Polyp size ≥ 10 mm, right colon location, and the presence of multiple serrated polyps were also not associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is not a strong association between SSA/Ps and subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasia during the 5 years following SSA/P removal.

Case-control studies evaluating a screening test's efficacy in reducing cancer mortality require accurate classification of test indication to obtain a valid result. However, for analogous studies of cancer incidence, determination of test indication is not as critical because, to define exposure, we need consider only tests that can identify precursor lesions whose treatment might prevent cancer, not tests leading to cancer diagnosis. This study utilizes US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, which do not include information about colonoscopy indication, to evaluate the efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. Cases were Medicare enrollees diagnosed with CRC between 1996 and 2013; up to 3 controls were matched to each case. Colonoscopy receipt prior to presumed onset of occult cancer was associated with an approximately 60% reduction in CRC incidence (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.40, 0.42). The association was robust to differing exposure windows and estimates of occult cancer duration and is similar to those from CRC incidence studies in which exam indication was available. Our results suggest that, when it is impractical/impossible to determine whether tests were conducted for screening, the efficacy of a test in preventing cancer incidence can still be estimated using a case-control study design.

BackgroundFlexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer screening options, but their relative effectiveness needs clarification. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer incidence.MethodsWe conducted a case-control study within the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were subjects age 70-85 years in the SEER-Medicare database diagnosed with CRC during 2004-2013. Up to 3 controls were matched to each case by birth year, sex, race, and SEER region. Receipt of screening colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a history of screening in cases vs. controls. We conducted secondary analyses by sex, race, endoscopist characteristics, and with varying timing and duration of the look-back period.ResultsReceipt of screening colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 59% (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.39, 0.43) and 22% reduction (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.67, 0.92) in colorectal cancer incidence, respectively. Colonoscopy was associated with greater reduction in the distal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.20, 0.24) than proximal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.59, 0.66). Sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 52% reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.37, 0.63), but with no reduction in proximal colorectal cancer incidence. These associations were stronger in men than in women. No differences by race or endoscopist characteristics were observed.ConclusionBoth screening colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy were associated with reductions in overall colorectal cancer incidence, with a greater magnitude of reduction observed with colonoscopy.

Expert recommendations differ for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Recent studies suggest that healthy adults aged75 years may benefit from screening. This study examined screening use and follow-up, and how they varied by health status within age strata, among a large cohort of elderly individuals in community settings.A population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted among health plan members aged 65-89 years enrolled during 2011-2012 in three integrated healthcare systems participating in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium. Comorbidity measurements used the Charlson index. Analyses, conducted in 2015, comprised descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling that estimated age by comorbidity-specific percentages of patients for two outcomes: colorectal cancer screening uptake and follow-up of abnormal fecal blood tests.Among 846,267 patients, 72% were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Of patients with a positive fecal blood test, 65% received follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months. Likelihood of being up-to-date and receiving timely follow-up was significantly lower for patients aged ≥76 years than their younger counterparts (p0.001). Comorbidity was less influential than age and more strongly related to timely follow-up than being up-to-date. In all age groups, considerable numbers of patients with no/low comorbidity were not up-to-date or did not receive timely follow-up.In three integrated healthcare systems, many older, relatively healthy patients were not screening up-to-date, and some relatively young, healthy patients did not receive timely follow-up. Findings suggest a need for re-evaluating age-based screening guidelines and improving screening completion among the elderly.

Exposures derived from electronic health records (EHR) may be misclassified, leading to biased estimates of their association with outcomes of interest. An example of this problem arises in the context of cancer screening where test indication, the purpose for which a test was performed, is often unavailable. This poses a challenge to understanding the effectiveness of screening tests because estimates of screening test effectiveness are biased if some diagnostic tests are misclassified as screening. Prediction models have been developed for a variety of exposure variables that can be derived from EHR, but no previous research has investigated appropriate methods for obtaining unbiased association estimates using these predicted probabilities. The full likelihood incorporating information on both the predicted probability of exposure-class membership and the association between the exposure and outcome of interest can be expressed using a finite mixture model. When the regression model of interest is a generalized linear model (GLM), the expectation-maximization algorithm can be used to estimate the parameters using standard software for GLMs. Using simulation studies, we compared the bias and efficiency of this mixture model approach to alternative approaches including multiple imputation and dichotomization of the predicted probabilities to create a proxy for the missing predictor. The mixture model was the only approach that was unbiased across all scenarios investigated. Finally, we explored the performance of these alternatives in a study of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. These findings have broad applicability in studies using EHR data where gold-standard exposures are unavailable and prediction models have been developed for estimating proxies.