Search

Supplemental Table 2. Publications using cancer screening construct data collected through the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), and California Health Information Survey (CHIS), 2005

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.

Background: Although systems strategies are effective in improving health care delivery, little is known about their use for cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice.Methods: We assessed primary care physicians' (N = 2,475) use of systems strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national survey conducted in 2007. Systems strategies included patient and physician screening reminders, performance reports of screening rates, electronic medical records, implementation of in-practice guidelines, and use of nurse practitioners/physician assistants. We evaluated use of both patient and physician screening reminders with other strategies in separate models by screening type, adjusted for the effects of physician and practice characteristics with multivariate logistic regression.Results: Fewer than 10% of physicians used a comprehensive set of systems strategies to support cancer screening; use was greater for mammography and Pap testing than for CRC screening. In adjusted analyses, performance reports of cancer screening rates, medical record type, and in-practice guidelines were associated with use of both patient and physician screening reminders for mammography, Pap testing, and CRC screening (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Despite evidence supporting use of systems strategies in primary care, few physicians report using a comprehensive set of strategies to support cancer screening.Impact: Current health policy initiatives underscore the importance of increased implementation of systems strategies in primary care to improve the use and quality of cancer screening in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(12); 2471–9. ©2011 AACR.

PDF file - 63K

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(1); 3–14. ©2014 AACR.

Supplemental Table 3. New cancer screening constructs from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), and California Health Information Survey (CHIS)

Supplemental Table 1. Details regarding cancer screening constructs in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), 2005

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.

Introduction The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues “Insufficient Evidence” (I) statements when scientific evidence is inadequate for making recommendations about clinical preventive services. Insufficient Evidence statements may be changed to definitive recommendations if new research closes evidence gaps. This study examines the characteristics of evidence that informed changes from I statements to definitive recommendations, including NIH's role as a funder. Methods A total of 11 USPSTF Insufficient Evidence statements that were changed between 2010 and 2019 were assessed. Study designs, bibliometric influence, and funding sources for scientific articles cited in USPSTF evidence reviews were characterized for each I statement. Data were analyzed in 2019–2020. Results Most I statements (82%) changed to a B grade; an average of 8.4 years elapsed between issuing the I statement and releasing the definitive recommendation. An average of 63 (range=19−253) articles were included in each USPSTF evidence review. NIH support was cited in 28.8% of articles, on average. The proportion of NIH-funded articles reporting RCT designs was similar to that of non–NIH-funded articles (64.5% vs 59.5%). A higher proportion of NIH-funded articles were rated good quality for study design (39.0%) than the proportion of non–NIH-funded articles (24.4%). Bibliometric influence measured by relative citation ratios was higher for NIH-funded (mean=14.78) than for non–NIH-funded (mean=5.07) articles. Conclusions Study designs and funding supports varied widely across topics, but overall, NIH was the largest single funder of evidence informing 11 changed USPSTF I statements. Enhanced efforts by NIH and other stakeholders to address I statement evidence gaps are needed.

Older adults experience a higher prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Establishing the presence and pattern of MCCs in individuals or populations is important for healthcare delivery, research, and policy. This report describes four emerging approaches and discusses their potential applications for enhancing assessment, treatment, and policy for the aging population. The National Institutes of Health convened a 2-day panel workshop of experts in 2018. Four emerging models were identified by the panel, including classification and regression tree (CART), qualifying comorbidity sets (QCS), the multimorbidity index (MMI), and the application of omics to network medicine. Future research into models of multiple chronic condition assessment may improve understanding of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of older persons.

Objectives The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) makes evidence-based recommendations about preventive services, programs, and policies in community settings to improve public health. CPSTF recommendations are based on systematic evidence reviews. This study examined the sponsors (ie, sources of financial, material, or intellectual support) for publications included in systematic reviews used by the CPSTF to make recommendations during a 9-year period. Methods We examined systematic evidence reviews (effectiveness reviews and economic reviews) for CPSTF findings issued from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2018. We assessed study publications used in these reviews for sources of support; we classified sources as government, nonprofit, industry, or no identified support. We also identified country of origin for each sponsor and the most frequently mentioned sponsors. Results The CPSTF issued findings based on 144 systematic reviews (106 effectiveness reviews and 38 economic reviews). These reviews included 3846 publications: 3363 publications in effectiveness reviews and 483 publications in economic reviews. Government agencies supported 57.1% (n = 1919) of publications in effectiveness reviews and 59.2% (n = 286) in economic reviews. More than 1500 study sponsors from 36 countries provided support. The National Institutes of Health was the leading sponsor for effectiveness reviews (21.3%; 718 of 3363) and economic reviews (16.2%; 78 of 480), followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.0%; 234 of 3363 effectiveness reviews and 14.8%; 71 of 480 economic reviews). Conclusions The evidence base used by the CPSTF was supported by an array of sponsors, with government agencies providing the most support. Study findings highlight the need for sponsorship transparency and the role of government as a leading supporter of studies that underpin CPSTF recommendations for improving public health.

The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual’s long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components. Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as “very useful” for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as “very useful” for patients (55% vs. 40%, p

Background: Colonoscopy follow-up recommendations depend on the presence or absence of polyps, and if found, their number, size, and histology. Patients may be responsible for conveying results between primary and specialty care or providing medical information to family members; thus, accurate reporting is critical. This analysis assessed the accuracy of self-reported colonoscopy findings. Methods: 3,986 participants from the Study of Colonoscopy Utilization, an ancillary study nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial, were included. Self-reports of polyp and adenoma were compared to medical records, and measures of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Correlates of accurate self-report of polyp were assessed using logistic regression and weighted to account for study sampling. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported polyp findings were 88% and 85%, respectively, and for adenoma 11% and 99%, respectively. Among participants with a polyp, older age was associated with lower likelihood while polyp severity and non-white race were associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among participants without a polyp, having multiple colonoscopies was associated with lower likelihood while family history of colorectal cancer was associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among both groups, longer time since colonoscopy was associated with lower likelihood of accurate recall. Conclusions: Participants recalled with reasonable accuracy whether they had a prior polyp; however, recall of histology, specifically adenoma, was much less accurate. Impact: Identification of strategies to increase accurate self-report of colonic polyps are needed, particularly for patient–provider communications and patient reporting of results to family members.

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.

Introduction Prior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests. Methods Data from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged ≥40 years without lung cancer. Results In 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010. Conclusions The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial.

6600 Background: Use of genomic testing, especially multi-marker tumor panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Although most patients are concerned about OOP costs, little is known about oncologists’ treatment decisions with respect to patient health insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. Methods: We identified 1,049 oncologists who reported using multi-marker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to assess the associations of oncologist, practice, and patient characteristics and the oncologist ratings of the importance of health insurance coverage and OOP cost for genomic testing as part of treatment decisions. Results: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7% and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very important, somewhat important, and a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported patient OOP costs for genomic testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important in treatment decisions, respectively. In adjusted ordinal logistic regression analyses, oncologists who used next-generation gene sequencing tests were more likely to report patient health insurance and OOP costs for testing as important (odds ratio (OR) = 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 3.5) and (OR = 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2, 3.7), respectively) in treatment decisions. Oncologists with more years of experience, who treated solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), worked in practices without molecular tumor boards for genomic tests, and with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured also reported insurance coverage or OOP costs for testing were important in treatment decisions (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Physician, practice, and patient characteristics were associated with oncologists’ ratings of the importance of patient health insurance and OOP costs in treatment decisions. Identifying factors that influence physicians’ priorities in treatment decisions may inform the development and targeting of interventions to support patient and physician discussions about oncology care.

Background Adults have a higher prevalence of multimorbidity-or having multiple chronic health conditions-than having a single condition in isolation. Researchers, health care providers, and health policymakers find it challenging to decide upon the most appropriate assessment tool from the many available multimorbidity measures. Objective The objective of this study was to describe a broad range of instruments and data sources available to assess multimorbidity and offer guidance about selecting appropriate measures. Design Instruments were reviewed and guidance developed during a special expert workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health on September 25-26, 2018. Results Workshop participants identified 4 common purposes for multimorbidity measurement as well as the advantages and disadvantages of 5 major data sources: medical records/clinical assessments, administrative claims, public health surveys, patient reports, and electronic health records. Participants surveyed 15 instruments and 2 public health data systems and described characteristics of the measures, validity, and other features that inform tool selection. Guidance on instrument selection includes recommendations to match the purpose of multimorbidity measurement to the measurement approach and instrument, review available data sources, and consider contextual and other related constructs to enhance the overall measurement of multimorbidity. Conclusions The accuracy of multimorbidity measurement can be enhanced with appropriate measurement selection, combining data sources and special considerations for fully capturing multimorbidity burden in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations, children, individuals with multiple Adverse Childhood Events and older adults experiencing functional limitations, and other geriatric syndromes. The increased availability of comprehensive electronic health record systems offers new opportunities not available through other data sources.

Background Multimorbidity, the co-occurrence of 2 or more chronic diseases, is more common than having a single chronic disease, especially among persons age 65 years and older. The routine measurement of multimorbidity can facilitate a better understanding of potential causes and interactions and promote more effective treatment and improved outcomes. Objectives To present a multimorbidity research framework and identify gaps in the research literature related to multimorbidity. Design In preparation for an expert panel workshop convened in September 2018, planning committee members reviewed the literature and developed a guiding framework that informed the selection of topics and speakers. Results The framework, grounded in a patient-centered approach, incorporates the concept of concordant and discordant comorbidity, and includes potential causes, interactions, and outcomes. This work informed workshop presentations and discussion related to identifying and selecting the best available multimorbidity instruments and determining future research needs. Conclusions Multimorbidity research can be advanced by addressing gaps in study design and target populations, and by increasing attention to universal outcome measurement.

PURPOSE The evolution of precision oncology increasingly requires oncologists to incorporate genomic testing into practice. Yet, providers’ confidence with genomic testing is poorly documented. This article describes medical oncologists’ confidence with genomic testing and the association between genomic confidence and test use. METHODS We used data from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment to characterize oncologists’ confidence with genomic testing. Genomic confidence was examined separately by type of test user: next-generation sequencing (NGS) only, gene expression (GE) only, both NGS and GE, or nonuser. Predictors of genomic confidence were examined with multinomial logistic regression. The association between genomic confidence and test use was examined with multivariable linear regression. RESULTS More than 75% of genomic test users were either moderately or very confident about using results from multimarker tumor panel tests to guide patient care. Confidence with using multimarker tumor panel tests was highest among both NGS and GE test users, with 60.1% very confident in using test results, and lowest among NGS-only test users, with 38.2% very confident in using test results. Oncologists were most confident in using single-gene tests and least confident in using whole-genome or -exome sequencing to guide patient care. Genomic confidence was positively associated with self-reported test use. In adjusted models, training in genomics, larger patient volume, and treating patients with solid tumors predicted higher genomic confidence. Onsite pathology services and receipt of electronic medical record alerts for genomic testing predicted lower genomic confidence. CONCLUSION Oncologists’ confidence varies by testing platform, patient volume, genomic training, and practice infrastructure. Research is needed to identify modifiable factors that can be targeted to enhance provider confidence with genomic testing.

Purpose There are no nationally representative data on oncologists’ use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. Methods The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. Results Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. Conclusion In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.

Purpose: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non–guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. Results: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non–guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). Conclusion: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.

Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. To examine whether primary care providers’ (PCPs’) beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients’ mammography use (2011–2014). PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40–89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40–48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49–74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual's long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components.Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs).Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as "very useful" for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as "very useful" for patients (55% vs. 40%, p 0.001). Information about the psychological effects of cancer (41% vs. 29%; p 0.001) and healthy behaviors (67% vs. 41%; p 0.001) were considered more useful to patients than to PCPs. From 3 to 20% of oncologists believed that any given component of the SCP was not useful to either PCPs or patients. Oncologists who perceived SCPs to be more useful tended to be female or to practice in settings with a fully implemented electronic health record.Oncologists do not perceive all components of SCPs to be equally useful to both patients and PCPs. To be successfully implemented, the SCP should be efficiently tailored to the unique needs and knowledge of patients and their PCPs. A minority of oncologists appear to be late adopters, suggesting that some resistance to the adoption of SCPs remains.

Background Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions. Methods We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured. Conclusions Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments.

Introduction Timely follow-up of abnormal tests is critical to the effectiveness of cancer screening, but may vary by screening test, healthcare system, and sociodemographic group. Methods Timely follow-up of abnormal mammogram and fecal occult blood testing or fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) were compared by race/ethnicity using Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium data. Participants were women with an abnormal mammogram (aged 40–75 years) or FOBT/FIT (aged 50–75 years) in 2010–2012. Analyses were performed in 2015. Timely follow-up was defined as colonoscopy ≤3 months following positive FOBT/FIT; additional imaging or biopsy ≤3 months following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 0, 4, or 5 mammograms; or ≤9 months following Category 3 mammograms. Logistic regression was used to model receipt of timely follow-up adjusting for study site, age, year, insurance, and income. Results Among 166,602 mammograms, 10.7% were abnormal; among 566,781 FOBT/FITs, 4.3% were abnormal. Nearly 96% of patients with abnormal mammograms received timely follow-up versus 68% with abnormal FOBT/FIT. There was greater variability in receipt of follow-up across healthcare systems for positive FOBT/FIT than for abnormal mammograms. For mammography, black women were less likely than whites to receive timely follow-up (91.8% vs 96.0%, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.51, 0.97). For FOBT/FIT, Hispanics were more likely than whites to receive timely follow-up than whites (70.0% vs 67.6%, OR=1.12, 95% CI=1.04, 1.21). Conclusions Timely follow-up among women was more likely for abnormal mammograms than FOBT/FITs, with small variations in follow-up rates by race/ethnicity and larger variation across healthcare systems.

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.

Background Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.

Background: Evidence-based guidelines for preventive services are developed by expert groups such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to help Americans stay healthy. Despite the proven value of evidence-based preventive services (e.g., screenings, provider counseling, and preventive medications), implementation by providers and uptake by patients vary, contributing to disparities in disease burden and life expectancy. The NIH convened a workshop with multidisciplinary and multisector participants in June 2019 to assess the available scientific evidence on achieving health equity in the use of clinical preventive services for three leading causes of death: diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Methods: The workshop was framed around five key questions (KQ) and included a systematic evidence review, speaker presentations, and public discussion. KQ 1-2 considered the effects of barriers on the part of providers and patients to adopting and implementing evidence-based preventive services, and how they contribute to health disparities. KQ 3-5 addressed the effectiveness of health information technology and health care organization interventions to reduce disparities in preventive services use. An unbiased, independent panel of experts considered the scientific evidence in addition to speaker and audience perspectives to develop a report of findings and recommendations for addressing disparities in the use of ten clinical preventive services recommended by the USPSTF. Results: Overall, the need for more research on the effects of barriers was identified. However, compared with heart disease and diabetes, the barriers to adopting preventive services for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening have received greater attention. While patient navigation was shown to be effective in increasing cancer screening rates, strategies for bundling preventive services and implementing health information technologies require more study. The importance of addressing unmet basic needs related to health and enhancing community resources to reduce disparities were recurring themes throughout the workshop. Lastly, there were implications for more research in cancer dissemination and implementation. Conclusion: Chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, are responsible for seven of every ten deaths in the U.S. each year. Greater use of proven clinical preventive services could avert the loss of millions of life-years. Achieving health equity in preventive services is feasible, but requires efforts at the patient, provider, healthcare organization, and community levels, and greater attention to addressing social determinants of health. Citation Format: Antoinette Percy-Laurry, Richard Berzon, Jennifer Croswell, Carrie Klabunde, Melissa Green Parker, LeShawndra Price, Pamela Thornton, Kate Winseck, Xinzhi Zhang. Achieving health equity in cancer preventive services: NIH Workshop insights on barriers and the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions and strategies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-262.

Background Survey researchers use monetary incentives as a strategy to motivate physicians’ survey participation. Experiments from general population surveys demonstrate that prepaid incentives increase response rates and lower survey administration costs relative to postpaid incentives. Experiments comparing these two incentive strategies have rarely been attempted with physician samples. Methods A nationally representative sample of oncologists was recruited to participate in the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. To determine the optimal strategy for survey incentives, sample members were randomly assigned to receive a $50 prepaid incentive check or a $50 promised (postpaid) incentive check. Outcome measures for this incentives experiment include cooperation rates, speed of response, check-cashing behavior, and comparison of hypothetical costs for different incentive strategies. Results Cooperation rates were considerably higher for sample members in the prepaid condition (41%) than in the postpaid condition (29%). Similar differences in cooperation rates were seen for physicians when stratified by region, size of the physician’s metropolitan statistical area, specialty, and gender by age. Survey responders in the prepaid condition responded earlier in the field period than those in the postpaid condition, thus requiring fewer contacts. In the prepaid group, 84% of sample members who responded with a completed survey cashed the incentive check and only 6% of nonresponders cashed the check. In the postpaid condition, 72% of survey responders cashed the check; nonresponders were not given a check. The relatively higher cooperation rates and earlier response of the responders in the prepaid condition was associated with a 30% cost savings for the prepaid condition compared to the postpaid incentive condition. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the rewards of offering physicians a prepaid incentive check outweigh the possible risks of nonresponders cashing the check. The relative cost benefit of this strategy is likely to vary depending on the amount of the incentive relative to the costs of additional contact attempts to nonresponders.

Background Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76–84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76–84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76–84 years and 8797 adults ages 50–75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7 % (95 % CI 20.1–25.3) of seniors ages 76–84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9 % (95 % CI 2.0–7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50–75 and 76–84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2 % indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76–84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed.

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(1); 3–14. ©2014 AACR.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64 years and 65-75 years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p 0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p 0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64 years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p 0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

Post-treatment cancer care is often fragmented and of suboptimal quality. We explored factors that may affect cancer survivors' post-treatment care coordination, including oncologists' use of electronic technologies such as e-mail and integrated electronic health records (EHRs) to communicate with primary care physicians (PCPs). We used data from a survey (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) conducted in 2012-2013 among medical oncologists caring for patients in a large US study of cancer care delivery and outcomes. Oncologists reported their frequency and mode of communication with PCPs, and role in providing post-treatment care. Seventy-five per cent said that they directly communicated with PCPs about post-treatment status and care recommendations for all/most patients. Among those directly communicating with PCPs, 70% always/usually used written correspondence, while 36% always/usually used integrated EHRs; telephone and e-mail were less used. Eighty per cent reported co-managing with PCPs at least one post-treatment general medical care need. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, neither communication mode nor intensity were associated with co-managing survivors' care. Oncologists' reliance on written correspondence to communicate with PCPs may be a barrier to care coordination. We discuss new research directions for enhancing communication and care coordination between oncologists and PCPs, and to better meet the needs of cancer survivors post-treatment.

Background Quality care for patients with cancer often requires access to specialty providers, but little is known about barriers to referring cancer patients for specialized care. Referral barriers may also lessen physician career satisfaction. We aimed to determine factors associated with these barriers and whether greater barriers are associated with low career satisfaction.

Importance Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain. Objective To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). Design, Setting, and Participants Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results. Interventions Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency). Results Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. Conclusions and Relevance Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

With advances in prevention, screening, and treatment, cancer patients are living longer; hence, non-cancer-related health status will likely play a larger role in determining their life expectancy. In this study, we present a novel method for characterizing non-cancer--related health status of cancer patients using population-based cancer registry data. We assessed non-cancer-related health status in the context of survival from other causes of death and prevalence of comorbidities. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2000-2006) were used to analyze cancer patients' survival probabilities by cause of death. Other-cause survival was estimated using a left-truncated survival method with the hazard of death due to other causes characterized as a function of age. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims (1992-2005) were used to quantify comorbidity prevalence. Relative to the US population, survival from a non-cancer-related death was higher for patients diagnosed with early stage breast and prostate cancer but lower for lung cancer patients at all stages. Lung cancer patients had worse comorbidity status than did other cancer patients. The present study represents the first attempt to evaluate the non-cancer-related health status of US cancer patients by cancer site (breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung) and stage. The findings provide insight into non-cancer-related health issues among cancer patients and their risk of dying from other causes.

PURPOSE Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making—a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screen- ing and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. METHODS A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to ques- tions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared deci - sion making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%- 43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associ- ated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screen- ing, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening. Ann Fam Med 2013;306-314. doi:10.1370/afm.1539.

Purpose High-quality, well-coordinated cancer survivorship care is needed yet barriers remain owing to fragmentation in the United States health care system. This article is a nationwide survey of barriers perceived by primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical oncologists (MOs) regarding breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care beyond 5 years after treatment. Methods The Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors was mailed out in 2009 to a nationally-representative sample (n = 3,596) of US PCPs and MOs. Ten physician-perceived cancer survivorship care barriers/concerns were compared between the two provider types. Using weighted multinomial logistic regression, we modeled each barrier, adjusting for physician demographics, reimbursement, training, and practice characteristics. Results We received responses from 2,202 physicians (1,072 PCPs; 1,130 MOs; 65.1% cooperation rate). In adjusted patient-related barriers models, MOs were more likely than PCPs to report patient language barriers (odds ratio, [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.42), insurance restrictions impeding test/treatment use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.96), and patients requesting more aggressive testing (OR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.73 to 6.10). In adjusted physician-related barriers models, PCPs were more likely to report inadequate training (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.03 to 4.61) and ordering additional tests/treatments because of malpractice concerns (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.93). MOs were more likely to report uncertainty regarding general preventive care responsibility (often/always: OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.43; sometimes: OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.93). Conclusion MOs and PCPs perceive different cancer follow-up care barriers/concerns to be problematic. Resolving inadequate training, malpractice-driven test ordering, and preventive-care responsibility concerns may require continuing education, explicit guidelines, and survivorship care plans. Reviewing care plans with survivors may also reduce patients' requests for unnecessary testing.

Purpose: Only 2% to 5% of adult patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. We assessed simultaneously characteristics of patients and their physicians that may be independently associated with participation. Methods: CanCORS, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) –funded population-based observational cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancers, sampled patients across five geographic areas, five health care delivery systems, and 15 Veterans Administration hospitals. We linked patient survey and medical record data with physician survey data to examine correlates of trial enrollment. Results: Among 9,901 patients, 5.3% enrolled onto trials. Of the 9,901 patients, we linked 6,506 patients to one medical oncologist, surgeon, or radiation oncologist (physicians, N 1,325) who responded to the physician survey and was considered their primary cancer clinician decision maker. Patient age, race, disease stage, geographic region, and health insurance were independently associated with trial enrollment. Physician factors independently associated with patient trial enrollment were being a medical oncologist, practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center, taking the lead in discussing trials with patients, and receiving increased income from trial enrollment. After simultaneously adjusting for patient and physician characteristics, only being a physician practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.27) and patient female sex (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.68), age 70 versus 50 years (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.48), and advanced disease (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.45 to 2.37) remained independently associated with trial enrollment. Conclusion: Both practice environment and patient clinical and demographic characteristics are associated with cancer clinical trial enrollment; simultaneous intervention may be required when trying to increase enrollment rates.

Surveys of health care providers (e.g., physicians and other health care professionals) are an important tool for assessing health care practices and the settings in which care is delivered. Although multiple methods are used to increase survey data quality, little is known about which methods are most commonly implemented. We reviewed 117 large surveys described in literature published between 2000 and 2010, examining descriptions of survey design features, survey implementation, and response rates. Despite wide variation, the typical provider survey selected practicing physicians as respondents, used the American Medical Association Masterfile as sample frame, included mail as both mode of initial contact and questionnaire administration mode, and offered monetary incentives to respondents. Our review revealed inconsistency of documentation concerning procedures used, and a variety of response rate calculation methods, such that it was difficult to determine practices that maximize response rate. We recommend that reports provide more comprehensive documentation concerning key methodological features to improve assessment of survey data quality.

Background Primary care physicians (PCPs) play a key role in performing and referring patients for cancer screening. Understanding barriers to test use is critical to developing strategies that promote adherence to clinical guidelines, but current literature does not distinguish the extent to which barriers may be similar or unique across screening modalities. Purpose To describe PCPs' self-reported perceptions of barriers to screening for breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) and compare the top three barriers associated with these screening modalities. Methods Cross-sectional data analyzed in 2011 from a nationally representative survey of 2478 PCPs in the U.S. in 2006–2007. Results PCPs reported greater barriers for CRC screening than for mammography. Lack of patient follow-through to complete recommended screening and the inability to pay for tests were the main barriers perceived by PCPs for both types of screening. Another major barrier cited was that patients do not perceive CRC as a threat. This was a lesser concern for the well-diffused message about the need for mammography. Conclusions This is the first national study to provide a comparison of physician-perceived barriers to breast and CRC screening. Study results suggest that efforts to improve use of cancer screening, and CRC screening in particular, will require interventions at physician, practice, and health-system levels.

Purpose: Chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. However, few studies have included patients with poor performance status. This study examined rates of oncologists’ recommendations for chemotherapy by patient performance status and symptoms and how physician characteristics influence chemotherapy recommendations. Methods: We surveyed medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung cancer from the CanCORS (Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance) study. Physicians were queried about their likelihood to recommend chemotherapy to patients with stage IV lung cancer with varying performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 [good] v 3 [poor]) and presence or absence of tumor-related pain. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to estimate the independent associations of patients’ performance status and symptoms and physicians’ demographic and practice characteristics with chemotherapy recommendations. Results: Nearly all physicians (adjusted rate, 97% to 99%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with good performance status, and approximately half (adjusted rate, 38% to 53%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with poor performance status (P < .001). Compared with patient factors, physician and practice characteristics were less strongly associated with chemotherapy recommendations in adjusted analyses. Conclusion: Strong consensus among oncologists exists for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. However, the relatively high rate of chemotherapy recommendations for patients with poor performance status despite the unfavorable risk–benefit profile highlights the need for ongoing work to define high-value care in oncology and to implement and evaluate strategies to align incentives for such care.

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.

Background The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a common method for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet its acceptability and performance over several rounds of annual testing are largely unknown. Objective To assess FIT performance characteristics over 4 rounds of annual screening. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California. Patients 323 349 health plan members aged 50 to 70 years on their FIT mailing date in 2007 or 2008 who completed the first round of FIT and were followed for up to 4 screening rounds. Measurements Screening participation, FIT positivity (≥20 µg of hemoglobin/g), positive predictive values for adenoma and CRC, and FIT sensitivity for detecting CRC obtained from Kaiser Permanente electronic databases and cancer registries. Results Of the patients invited for screening, 48.2% participated in round 1. Of those who remained eligible, 75.3% to 86.1% participated in subsequent rounds. Median follow-up was 4.0 years, and 32% of round 1 participants crossed over to endoscopy over 4 screening rounds-7.0% due to a positive FIT result. The FIT positivity rate (5.0%) and positive predictive values (adenoma, 51.5%; CRC, 3.4%) were highest in round 1. Overall, programmatic FIT screening detected 80.4% of patients with CRC diagnosed within 1 year of testing, including 84.5% in round 1 and 73.4% to 78.0% in subsequent rounds. Limitation Screening detection, rather than long-term cancer prevention, was evaluated. Conclusion Annual FIT screening was associated with high sensitivity for CRC, with high adherence to annual follow-up screening among initial participants. The findings indicate that annual programmatic FIT screening is feasible and effective for population-level CRC screening. Primary funding source National Institutes of Health.

Because health care providers have a central role in implementing guidelines, health care reform, and new standards of care and technologies, surveying them about their practices and perspectives is vital for health services and policy research. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute convened a workshop to review and discuss current methodologies in designing and fielding large-scale surveys of physicians and medical groups. This report summarizes key issues and future directions for four topic areas addressed in the workshop: sample frames for surveying physicians and medical groups; points of contact and response modes; response incentives; and questionnaire design and burden. Recommendations were made for improving sample frame databases, optimizing mixed-mode surveys, and studying use of incentives with gatekeepers and in medical group settings. There is particular need for empirical assessment of factors that motivate or impede participation of physicians, other types of clinicians, and medical groups in survey research.