Cancer Screening Rates, Disparities by Immigration Status, and Predictors of Cancer Screening Among Black Women With HIV.

Cancer Prevention in a Postpandemic World: A One-Stop-Shop Approach

Preventative cancer screening among African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants.

131 Background: Food insecurity is associated with healthcare access and utilization. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was created to reduce food insecurity for low-income households and hence may enhance health-seeking behaviors. However, it is unknown whether receipt of SNAP benefits is associated with rates of cancer screening. Our objective was to quantify the relationship of SNAP benefit receipt with cancer screening among low income individuals at high risk for food insecurity. Methods: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was utilized to identify high-risk adults ages 21 to 74 years eligible for screening for female cervix (21-65 years), colorectal (40-74 years), and/or female breast cancer (40-74 years). Data was included from the 2019 and 2021 surveys, with 2020 excluded due to limited cancer screening information. High-risk was defined as low or very low food security, household income < 125% federal poverty level, or having Medicaid insurance. Up to date cancer screening was defined as receipt of mammography within 2 years for breast cancer; receipt of a cervical cancer test within 5 years for cervix cancer; and receipt of sigmoidoscopy within the past 5 years, colonoscopy within 10 years, fecal immunohistochemistry (FIT) testing within 1 year, or sDNA-FIT testing within 3 years for colorectal cancer. We utilized logistic regression to compare screening rates by receipt of SNAP benefits and accounted for the complex survey design of the NHIS. Models were adjusted for covariates including age, race, ethnicity, sex (colorectal cancer screening only), income, education, marital status, insurance status, metropolitan residence status, survey year, food insecurity, and comorbidities. Results: A total of 6,111, 4,141, and 7,015 respondents were identified for cervix, breast, and colorectal cancer screening analyses, respectively. Among these respondents, 67%, 61%, and 60% were up to date on cervix, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings, respectively. Among this high-risk cohort, 43% of respondents reported receipt of SNAP benefits. Receipt of SNAP benefits was associated with increased odds of cervical cancer screening (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.00 – 1.39, P=.046), which was limited to females ages 21-39 (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.05 – 1.77, P=.022). Receipt of SNAP benefits was not associated with increased rates of breast or colorectal cancer screening. Conclusions: Receipt of SNAP benefits is associated with higher rates of cervical cancer screening among low-income females at high risk of food insecurity, particularly among young adults. These data suggest that efforts to address social determinants of health may improve access to care.

Breast, Colorectal, Lung, Prostate, and Cervical Cancer Screening Prevalence in a Large Commercial and Medicare Advantage Plan, 2008–2020

The Taiwanese national cancer screening program was established in 1985 by providing Pap smear tests for women. At the same time, trial-based screening for colorectal, oral, and breast cancer screening was initiated. In 1999, outreach services for cancer screening were started and gradually scaled up to the national level. Our hospital is located in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Like many hospitals in Taiwan, we provide cancer screening services to the community. Our baseline screening rate was 96.6% in 2016. Aiming to increase the overall cancer (including colorectal, oral, breast, and cervical cancer) screening rates, we implemented two strategies. First, we modified the cancer screening workflow so that patients could receive screening counseling before the scheduled appointment. Second, we redesigned the clinic waiting room layout by moving check-in and cancer screening counters next to each other. By the end of 2017, the overall cancer screening rate increased from 96.6% to 105.4%. Our future efforts will be focused on collecting patient feedback, increasing coverage of hard-to-reach populations, and understanding barriers to cancer screening for specific groups of patients.

Cancer Screening During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: A Perspective From the National Cancer Institute’s PROSPR Consortium

Approximately 3% of invasive U.S. cancer diagnoses are made among veterans in a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic each year, while VA patients only comprise about 1.9% of the U.S. population. Although some research has shown that veterans have higher incidence rates of cancer compared to civilians, evidence is sparse regarding possible disparities in rates of cancer screening between these populations. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare differences in rates of screening for colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers between current and former U.S. Military service members and civilians. Using the data extracted from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the rates of cancer screening among current and former U.S. Military service members compared to civilians from self-reported surveys assessing when individuals had been screened for colorectal or lung cancer among all participants and breast and cervical cancer among women participants. Persons greater than 25 years of age were included in the cervical cancer screening, 50 years of age for colon cancer screening, and 40 years of age for the breast cancer screening-the latter based on recommendations from the American Cancer Society. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine the adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of current and former U.S. Military service members receiving screening compared to civilians, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and health care coverage. Current and former U.S. Military service members accounted for 2.6% of individuals included for the cervical cancer screening analysis, 2.2% for the breast cancer screening analyses, nearly 10% of the lung cancer screening, and 15% of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening analyses. Prevalence of screening was higher for current and former U.S. Military service members among lung cancer and CRC. When controlling for age, race, education, and health care coverage, current and former U.S. Military service members were statistically more likely to be screened for CRC (ARR: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.07) and lung cancer (ARR: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52). The odds of having completed a cervical or breast cancer screening were not significantly different between groups. Our study showed that current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to complete CRC and lung cancer screenings, while no significant difference existed between each population with regard to cervical and breast cancer screenings. This is one of the few studies that have directly compared cancer screening usage among civilians and current and former U.S. Military service members. Although current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to receive several cancer screenings, improvements can still be made to remove barriers and increase screening usage due to the disproportionate rates of cancer mortality in this population. These solutions should be comprehensive-addressing personal, organizational, and societal barriers-to improve prognosis and survival rates among current and former U.S. Military service members.

The Healthy People 2030 initiative has set national cancer screening targets for breast, colon, and cervical cancers, as well as aims for reducing cancer mortality. State-level tax policy is an underappreciated social determinant of health that may improve cancer screening and mortality rates. To define the association of tax revenue and tax progressivity with state-level cancer screening and mortality. This ecologic, population-based, cross-sectional study assessed cancer screening (2020 and 2022) and mortality rates (1999-2021) in the US relative to state-level tax revenue (1997-2019) and tax progressivity (2002, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2018) with a 2-year lag. The study included 50 states through 23 years with state-years used as the unit of analysis. Cancer screening rates were derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Population Level Analysis and Community Estimates database. State-level cancer-related death and population counts were derived from the CDC Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. Data analysis occurred from September to January 2024. State-level tax policy was proxied by tax revenue per capita and the Suits index of tax progressivity, with progressive taxation equaling lower tax burden for more disadvantaged populations. Outcomes included screening rates for colon, breast, and cervical cancer, as well as mortality rates for all malignant neoplasms and malignant neoplasms with guideline-recommended screening. Multivariable models were adjusted for tax-related, socioeconomic, and demographic variables. In total, 1150 state-years were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) tax revenue per capita was $4432 ($3862-$5210), and the median (IQR) number of cancer-related deaths was 8341 (3150-13 585) across all state-years. Of note, each $1000 increase in tax revenue per capita was associated with a 1.61% (95% CI, 0.50%-2.73%) increase in colorectal cancer screening, 2.17% (95% CI, 1.39%-2.96%) increase in breast cancer screening, and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.34%-1.10%) increase in cervical cancer screening rate. For malignant neoplasms with guideline-recommended screening, each $1000 increase in tax revenue per capita was associated with a decreased cancer mortality rate among White (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.93-0.98), but not racial and ethnic minority (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) populations. In this cross-sectional study, tax policy was associated with increased state-level cancer screening rates, as well as decreased cancer mortality rates, which mostly benefited White populations, suggesting that state-level policies may contribute to bridging ongoing cancer care gaps.

Background:The participation rate is one of the most important indexes in the cancer screening. Historically in Japan, each local government has developed their own equations to calculate the subjects for population-based screening, which were different from each other, and therefore the participation rates of screening were not comparable. Recently, local governments were ordered to use the standardized equation in reporting data, which made it possible to compare the participation rates of cancer screening nationwide for the first time. We therefore investigated the correlation between the prefectural lung cancer mortality and several indicators of lung cancer screening.Methods:The prefectural participation rates of lung, gastric and colonic cancer screening, test positive rates, attendance rates for further examination, lung cancer detection rates and positive predictive values of lung cancer screening were collected from “Cancer Registration and Statistics” of the National Cancer Research Center website. The age-adjusted lung, gastric and colonic cancer mortality rates, smoking rates were also collected. The EZR software program was used for statistical analyses.Results:The participation rates of lung cancer screening had a strong positive correlation with the participation rates of gastric/colonic cancer screening (P<0.001). The prefectural lung cancer mortality rates had a moderate to weak negative correlation with the participation rates of lung cancer screening (P=0.009). A little correlation was noted between other quality assurance indicators of lung cancer screening and lung cancer mortality rates.Conclusion:These results suggested that participating in lung cancer screening might help reduce lung cancer mortality rates in some extent.

Introduction: Identification of healthcare access-related factors linked to lower use of cancer screening can inform targeted policies and interventions to mitigate these barriers and ameliorate screening disparities. We evaluated how barriers to healthcare influence cancer screening rates for five cancer types in a diverse population. Methods: We identified cohorts of participants within the All of Us Research Program (2017-2022) meeting U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline eligibility criteria for breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, or prostate cancer screening. Participants self-reported whether nine potential barriers had led them to delay seeking medical care in the past year. Using these items, a barrier burden was calculated by summing the number of affirmative responses (range 0-9), and exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify latent classes of barriers. USPSTF guideline-concordant receipt of cancer screening was assessed in the linked participant electronic health record. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (OR) were estimated for the association between each barrier, the barrier burden, and factor scores and receipt of cancer screening, accounting for participant sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Compliance with screening guidelines varied by cancer site: breast (42%, n=31, 827 eligible), cervical (28%, n=37, 770), colorectal (42%, n=68, 895), lung (11%, n=2, 737), and prostate (36%, n=8, 807). The most cited barriers were concerns about out-of-pocket costs, nervousness about seeing a provider, and inability to get time off work, though barrier frequency varied across cancer sites. Participants who were younger, female, had lower income or educational attainment, or identified as Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black were more likely to report 3+ barriers to care. Participants reporting 3+ barriers to care had lower screening rates relative to those who reported no barriers for breast (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60-0.72), cervical (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.83), colorectal (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82), lung (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-1.09), and prostate cancer (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95). Three latent factors were consistently identified across cancer sites reflecting cost concerns, logistical barriers (e.g. transportation), and competing obligations (e.g. time off work). In multivariable analyses, cost concerns were associated with lower screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, logistical barriers for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer, and competing obligations for breast and prostate cancer. Conclusions: The cumulative burden of barriers to access and barriers related to cost concerns, logistics, and competing obligations were associated with lower cancer screening rates. Policies and interventions are needed to target multiple dimensions of access simultaneously to increase cancer screening uptake. Citation Format: Kevin H. Kensler, Anjile An, Aaron Gurayah, Faith Morley, Meenakshi Davuluri, David M. Nanus, Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh, Rulla M. Tamimi. Self-reported barriers to healthcare and cancer screening rates: results from the All of Us Research Program [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7369.

C72: Changing patterns of socioeconomic inequalities in women cancer screening in South Korea with ten years follow-up of nationwide cross-sectional study

The trajectory of racial/ethnic disparities in the use of cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large U.S. academic center analysis

Racial and ethnic disparities exist in cancer screening and management among Hispanics. Although cancer poses a burden among Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic white women (nHw), screening rates for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer in Hispanic women lag behind nHw. The Hispanic population is heterogeneous and comprises individuals with diverse heritages. Furthermore, considerable variations in health outcomes and practices have been observed across Hispanic subgroups, supporting the relevance of studying each subgroup separately. Since early detection can reduce the burden of cancer, it is important to identify factors that can predict cancer screening within subgroups of Hispanic women. We sought to assess the role of acculturation in adherence to recommended cancer screening practices among Hispanic postmenopausal women, and to assess whether this association varies by Hispanic subgroup using data from the Women's Health Initiative. We included women who identified themselves as Hispanic in the baseline questionnaire (N=3, 263). All women who reported a personal history of cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer were excluded from the study. Only women without a hysterectomy were included in the cervical cancer screening analysis (N=1,754). Acculturation was measured using self-reported country of birth, language preference and length of residency in the United States (US). Cancer screening adherence was assessed based on the American Cancer Society guidelines in place at the beginning of the study in 1993. The study outcomes were self-reported breast cancer screening (mammography use) and cervical cancer screening (Pap smear use) during the past year and colorectal cancer screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy use) within five years prior to the interview. Logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence odds ratio for three types of cancer screening (breast, cervical and colorectal) according to the acculturation level among Hispanic women and within subgroups (Cuban (N=137), Mexican (N=1,151), Puerto Rican (N=289) and Other Hispanic (N=693)), with adjustment for age, alcohol use, family history of cancer, body mass index, physical activity level, and smoking status. Prevalence of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening was 68.7%, 55.9% and 47.1%, respectively. Highly acculturated women (US-born, English language preference and living in the US longer than in their country of origin) were more likely to be screened for breast (OR=2.12; 95% CI: 1.57-2.86), cervical (OR=1.46; 95% CI: 0.98-2.18) and colorectal cancer (OR=4.61; 95% CI: 3.27-6.50) within guidelines compared to Hispanic women with low acculturation level. Adjusting for socioeconomic factors attenuated the strength of these associations. For receipt of mammogram, subgroup analysis showed that acculturation mattered in the receipt of a mammogram only for Mexican/Mexican American women (OR=1.35; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82) for high vs. moderate/low acculturation. High acculturation was associated with greater adjusted odds of colorectal cancer screening among Mexican/Mexican American (OR=1.46; 95% CI: 1.10-1.95), Cuban women (OR=18.17; 95% CI: 2.17-152.37), and women from other Hispanic origins (OR=1.50; 95% CI: 1.07-2.11) when compared to women from their same national origin with a moderate/low acculturation level. No significant association between acculturation and cervical cancer screening were observed within the subgroups. These data show important differences in the impact of acculturation on cancer screening uptake among subgroups of Hispanic women. These findings will be useful to develop educational programs, and culturally tailored strategies for each Hispanic subgroup with the end goal of reducing the observed racial and ethnic disparities existent in cancer and promoting colorectal and breast cancer screening. Citation Format: Mary Vanellys Diaz-Santana, Susan Hankinson, Susan Sturgeon, Carol Bigelow, Milagros Rosal, Judith Ockene, Katherine W. Reeves. Exploring the role of acculturation in breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening among Hispanic women. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr B70.

Screening and follow-up rates for breast and cervical cancer vary across socioeconomic and demographic groups. While patient navigation services can help patients overcome barriers to health care, they are not commonly used in cancer screening. To determine the effectiveness and harms of patient navigation services to increase screening and follow-up rates for breast and cervical cancer. A search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English-language articles published between January 1, 2000, and September 19, 2024. A manual review of article references supplemented the search. Eligible articles were randomized clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of patient navigation services in participants eligible for breast or cervical cancer screening with usual care or control groups, as well as observational studies for harm. Investigators independently dual-reviewed abstracts and full-text articles to identify studies meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Of all abstracts and full-text articles reviewed, 2.9% were selected for analysis. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. A single investigator extracted data from each study. A second investigator reviewed the data for accuracy. Investigators independently dual-rated individual study quality as good, fair, or poor. Discordant quality ratings were resolved with a third reviewer. Data were combined using a profile likelihood random-effects model. The main outcomes were breast and cervical cancer screening rates within 1 year of the intervention, follow-up rates within 2 years, and any harm. A total of 42 randomized clinical trials with 39 111 participants assessing the effectiveness of patient navigation services to increase screening and follow-up rates for breast and cervical cancer were included in the meta-analysis; no studies described harms. For breast cancer, patient navigation resulted in higher rates of screening (risk ratio [RR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.75; I2 = 88.0%; 30 trials; n = 34 744 participants) and follow-up (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41; I2 = 12.6%; 3 trials; n = 1008 participants) compared with comparison groups. For cervical cancer, patient navigation also resulted in higher rates of screening (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.28-2.09; I2 = 89.6%; 20 trials; n = 11 820 participants) and follow-up (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.86-2.65; I2 = 69.0%; 2 trials; n = 401 participants). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated higher screening rates with patient navigation vs comparison groups for general populations and populations based on race, ethnicity, low-income status, and other characteristics. Predicted 1-year absolute rates following patient navigation were 13.8% higher for breast cancer screening and 15.6% higher for cervical cancer screening than for comparison groups. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that patient navigation services can increase breast and cervical cancer screening and follow-up. Reducing barriers with patient navigation services could improve access and engage patients in more effective and equitable cancer preventive care.

BackgroundDespite high-quality evidence demonstrating that screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers, a substantial portion of the population remains inadequately screened. There is a critical need to identify interventions that increase the uptake and adoption of evidence-based screening guidelines for preventable cancers at the community practice level. Text messaging (short message service, SMS) has been effective in promoting behavioral change in various clinical settings, but the overall impact and reach of text messaging interventions on cancer screening are unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of text messaging interventions on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies published between the years 2000 and 2017, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, to identify controlled trials that measured the effect of text messaging on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancers. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsOur search yielded 2238 citations, of which 31 underwent full review and 9 met inclusion criteria. Five studies examined screening for breast cancer, one for cervical cancer, and three for colorectal cancer. No studies were found for lung cancer screening. Absolute screening rates for individuals who received text message interventions were 0.6% to 15.0% higher than for controls. Unadjusted relative screening rates for text message recipients were 4% to 63% higher compared with controls.ConclusionsText messaging interventions appear to moderately increase screening rates for breast and cervical cancer and may have a small effect on colorectal cancer screening. Benefit was observed in various countries, including resource-poor and non-English-speaking populations. Given the paucity of data, additional research is needed to better quantify the effectiveness of this promising intervention.