Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Research Articles

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible. This cross-sectional study employed data from the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 23 states to compare age, gender, race, marital, sexual orientation, education, employment, comorbidity, vaccination, region, and rurality characteristics of the eligible population according to the original 2013 USPSTF recommendations with the revised 2021 USPSTF recommendations using chi-squared tests. This study compared those originally eligible to those newly eligible using the BRFSS raking-dervived weighting variable. There were 30,190 study participants. The results of this study found that eligibility increased by 62.4% due to the revised recommendations. We found that the recommendation changes increased the proportion of eligible females (50.1% vs 44.1%), Black persons (9.2% vs 6.6%), Hispanic persons (4.4% vs 2.7%), persons aged 55-64 (55.8% vs 52.6%), urban-dwellers(88.3% vs 85.9%), unmarried (3.4% vs 2.5%) and never married (10.4% vs 6.6%) persons, as well as non-retirees (76.5% vs 56.1%) Respondents without comorbidities and COPD also increased. It is estimated that the revision of the lung cancer screening recommendations decreased eligibility disparities in sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, respiratory comorbidities, and vaccination status. Research will be necessary to estimate whether uptake patterns subsequently follow the expanded eligibility patterns.

Unawareness of partner risk factors thwarts implementation of USPSTF recommendations for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in primary care

ABSTRACT The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis for persons at high risk of HIV exposure. The optimal screening strategy for at-risk individuals in primary care is not known. We evaluated the strategy of universal screening and discussed challenges to the implementation of this recommendation in primary care. Around 430 of 500 (86%) screening surveys were completed. Mutual monogamy was common but monogamous partners with recent negative HIV testing were uncommon. Likewise, among heterosexually active men and women, inconsistent condom use was common. Such individuals would be on guideline for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if their partner was at risk for HIV exposure. None of these potentially at-risk individuals met the criteria for PrEP, but 13% lacked knowledge of their partners' sexual and behavioral risk factors, preventing a clear decision on whether PrEP should be used. Our screen identified no individuals who clearly met the guideline criteria for HIV PrEP. We conclude that universal screening for HIV PrEP in primary care is unlikely to be an efficient strategy; targeted screening is likely more appropriate. Moreover, the 2019 guidelines for heterosexually active men and women rely on information that is often unknown to the patient, which makes these guidelines difficult to implement. Future guidelines should address these problems.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate. The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review. Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density. The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in Transgender Men and Nonbinary People: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Boston Community Health Center.

Purpose: Clinical monitoring for patients receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has the potential to facilitate their receipt of preventive health services. We aimed to determine whether GAHT is associated with increased utilization of cervical cancer screening among transgender men (TM) and nonbinary persons assigned female at birth (NB-AFAB). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of a single community health center in Boston. Persons of all gender identities eligible for cervical cancer screening during 2008-2019 were assessed. The outcome of interest was receipt of cervical cancer screening based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We compared the proportion of persons who received cervical cancer screening by prescription of GAHT. Results: We identified 13,267 eligible persons. This cohort included 10,547 (79.5%) cisgender women, 1547 (11.7%) TM, and 1173 (8.8%) NB-AFAB persons. Among all persons eligible for cervical cancer screening, TM and NB-AFAB persons were less likely to receive screening than cisgender women (56.2% and 56.1% vs. 60.5% respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-0.93; OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.74-0.94, respectively). Among TM, those prescribed testosterone were more likely to receive cervical cancer screening than those not prescribed testosterone (57.9% vs. 48.2%, OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.14-1.92). Among NB-AFAB adults, those prescribed testosterone were more likely to receive cervical cancer screening than those not prescribed testosterone (61.9% vs. 51.5%, OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.21-1.93). Conclusions: The benefits of engagement in care to access GAHT may extend beyond the hormonal intervention to preventive health services.

Racial and ethnic disparities in prostate cancer screening following the 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

In 2018, the United States Preventive Services Task Force promoted shared decision making between healthcare provider and patient for men aged 55 to 69. This study aimed to analyze rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing across racial and ethnic groups following this new recommendation. A secondary analysis was conducted of the 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database to assess men aged 55 or older without a history of prostate cancer. We defined four race-ethnicity groups: non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), non-Hispanic Blacks (NHBs), Hispanics, and Other. The primary outcome was the most recent PSA test (MRT), defined as the respondent's most recent PSA test occurring pre-2018 or post-2018 guidelines. Logistic regression adjusted for covariates including age, socioeconomic status factors, marital status, smoking history, and healthcare access factors. In the age 55 to 69 study sample, NHW men had the greatest proportion of MRT post-2018 guidelines (n = 15,864, 72.5%). NHB men had the lowest percentage of MRT post-2018 guidelines (n = 965, 66.6%). With NHW as referent, the crude odds of the MRT post-2018 guidelines was 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53-0.90) for NHB. The maximally adjusted odds ratio was 0.78 (0.59-1.02). We found that NHB aged 55 to 69 reported decreased rates of PSA testing after 2018 when compared to NHW. This was demonstrated on crude analysis but not after adjustment. Such findings suggest the influence of social determinants of health on preventative screening for at-risk populations.

Nativity Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanics in the United States.

Hispanics in the United States (U.S.) have previously exhibited lower guideline-concordant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake than non-Hispanic (NH) Whites, with disparities accentuated in foreign-born Hispanics, however it is unclear whether nativity-related CRC screening disparities have changed in the last two decades and whether these disparities are attenuated after adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. We evaluated CRC screening adherence in foreign- and U.S.-born Hispanics compared to U.S.-born NH Whites. We used 2019 National Health Interview Survey data to compare the prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening per the 2019 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations among Hispanic nativity subgroups (i.e., foreign- and U.S.-born) and U.S.-born NH Whites using unadjusted and adjusted weighted log-linked binomial regression. Foreign- and U.S.-born Hispanics had a significantly lower unadjusted prevalence of up-to-date screening than U.S.-born NH Whites (47.18% and 64.18% versus 70.70%; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0109, respectively). After adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic differences, the prevalence of up-to-date screening was lower in foreign-born Hispanics compared to U.S.-born NH Whites [adjusted prevalence ratio 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.91)]; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between U.S.-born Hispanics and NH Whites. Our results suggest a low screening uptake in foreign-born Hispanics independent of socioeconomic and demographic differences. Future interventions should target foreign-born Hispanics to address disparities and promote early detection and prevention of CRC regardless of socioeconomic factors.

Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care

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

Multilevel approaches to address disparities in lung cancer screening: a study protocol

BackgroundLow-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening) can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality by 20–24%. Based on this evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Despite this recommendation, utilization is low (3–20%). Lung cancer screening may be particularly beneficial for African American patients because they are more likely to have advanced disease, lower survival, and lower screening rates compared to White individuals. Evidence points to multilevel approaches that simultaneously address multiple determinants to increase screening rates and decrease lung cancer burden in minoritized populations. This study will test the effects of provider- and patient-level strategies for promoting equitable lung cancer screening utilization.MethodsGuided by the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we will conduct a quasi-experimental study with four primary care clinics within a large health system (MedStar Health). Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening, defined as 50–80 years old, ≥ 20 pack-years, currently smoking, or quit < 15 years, no history of lung cancer, who have an appointment scheduled with their provider, and who are non-adherent to screening will be identified via the EHR, contacted, and enrolled (N = 184 for implementation clinics, N = 184 for comparison clinics; total N = 368). Provider participants will include those practicing at the partner clinics (N = 26). To increase provider-prompted discussions about lung screening, an electronic health record (EHR) clinician reminder will be sent to providers prior to scheduled visits with the screening-eligible participants. To increase patient-level knowledge and patient activation about screening, an inreach specialist will conduct a pre-visit phone-based educational session with participants. Patient participants will be assessed at baseline and 1-week post-visit to measure provider-patient discussion, screening intentions, and knowledge. Screening referrals and screening completion rates will be assessed via the EHR at 6 months. We will use mixed methods and multilevel assessments of patients and providers to evaluate the implementation outcomes (adoption, feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity).DiscussionThe study will inform future work designed to measure the independent and overlapping contributions of the multilevel implementation strategies to advance equity in lung screening rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04675476. Registered December 19, 2020.

Protocol to measure validity and reliability of colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancer screening questions from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey: Methodology and design.

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Sun Protection: A Comprehensive 2022 Dermatologic Review

In 2018, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published an abridged summary of the 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on Skin Cancer Prevention: Behavioral Counseling. We believe that a contemporary review paper that helps to expand on those recommendations and explain nuanced options for patients and providers is timely and will prove valuable.

Prevalence of Testing for Diabetes Among US Adults With Overweight or Obesity, 2016-2019.

Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every 3 years for abnormal blood glucose among adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity. Using IQVIA Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records, we estimated the proportion of adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity who received blood glucose testing within 3 years from baseline in 2016. We identified 1,338,509 adults aged 40 to 70 years with overweight or obesity in 2016 and without pre-existing diabetes. We included adults whose records were present in the data set for at least 2 years before their index body mass index (BMI) in 2016 and 3 years after the index BMI (2017-2019), during which we examined the occurrence of blood glucose testing. We calculated the unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing. The unadjusted prevalence of receiving blood glucose testing was 33.4% when it was defined as having a hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose measure. The unadjusted prevalence was 74.3% when we expanded the definition of testing to include random plasma glucose and unspecified glucose measures. Adults with obesity were more likely to receive the test than those with overweight. Men (vs women) and adults aged 50 to 59 years (vs other age groups) had higher testing rates. Our findings could inform clinical and public health promotion efforts to improve screening for blood glucose levels among adults with overweight or obesity.

Interacting with best practice advisory (BPA) notifications in the electronic medical record significantly improves screening rates for abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveBest practice advisory notifications (BPAs) have become an integral part of many electronic medical record (EMR) systems. These communications alert providers to recommended therapy or screenings for patients depending on factors found within the EMR. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of BPAs on the rate of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening in patients who met guidelines for screening in a single-center EMR. MethodsWe reviewed all patients who triggered a BPA alert for AAA screening from December 2018 to December 2021 in a single tertiary academic setting. The BPA alerts the provider when closing the chart when a patient meets the criteria for AAA screening based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations of screening male patients aged 65 to 75 years with a smoking history. Provider responses to these triggers were analyzed, and the predictors of response to the advisory and its impact on AAA screening for individual patients within 6 months of the alert was evaluated. ResultsOver this period, 1292 patients triggered the BPA for AAA screening. After excluding deceased patients, 1205 patients were included in the final analysis. Providers interacted with rather than dismissed the BPA in 20.4% of patients. The overall screening rate in this patient cohort was 28.28%. Interacting with the BPA significantly increased the odds of being appropriately screened for a AAA (odds ratio, 2.48). A higher number of visits and BPA triggers correlated with increased odds of undergoing screening for AAA (odds ratios, 1.08 and 1.02, respectively). Additionally, patients who underwent screening were younger in age and more often African American as compared with other races. The presence and number of comorbid conditions were not associated with screening rates, although hyperlipidemia was associated with positive response to BPA. ConclusionsThe overall rate of appropriate AAA screening is low, despite the presence of BPAs. Positively interacting with rather than dismissing the BPA is correlated with an increased rate of appropriate AAA screening. Providers were more likely to screen patients if the patient was younger, had more health care system visits, or if the trigger was delivered more often to members of the health care team. Further study is needed to evaluate provider factors that will result in an increased adherence to recommended screening guidelines.

Using the Matrixed Multiple Case Study approach to identify factors affecting the uptake of IPV screening programs following the use of implementation facilitation

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent social determinant of health. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine IPV screening of women, but uptake remains variable. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated implementation facilitation (IF) to support integration of IPV screening programs into primary care clinics. An evaluation of IF efforts showed variability in IPV screening rates across sites. The follow-up study presented here used a Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) approach to examine the multilevel factors impacting IPV screening program implementation across sites with varying levels of implementation success.MethodsThis mixed methods study is part of a larger cluster randomized stepped wedge Hybrid-II program evaluation. In the larger trial, participating sites received 6 months of IF consisting of an external facilitator from VHA’s Office of Women’s Health working closely with an internal facilitator and key site personnel. Recognizing the heterogeneity in implementation outcomes across sites, the MMCS approach was used to enable interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data within and across sites to help contextualize the primary findings from the larger study. Qualitative data collection was guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and included interviews with key informants involved in IPV screening implementation at eight sites. Quantitative data on IPV screening uptake was derived from medical records and surveys completed by key personnel at the same eight sites to understand implementation facilitation activities.ResultsFifteen factors influencing IPV screening implementation spanning all four i-PARIHS domains were identified and categorized into three distinct categories: (1) factors with enabling influence across all sites, (2) factors deemed important to implementation success, and (3) factors differentiating sites with high/medium versus low implementation success.ConclusionsUnderstanding the influencing factors across multi-level domains contributing to variable success of IPV screening implementation can inform the tailoring of IF efforts to promote spread and quality of screening. Implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care with IF should consider consistent engagement of internal facilitators with clinic staff involved in implementation, the resourcefulness of external facilitators, and appending resources to IPV screening tools to help key personnel address positive screens.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106193. Registered on September 26, 2019.

A qualitative study of primary care clinician’s approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that cervical cancer screening end in average-risk patients with a cervix at 65 years of age if adequate screening measures have been met, defined as having 1) at least three normal consecutive cytology (Pap) tests, or 2) two normal cytology tests and/or two negative high-risk human papillomavirus tests between ages 55–65; the last test should be performed within the prior 5 years. Up to 60 % of all women aged 65 years and older who are ending screening do not meet the criteria for adequate screening. The objective of this study was to understand the process and approach that healthcare clinicians use to determine eligibility to end cervical cancer screening. In 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews in San Francisco, CA with twelve healthcare clinicians: two family medicine physicians, three general internal medicine physicians, two obstetrician/gynecologists and five nurse practitioners. Thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive coding, was utilized. Three major themes emerged: following guidelines, relying on self-reported data regarding prior screening, and considering sexual activity as a factor in the decision to end screening. All interviewees endorsed following the USPSTF guidelines and they utilized self-report to determine eligibility to end screening. Clinicians’ approach was dependent in part on their judgement about the reliability of the patient to convey their screening history. Sexual activity of the patient was considered when making clinical recommendations. Shared decision-making was often utilized. Clinicians voiced a strong reliance on self-reported screening history to end cervical cancer screening.

Cost effective quality improvement initiative in lung cancer screening: A single institutional pilot program.

458 Background: US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for individuals aged 50-80 years with ≥20 pack-year smoking history. Nevertheless, only 4%-13% of eligible individuals are screened nationally. Lung cancer mortality is higher in the South where low socioeconomic status and racial minorities predominate and the screening rate in Alabama is between 4.7% - 7.7%. Thomas Hospital belongs to this catchment area and the goal of our study was to improve LCS with LDCT by embarking on a quality improvement initiative which was commenced as a pilot program for a larger healthcare system (&gt;5 large outpatient clinics with over 12,000 visits/month). Methods: Data were obtained retrospectively by reviewing the electronic medical records of eligible patients for LCS from 01/22 to 01/23 who visited the Thomas Hospital Internal Medicine Residency Clinic (pilot study site). A multidisciplinary team was created involving Thoracic oncologists, radiologists, Thoracic surgeons, resident physicians, and PCPs to identify barriers to LCS and discuss methods on how to improve LCS. We identified areas to be improved on and utilized performance improvement tools such as a Pareto chart and a PICK chart. Data was then collected prospectively. Results: In the initial 12-month period, only 6.95% (total n=185) of patients who qualified for LCS had LDCT done for LCS. The major barriers to screening were poor smoking history documentation, lack of proper identification of screening candidates, lack of awareness of screening guidelines, infrequent follow-up, discrepancies in smoking history within the EMR, and lack of a consistent system for LDCT referral. We identified 4 main initiatives which were introduced monthly, one at a time. The interventions include Educational services/Awareness campaigns on LCS, Distribution of current LCS guidelines in the clinic rooms/offices, Patient self-reported questionnaire on smoking history, and Implementation of an EPIC flag tool for LCS. We reviewed our performance after the interventions and the total LCS after 4 interventions included 48 (47%) patients compared to 102 patients who fit the screening criteria. 5 patients had LDCT ordered but yet to be completed and 6 patients had findings that needed immediate evaluation and received appropriate referrals. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening remains suboptimal in the United States, especially in the southern region. With our approach, the screening rates have increased exponentially only within a few months compared to the previous year and this model is to be adopted by other clinics affiliated with the umbrella health system. LDCT does carry certain risks including false positive results and unnecessary biopsies; hence shared decision-making is needed before ordering the test.

Absolute lung cancer risk increases among individuals with >15 quit-years: Analyses to inform the update of the American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.

This report quantifies counteracting effects of quit-years and concomitant aging on lung cancer risk, especially on exceeding 15 quit-years, when the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends curtailing lung-cancer screening. Cox models were fitted to estimate absolute lung cancer risk among Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants who ever smoked. Absolute lung cancer risk and gainable years of life from screening for individuals aged 50 to 80 in the US-representative National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2015-2018 who ever smoked were projected. Relaxing USPSTF recommendations to 20/25/30 quit-years versus augmenting USPSTF criteria with individuals whose estimated gain in life expectancy from screening exceeded 16.2days according to the Life Years From Screening-CT (LYFS-CT) prediction model was compared. Absolute lung cancer risk increased by 8.7%/year (95% CI, 7.7%-9.7%; p<.001) as individuals aged beyond 15 quit-years in the PLCO, with similar results in NHIS and NLST. For example, mean 5-year lung cancer risk for those aged 65 years with 15 quit-years=1.47% (95% CI, 1.35%-1.59%) versus 1.76% (95% CI, 1.62%-1.90%) for those aged 70 years with 20 quit-years in the PLCO. Removing the quit-year criterion would make 4.9 million more people eligible and increase the proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented (sensitivity) from 63.7% to 74.2%. Alternatively, augmentation using LYFS-CT would make 1.7million more people eligible while increasing the lung cancer death sensitivity to 74.0%. Because of aging, absolute lung cancer risk increases beyond 15 quit-years, which does not support exemption from screening or curtailing screening once it has been initiated. Compared with relaxing the USPSTF quit-year criterion, augmentation using LYFS-CT could prevent most of the deaths at substantially superior efficiency, while also preventing deaths among individuals who currently smoke with low intensity or long duration.

Up-to-Date Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Use in the United States, 2021.

We examined national estimates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use and compared them with Healthy People 2030 national targets. Test use in 2021 was compared with prepandemic estimates. In 2022, we used 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to estimate proportions of adults up to date with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast (women aged 50-74 y), cervical (women aged 21-65 y), and CRC screening (adults aged 50-75 y) across sociodemographic and health care access variables. We compared age-standardized estimates from the 2021 and 2019 NHIS. Percentages of adults up to date in 2021 were 75.7% (95% CI, 74.4%-76.9%), 75.2% (95% CI, 73.9%-76.4%), and 72.2% (95% CI, 71.2%-73.2%) for breast, cervical, and CRC screening, respectively. Estimates were below 50% among those without a wellness check in 3 years (all screening types), among those without a usual source of care or insurance (aged <65 y) (breast and CRC screening), and among those residing in the US for less than 10 years (CRC screening). Percentages of adults who were up to date with breast and cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy were similar in 2019 and 2021. Fecal occult blood/fecal immunochemical test (FOBT/FIT) use was modestly higher in 2021 (P < .001). In 2021, approximately 1 in 4 adults of screening age were not up to date with breast, cervical, and CRC screening recommendations, and Healthy People 2030 national targets were not met. Disparities existed across several characteristics, particularly those related to health care access. Breast, cervical, and colonoscopy test use within recommended screening intervals approximated prepandemic levels. FOBT/FIT estimates were modestly higher in 2021.

Clinical stage and grade migration of localized prostate cancer at diagnosis during the past decade

ObjectivesEarly 2010s data suggest a reverse stage and grade migration towards more aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) at diagnosis, accelerated by the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against PSA screening. Using the National Cancer Database, we investigated the impact of the 2018 USPSTF recommendation and the COVID-19 outbreak on this shift. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 outbreak would further contribute to a stage and grade migration towards more aggressive disease. Material and methodsWe identified men with localized PCa diagnosed between 2010 and 2020. We analyzed the shift in the proportion of PCa stratified according to D'Amico risk classification. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between year of diagnosis and dichotomous variables related to clinical stage and grade of PCa. Predicted probabilities with 95% CI were computed through marginal effect analyses. ResultsWe identified 910,898 men with localized PCa. The proportion of low-risk PCa almost halved from 34.9% in 2010 to 17.7% in 2020 (P < 0.001). Compared to 2010, we found in each year increased odds of: PSA≥10 ng/dL starting from 2012 (aOR2012 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02–1.08); cT3–T4 starting from 2015 (aOR2015 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17); ISUP GG 3–5 starting from 2011 (aOR2011 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03–1.08); and consequently, D'Amico intermediate/high-risk class starting from 2011 (aOR2011 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05). Fluctuations in the probabilities of PSA≥10 ng/dL and cT3–T4 at diagnosis were observed over time (all P < 0.001). The probability of PSA≥10 ng/dL peaked at 29.0% (95% CI, 28.0%–29.0%) in 2018, while the probability of cT3–T4 peaked at 3.7% (95% CI, 3.6%–3.8%) in 2020. All other outcome variables demonstrated a consistent upward shift (all P < 0.001), with the highest probabilities in 2020 for ISUP GG 3–5 (42.3%, 95% CI, 41.9%–42.6%) and D'Amico intermediate/high-risk (81.3%, 95% CI, 81.0%–81.6%). ConclusionsOur study confirms an enduring shift towards a higher proportion of aggressive PCa at diagnosis, likely influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the 2018 USPSTF PCa screening recommendation on the proportion of aggressive PCa seems restricted and likely affected by the pandemic outbreak. Future investigations should evaluate the long-term effects of the 2018 USPSTF recommendations in the postpandemic setting.

Factors associated with adherence to medications for lowering breast cancer risk between female Medicare beneficiaries in Alabama and nationwide.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends use of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer (BC) prevention. We examined factors associated with adherence to SERMs/AI treatments among female Medicare beneficiaries in Alabama and those nationwide. This retrospective new user cohort study analyzed the 2013-2016 Medicare administrative claims data files (100% Alabama and random 5% national samples). Female Medicare beneficiaries without invasive BC and osteoporosis, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D for at least 18months (with a 6-month washout and a 12-month follow-up period) in 2013-2016. Among beneficiaries who initiated (6-month washout) any of the SERMs/AIs (tamoxifen, raloxifene, anastrozole, and exemestane), we examined their 1-year treatment adherence using proportion of days covered (PDC) and operationalized as both continuous (0-1) and dichotomized (≥ 80% as adherent and < 80% as non-adherent) outcomes. Multivariable logistic models were used to identify factors associated with adherence (PDC ≥ 80%) among Alabama and national samples, respectively. A total of 885 women in Alabama and 1,213 women in national sample initiated these SERMs/AI treatments. Among those with ≥ 2 prescriptions (n = 479 in Alabama and n = 870 in national sample), Mean PDC was 0.74 [standard deviation (SD) = 0.30] among Alabamian women, similar to those in the national sample [0.71 (SD = 0.31), p = 0.09]. Use of mammography prior to treatment initiation was associated with higher likelihood of adherence to treatments in both samples. Our findings highlight the importance of access to preventive services such as mammography to better adherence to BC preventive treatments among female Medicare beneficiaries.

Personalization matters: the effect of sex in multivitamin-multimineral-based cancer prevention

The prevention of non-communicable diseases like cancer contributes to healthy aging. Dietary supplements might support such prevention; their effect likely depends on the personal characteristics of the individuals receiving them. To evaluate the influence of sex on reducing cancer incidence with multivitamin-multimineral (MVM) supplementation, sex-specific results of the efficacy of MVM supplementation for cancer prevention were collected and meta-analyzed (using fixed effect (FE) and random effect (RE) models). Three trials included in the “US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Report regarding Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer” were used, namely, COSMOS, SU.VI.MAX, and PHS2. A total of 28,558 men and 20,542 women were included. Multivitamin-multimineral supplementation significantly reduced cancer incidence in the entire population (HR 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88–0.99], FE and RE); sex-specific meta-analysis showed beneficial effects of supplementation in men (HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85–0.97] (FE)/0.88 [95% CI, 0.77–1.01] (RE)); however, there was no effect in women (HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.88–1.14], FR and RE); (Pdifference = 0.17). Sex could influence the effect of MVM supplementation in reducing cancer incidence, with supplementation being effective only in male individuals. These results might be informative for future research and public health policy makers.