States Preventive Services Task Force Research Articles

Use of corticosteroids for adult chronic pain interventions: sympathetic and peripheral nerve blocks, trigger point injections - guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, and the North American Spine Society

BackgroundThere is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses...

Agile implementation of alcohol screening in primary care

BackgroundDespite the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to screen adults for unhealthy alcohol use, the implementation of alcohol screening in primary care remains suboptimal.MethodsA pre and post-implementation study design that used Agile implementation process to increase screening for unhealthy alcohol use in adult patients from October 2021 to June 2022 at a large primary care clinic serving minority and underprivileged adults in Indianapolis.ResultsIn comparison to a baseline screening rate of 0%, the agile implementation process increased and sustained screening rates above 80% for alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption tool (AUDIT-C).ConclusionsUsing the agile implementation process, we were able to successfully implement evidence-based recommendations to screen for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care.

Characteristics associated with early vs. late adoption of lung cancer screening

BackgroundAlthough lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, uptake overall remains low. With all cancer screening modalities, a period of diffusion among medical providers and the public is expected, with screening uptake exhibiting a distribution among early vs. late adoption. We aimed to characterize individuals undergoing LCS based upon the timeframe of screening adoption. MethodsThis retrospective study examined patients who underwent LCS between January 2015 – December 2022 in a centralized LCS program. Based on United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for LCS, early and late adopters of LCS – defined by time from eligibility to screening completion – were compared. A multivariable regression model was constructed to identify factors associated with early adoption of LCS. ResultsAmong patients screened during the study period, 90.4% were eligible based on USPSTF 2013 criteria, and 9.6% were eligible based on USPSTF 2021 criteria. Of the USPSTF 2013 eligible persons, multivariable analysis demonstrated Black/African-American individuals and current smokers had significantly greater odds of early adoption (aOR 1.428 and 1.514, respectively). Those without a family history of lung cancer or without a personal history of cancer had significantly lower odds of early adoption of LCS. ConclusionsEarly adopters were more likely to report Black/African-American race or current smoking status after adjustment for covariates. Future research should examine how screening diffuses across the overall LCS-eligible population, as well as identify factors that drive and inhibit diffusion to create programs and policies with the ultimate goal of increasing timely LCS uptake.

Evidence From the USPSTF and New Approaches to Evaluate Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has considered the topic of prevention of child maltreatment multiple times over its nearly 40-year history, each time reaching the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against interventions aimed at preventing this important health problem with significant negative sequelae before it occurs. In the most recent evidence review, which was conducted from August 2021 to November 2023 and published in March 2024, the USPSTF considered contextual questions on the evidence for bias in reporting and diagnosis of maltreatment in addition to key questions regarding effectiveness of interventions to prevent child maltreatment. A comprehensive literature review found evidence of inaccuracies in risk assessment and racial and ethnic bias in the reporting of child maltreatment and in the evaluation of injuries concerning for maltreatment, such as skull fractures. When children are incorrectly identified as being maltreated, harms, such as unnecessary family separation, may occur. Conversely, when children who are being maltreated are missed, harms, such as ongoing injury to the child, continue. Interventions focusing primarily on preventing child maltreatment did not demonstrate consistent benefit or information was insufficient. Additionally, the interventions may expose children to the risk of harm as a result of these inaccuracies and biases in reporting and evaluation. These inaccuracies and biases also complicate assessment of the evidence for making clinical prevention guidelines. There are several potential strategies for consideration in future efforts to evaluate interventions aimed at the prevention of child maltreatment while minimizing the risk of exposing children to known biases in reporting and diagnosis. Promising strategies to explore might include a broader array of outcome measures for addressing child well-being, using population-level metrics for child maltreatment, and assessments of policy-level interventions aimed at improving child and family well-being. These future considerations for research in addressing child maltreatment complement the USPSTF's research considerations on this topic. Both can serve as guides to researchers seeking to study the ways in which we can help all children thrive.

Plain language summary and patient perspective of the 2020 lung cancer screening recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

This summary describes the research carried out by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF for short) during a review and update of their lung cancer screening recommendations made in 2013. The USPSTF reviewed the results of clinical studies that used a type of scan called low dose computed tomography (LDCT for short). They wanted to see how successful LDCT was at finding lung cancers in people ho hadn't shown any physical signs of lung cancer, but had a history of smoking and were over 50years of age. The review found that performing yearly LDCT scans in people who are at high risk of developing lung cancer is beneficial, as it means that some patients will be diagnosed earlier than they would be without this type of screening. People considered to be at high risk of developing lung cancer include: Adults aged 50 to 80years who have smoked a pack of 20 cigarettes per day for 20years or two packs per day for 10years; OR Adults aged 50 to 80years who currently smoke or have stopped smoking within the last 15years. The information gained from reviewing the research enabled the USPSTF to update their lung cancer screening recommendations.

Perspectives on clinical adoption barriers to blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests across stakeholders.

e13574 Background: Current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations include routine screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer; however, two out of every three cancer cases occur in other indications leading to diagnosis in advanced stages of the disease and higher likelihood of mortality. Current recommended cancer screening and early detection tests also face several hurdles hindering equitable access in a real-world setting. Blood-based MCED tests can impact cancer screening and early detection by monitoring for multiple different cancer types at once via a blood draw that can detect cancers in multiple indications, including indications where screening is not performed routinely today. Given their nascency, the role of blood-based MCED tests in clinical practice is currently undefined. To help facilitate the appropriate integration of MCED tests into patient care, it is important to understand the perspectives of stakeholders on the anticipated challenges to implementation. Methods: We conducted three separate double-blinded surveys in July 2023 of representative cohorts of U.S. Healthcare providers (HCPs) (n=238) that are or act as primary care providers (general practitioners and obstetrics and gynecologists (OB-GYNs)), payers (n=40), and patients (n=116), to evaluate the current cancer screening and early detection landscape and gather perspectives on barriers to implementation of new cancer screening technologies, including blood-based MCED tests. Results: Of the surveyed HCPs and payers, >90% and 100% respectively reported to be aware of MCED tests. However, <10% of HCPs reported having ordered an MCED test and 80% of payers had not yet evaluated an MCED test for coverage under their plan at the time of the survey. The survey results indicated that there is broad agreement on the value proposition that blood-based MCED tests would improve patient outcomes with earlier intervention. Despite this recognition, the survey highlighted that there is limited use today due to the perceived lack of clinical accuracy and utility data, high out-of-pocket patient costs, and lack of payer coverage. Conclusions: To overcome the hurdles for future widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests, increased investment in data generation, education, and implementation of logistical support for HCPs will be critical. Initiatives include collaborations between stakeholders to generate near-term clinical utility data, equipping HCPs with the ability to educate patients on test accuracy, and seamlessly integrating the testing process into the patient visit workflow. The findings of this study can help build understanding of the anticipated barriers and inform strategies to alleviate them and build a foundation for clinical adoption of blood-based MCED tests.

Perspectives on Clinical Adoption Barriers to Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests across Stakeholders.

Current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations include routine screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer; however, two out of every three cancer cases occur in other indications, leading to diagnoses in advanced stages of the disease and a higher likelihood of mortality. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can impact cancer screening and early detection by monitoring for multiple different cancer types at once, including indications where screening is not performed routinely today. We conducted a survey amongst healthcare providers (HCPs), payers, and patients within the U.S. health system to understand the current utilization of cancer screening tests and the anticipated barriers to widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests. The results indicated that the community favors the adoption of blood-based MCED tests and that there is broad agreement on the value proposition. Despite this recognition, the survey highlighted that there is limited use today due to the perceived lack of clinical accuracy and utility data, high out-of-pocket patient costs, and lack of payer coverage. To overcome the hurdles for future widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests, increased investment in data generation, education, and implementation of logistical support for HCPs will be critical.

E-cigarette use and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility.

10531 Background: Electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) have become frequently used as a smoking cessation tool. Emerging research has shown that e-cigarettes have similar carcinogenic effects as combustible cigarettes. While current lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines primarily rely on individuals’ smoking history, it's becoming increasingly important to understand the prevalence of e-cigarette use among individuals, especially in the context of their LCS eligibility. Methods: Individuals aged 40-80 years were extracted from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Eligibility was defined using the 2021 USPSTF LCS criteria, i.e., aged 50-80 years who ever smoked, with at least a 20-pack-year smoking history, currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. We compared the prevalence of current and ever e-cigarette use among LCS-eligible and non-eligible populations, overall and by smoking (combustible cigarettes) status using chi-square tests. All analyses were weighted. The significance level was set at a 2-sided p-value of <0.05. Results: Among the 208,317 individuals included, 9.9% were eligible for LCS. Overall, 3.8% and 22.1% reported current and ever cigarette use, respectively. Fewer LCS-ineligible individuals reported currently using e-cigarettes than their LCS-eligible counterparts (Table). Among former combustible cigarette users, LCS-ineligible individuals were less likely to be current e-cigarette user than LCS-eligible individuals. However, among current combustible cigarette users, LCS-ineligible individuals were more likely to be current e-cigarettes users than LCS-eligible individuals. When examining the prevalence of ever e-cigarette use, similar findings were observed. Conclusions: Our study reveals a significant prevalence of e-cigarette usage among older adults (aged 40-80), with 1 in 5 individuals reporting ever having used e-cigarettes. Moreover, current cigarette users who were ineligible for LCS were more likely to use e-cigarette than their LCS-eligible counterparts. Future epidemiological studies are warranted to assess the risk of e-cigarette use (including intensity, duration and interactions with combustible cigarettes) and lung cancer risks. E-cigarette use may need to be considered in formulating future LCS guidelines. [Table: see text]

Lung cancer screening among women Veterans within the Veterans’ Health Administration.

10537 Background: Despite advancements in survival rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in the United States (US). In response to this challenge, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued updated guidelines in 2021 to broaden the pool of eligible candidates for lung cancer screening (LCS). Pioneering initiatives, such as the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project (LCSDP) launched by the Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2012, have played a pivotal role in evaluating the feasibility of implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) at eight Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMC). Subsequently, the program has undergone substantial expansion. Projections within the veteran community indicate a notable increase in the proportion of women veterans, from 11% in 2023 to an anticipated 18% in 2048. However, scant information is currently available regarding the lung cancer screening patterns within this expanding demographic. Methods: Women veterans ages 55 -80, current or former smokers from 2015- 2021 were identified through the VA corporate data warehouse (CDW). ICD 9/10 codes were used to identify women veterans with a lung cancer diagnosis. Diagnoses were verified via chart review. Data were analyzed using R Studio software. Results: Of the women veterans identified (n=44,342), 10,623 received LCS (24%) and 942 (2%) had a primary diagnosis of lung cancer. In the cohort of 942 women diagnosed, 286 (30%) had received lung cancer. Women veterans diagnosed with lung cancer tended to be aged >65 (55%), white (72%), single (72%), unemployed (71%), and urban dwelling (70%) within the southeastern US (35%). Compared to women veterans who did not receive LCS, those who did had higher rates of localized disease (47% vs 34%) and lower rates of metastatic disease (12% vs 19%). Factors associated with higher rates of LCS included mammography (60% vs 49%), a family history of lung cancer (4% vs 2%) and living in the southeastern US (46% vs 35%). It is to be noted that 23% of the women veterans who were screened lived in rural areas and 18.53% identified as black. 98.9% of the women had reported current or former tobacco use but the data on pack year history was missing in 87.6% of charts. Conclusions: While further progress can be made, it is notable that 24% of women veterans received LCS, surpassing national averages. This discrepancy underscores the potential to advance efforts in establishing a comprehensive and structured lung cancer screening initiative, thereby facilitating the equitable inclusion of historically marginalized groups, particularly minorities and rural populations. The findings emphasize the imperative to overcome existing impediments to nationwide enrollment and retention in LCS. Lastly, the study underscores the necessity for increased resource allocation towards tobacco cessation initiatives as an integral component of the broader expansion strategy.

LDCT lung cancer screening implementation in a Veterans Affairs hospital: A quality initiative.

e23238 Background: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) with Low Dose Computerized Tomography (LDCT) for adults who are current smokers aged 50 to 80 years with at least 20 pack year smoking history or have quit smoking within the past 15 years. Although LCS is a national initiative for Veteran Affairs (VA) Hospitals, there are several barriers in practice. Methods: The LCS program was established with a dedicated coordinator to provide better access to high-quality in-house screening, while reducing the dependance on expensive community care services and referrals. Smoking history in Tobacco Pack Years (TPY) is updated during a Primary Care Physician (PCP) visit, which triggers a clinical reminder in the electronic medical record for LCS. The LCS coordinator would then receive a consult. After shared decision-making with the patient, physician and coordinator, the patients are scheduled for LDCT. If the results are Lung-RADS 1 (negative), 2 or 3 (benign appearing nodules) the patients are notified of the findings and provided with subsequent follow ups. All Lung RADS 4 (suspicious findings) are discussed in the lung tumor board, which includes radiologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, pathologist, cardio-thoracic surgeon, and fellows in training. The committee determines the follow-up scan interval and/or additional investigations. Results: The performance of our LCS Program from June 2022 to January 2024 was reviewed. 5941 patients were assessed for TPY, of those 1127 patients were eligible for LCS scans and 1032 (93.3%) were enrolled into the LCS Program. 951 LDCT scans have been conducted thus far, this includes 598 annual initial screenings, the remaining are follow ups. 57 patients (6.81%) had Lung-RADS 3 findings and are undergoing nodule tracking. 16 patients (1.91%) required diagnostic work-up which includes a PET scan or biopsy. 14 patients (1.67%) have been diagnosed with cancer. Conclusions: Our LDCT Program showed a high acceptance rate of 93.3%, much of which can be attributed to the multiple layers of screening and shared decision-making processes. Patients received three phone calls and a letter as a reminder of their LDCT appointments. Our radiology department has four dedicated slots for LDCT screening each day which allows for further compliance. TPY documentation was identified as a limiting factor in this process. The LCS coordinator verified the TPY history with the patients which helped overcome this shortcoming. Overall a multidisciplinary team approach contributed to the success of our program.

Prostate cancer screening in Switzerland: a literature review and consensus statement from the Swiss Society of Urology.

Over a decade ago, the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer in all men, which considerably influenced prostate cancer screening policies worldwide after that. Consequently, the world has seen increasing numbers of advanced stages and prostate cancer deaths, which later led the USPSTF to withdraw its initial statement. Meanwhile, the European Union has elaborated a directive to address the problem of implementing prostate cancer screening in "Europe's Beating Cancer Plan". In Switzerland, concerned urologists formed an open Swiss Prostate Cancer Screening Group to improve the early detection of prostate cancer. On the 20thof September 2023, during the annual general assembly of the Swiss Society of Urology (SGU/SSU) in Lausanne, members positively voted for a stepwise approach to evaluate the feasibility of implementing organised prostate cancer screening programs in Switzerland. The following article will summarise the events and scientific advances in the last decade during which evidence and promising additional modalities to complement PSA-based prostate cancer screening have emerged. It also aims to provide an overview of contemporary strategies and their potential harms and benefits.

Folic Acid Supplementation to Prevent Neural Tube Defects Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

(JAMA. 2023;330(5):460–466) Neural tube defects are among the most commonly recorded birth defects for babies in the United States, and they are typically caused by low folate concentrations during conception and early gestation. These malformations can cause disabilities and even death in fetuses and children. In 2017, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) determined that women who increase their intake of folic acid before becoming pregnant can significantly help reduce the likelihood of their babies developing neural tube defects. The USPSTF also asserted their 2009 recommendation that patients should take 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 μg) of folic acid daily if they were planning or capable of pregnancy, and that there was no consistent strong evidence of harmful adverse effects. This evidence report was conducted to analyze studies post-2017 for the USPSTF’s current recommendation on folic acid supplementation.

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.

Quality of Blood Pressure Monitoring During Telehealth Visits for Pregnant Patients at Risk of Preeclampsia.

Introduction: Preeclampsia is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The United States Preventative Services Task Force released 2023 recommendations encouraging more research on telehealth's role in facilitating blood pressure monitoring for patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. This study evaluates the integration of self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) into telehealth obstetric visits during the COVID-19 pandemic for pregnant patients at risk of preeclampsia. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with one or more preeclampsia risk factors who delivered at a tertiary hospital from January to March 2021. Information pertaining to patients' number of antepartum, postpartum, and telehealth visits, blood pressure cuff access, and documentation of SMBP readings was recorded. Analyses were conducted in RStudio version 2022.12.0 + 353 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Results: Of 721 eligible patients, 244 (33.8%) had 2 or more ante- or postpartum telehealth visits. Of these 244 patients, 142 (58.2%) had chart documentation of owning a home blood pressure cuff. Only 106 (43.4%) had 1 or more SMBP documented in their telehealth visit notes, and they were more likely to have received care at federally qualified health centers than maternal fetal medicine clinics (p = 0.018) or private clinics (p < 0.001). Charts revealed no explanation for lack of blood pressure documentation during telehealth visits for most cases (n = 129, 93.5%). Conclusions: Opportunities exist to standardize blood pressure recording and documentation during telehealth visits, especially for patients with risk factors for preeclampsia, and to advocate for greater access to home blood pressure cuffs for all pregnant patients.

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.

Abstract PO3-19-03: Addressing USPSTF 2023 Identified Key Gaps in Knowledge in Breast Cancer Screening through TMIST (ECOG-ACRIN EA1151) or its Ancillary Studies

Abstract Background The United States Preventative Services Task Force in their 2023 recommendations identified areas where more research data is needed to inform future breast cancer screening recommendations. Research areas identified are: improve clinicians and patients understanding and evaluation of dense breast tissue on a screening mammogram, benefits and harms of supplemental screening using ultrasound or MRI for women with dense breasts, health outcomes such as rates of breast cancer diagnosis requiring treatment, rates of advanced breast cancers diagnosed across consecutive screening rounds, and breast cancer-associated morbidity and mortality, causes of increased risk of breast cancer mortality in black women across spectrum of stages and biomarker patterns, understand why black women are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancers that have biomarker patterns that are indicative of poor health outcomes, assess benefits/harms differences between annual and biennial screening for breast cancer in women overall and if there are differences between black and white women, approaches to reduce the risk of overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment of breast lesions found at screening that may not cause morbidity and mortality, natural history of DCIS, and identify prognostic indicators of breast tumors that are unlikely to affect quality or length of life. Methods The ongoing TMIST study, currently with 88,801 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography ages 45-74 enrolled out of 128,905, could contribute to scientific evidence to support the above research areas through existing study aims and planned ancillary studies. Supplemental Screening with US and MRI: TMIST PreSCRIB will utilize Machine Learning applied to TMIST and All of Us data, including genetics, mammograms, social determinates of health and other data to recommend individualized screening strategies for women. DxMRI is a study where women will get AbMRI at time of Dx work-up. There are plans to use these examinations plus supplemental screening MRIs performed on TMIST subjects in an enriched reader study to evaluate the role of supplemental screening MRI in moderate risk women. Rates of breast cancer treatment, consecutive screening, morbidity, and mortality: TMIST’s primary outcome is the proportion of women experiencing an advanced breast cancer and needing treatment. TMIST is also collecting information on health care utilization following a cancer diagnosis, including types of treatment given, and costs data from the screening and diagnostic work-up visits, and mortality data for study participants. Increased risk of breast cancer mortality in black women: TMIST is performing PAM50 plus p53 status, immune profile, DNA repair phenotype, and 21-gene recurrence assay on all breast cancers and a subset of benign tissue. Blood and buccal smears might also help address this issue. Ongoing work, funded by the Susan B. Komen Foundation, focuses on improving Black participation in TMIST Biorepository (currently about 45% participation of the 21% of TMIST US black subjects). Surveys are planned on perceived racism and social determinates of health as part of DxMRI Study. Screening Frequency: We are developing a collaboration with the UK-based clinical trial PROSPECTS to compare rates of all cancers and advanced cancers for annual, biennial, and 3-year screening. Overdiagnosis, natural history of DCIS, prognostic indicators of breast tumors not impacting quality of life: PRoGram- will use radiomics, genomics and pathomics to develop a greater understanding of the variability of the non-advanced cancers diagnosed in the TMIST population, including DCIS. It is hoped that this model will provide greater understanding of the risk of poor outcomes for women diagnosed with lower risk cancers, including DCIS. Citation Format: Etta Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Mitchell Schnall, Melissa Troester, Elodia Cole, Jean Cormack, Ilana Gareen, Martin Yaffe, Laura Collins, Amarinthia Curtis, Ruth Carlos, Kathy Miller, Christopher Comstock. Addressing USPSTF 2023 Identified Key Gaps in Knowledge in Breast Cancer Screening through TMIST (ECOG-ACRIN EA1151) or its Ancillary Studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-19-03.

Assessing the Performance of ChatGPT in Correctly Evaluating Preventive Screening Clinical Vignettes Commonly Seen in Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice [ID 2683617

INTRODUCTION: Preventive screening is vital in obstetrics and gynecology practice, where the accurate assessment of clinical vignettes is pivotal for delivering optimal care. This research delves into ChatGPT’s performance, an advanced language model, in evaluating common obstetrics and gynecology preventive screening scenarios. METHODS: We compiled a diverse dataset of obstetrics and gynecology clinical vignettes, covering areas like cervical and breast cancer screening, sexually transmitted infection testing, and prenatal care. Using 20 vignettes initially generated by ChatGPT and enriched with specific details, we rigorously assessed ChatGPT’s responses for clinical accuracy and relevance. Our evaluation was guided by quantitative metrics, aligning ChatGPT’s performance with recognized guidelines such as United States Preventive Services Task Force, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and more. RESULTS: ChatGPT displayed promise in comprehending obstetrics and gynecology clinical information. Out of 20 vignettes, only 2 (10%) fell short of evaluating the clinical vignette adequately. Among the remaining 18 vignettes, an impressive 15 (83%) adhered to the latest clinical guidelines, whereas 3 (17%) evaluations proved inaccurate. Notably, in 19 out of 20 vignettes (95%), ChatGPT deferred to the provider’s clinical judgment. CONCLUSION: This study underscores ChatGPT’s potential to assist obstetrics and gynecology practitioners in preventive screening decision-making. While promising, ChatGPT should complement, not replace, human expertise. Limitations include a focus on quantitative metrics; future research should delve into qualitative aspects of ChatGPT’s performance. Integrating ChatGPT into obstetrics and gynecology practice could enhance preventive screening quality and efficiency, potentially improving women’s health care outcomes. This research contributes to the broader discourse on AI integration in health care, particularly in women’s preventive health care, paving the way for further AI-driven solutions.

Are We Screening the Wrong Person?: A Scoping Review on Screening Men for Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence [ID 2683612

INTRODUCTION: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently does not recommend screening men for perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) because of a lack of evidence. Screening women for victimization of IPV has demonstrated limited effectiveness; screening potential perpetrators may be a more useful strategy for the identification and prevention of IPV. The objective of this study is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to recommend screening men for perpetration of IPV. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify studies that screen for male perpetration of IPV. We included peer-reviewed, full-text English-language studies that screened men for perpetration of IPV or evaluated an IPV screening tool. Review articles, meta-analysis papers, and studies that only screened women were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 834 studies reviewed, the primary objective of 12.1% of studies was determining the prevalence of male perpetration of IPV. The most commonly used screening tools for IPV were the Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS) (23.1%) or CTS-2 (29.0%). The 10th to 90th percentile of reported physical IPV perpetration ranged from 8.10% to 44.40% with a median of 21.80%. CONCLUSION: There is an abundance of studies examining male perpetration of IPV, and most use the CTS or CTS-2. These studies indicate that it is feasible to assess men for perpetration of IPV; however, the length of the available questionnaires is prohibitive toward use in a medical setting. We recommend a shorter version of the CTS-2 be developed and validated for use in clinical settings.

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.

Non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening among a representative sample of women in the United States.

Women's adherence to the United States (U.S.) Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for cervical cancer screening was determined by examining predisposing, enabling, and needs factors from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use conceptual framework. The outcome was operationalized as cervical cancer screening use, non-use, and inadequate-use. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted on data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey of 7,331 eligible women aged 21-65. Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Non-Users than those aged 21-29. Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) women were more likely to be Non-Users than White women. More educated women were less likely to be Non-Users. Foreign-born women <10 years in the U.S. were more likely to be Non-Users than U.S.-born women. Women with financial hardship were less likely to be Non-Users. Poorer women and uninsured women were more likely to be Non-Users. Women with children in their household were less likely to be Non-Users than those without children. Women who had a well-visit in the past year were less likely to be Non-Users. Women with a history of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination were less likely to be Non-Users. Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. AIAN women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women of other races were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Employed women were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Uninsured women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women who had a well-visit within a year were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women with past HPV vaccination were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Smokers were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Predisposing, enabling, and needs factors are differently associated with non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening. Understanding factors associated with the use, non-use, and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening is crucial to avoid or curb unnecessary tests, increased costs to both society and individuals, and the ill-allocation of limited resources.