U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines Research Articles

Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years. To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years. Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241). Online national U.S. survey. 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation. A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate. Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages. Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively. Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline. There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising. National Cancer Institute.

Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.

Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening. We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion. Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified (P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%. Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.

Prevalence and predictors of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters: The United States Firefighter Cancer Assessment and Prevention Study.

Although firefighters have increased risk for colon and prostate cancer, limited information exists on screening practices for these cancers in volunteer firefighters who compose two-thirds of the US fire service. We estimated the prevalence of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from 4 evidence-based screening recommendations and evaluated factors influencing screening. We evaluated colon (n = 569) and prostate (n = 498) cancer screening prevalence in a sample of US volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF), National Fire Protection Association, American Cancer Society, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. We assessed associations with fire service experience, demographics, and cancer risk perception based on USPSTF guidelines. For those eligible based on USPSTF guidelines, colon and prostate cancer screening prevalence was 51.7% (95% CI: 45.7, 57.8) and 48.8% (95% CI: 40.0, 57.6), respectively. Higher odds of colon and prostate cancer screening were observed with older age and with some college education compared to those with less education. Fire service experience and cancer risk perception were not associated with screening practices. This is the first large study to assess colon and prostate cancer screening among US volunteer firefighters based on different screening guidelines. Our findings suggest gaps in cancer prevention efforts in the US volunteer fire service. Promoting cancer screening education and opportunities for volunteer firefighters by their fire departments, healthcare professionals, and public health practitioners, may help to address the gaps.

Clinical characteristics and statin eligibility of patients under 50 with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

This study seeks to understand the clinical characteristics, risk factors, and statin eligibility of younger adults who present with STEMI. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of STEMI patients <50 years. Baseline characteristics, medical history, prior medications, drug use, lipid profiles, cardiovascular risk factors were examined. Ten-year ASCVD risk was calculated utilizing the Pooled Cohort Equations. Statin eligibility was determined according to the 2019 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AmericanHeart Association (AHA)and the 2022 USPreventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)guidelines. Six hundred and thirty-five individuals were included, the majority were men (82.4%) and white (89%), with a median age was 46.9 [42.0-48.0]. The most prevalent risk factors were current smoking (59%), hyperlipidemia (44%), and hypertension (37%). Drug use was rare (8.3%). Preventative medication use was low, aspirin was the most common (14%), followed by ACE inhibitors/ARBs (12%), statins (11%), and beta-blockers (9.1%). Mean HDL-Cwas low at 36.4 ± 12.0 mg/dL, while mean LDL was unremarkable at 112.4 ± 37.9 mg/dL. According to the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines, 45.5% were classified as statin recommended, 8.7% were classified as statin considered, and 45.8% were classified as statin not recommended. According to the 2022 USPSTF guidelines, 29% were classified as statin recommended, 12.4% were classified as statin considered, and 58.6% were classified as statin not recommended. Younger adults with STEMI exhibit high rates of tobacco use and low rates of preventative medications use. Approximately half of the cohort did not meet criteria for statin initiation.

Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines

ImportanceIt is estimated that, from 2023 to 2025, lung cancer (LC) will be the second most frequent cancer in Brazil, but the country does not have an LC screening (LCS) policy.ObjectiveTo compare the number of individuals eligible for screening, 5-year preventable LC deaths, and years of life gained (YLG) if LC death is averted by LCS, considering 3 eligibility strategies by sociodemographic characteristics.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis comparative effectiveness research study assessed 3 LCS criteria by applying a modified version of the LC-Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) and the LC-Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT). Data are from the 2019 Brazilian National Household Survey. Participants included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2023.ExposuresExposures included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years with ≥30 pack-years and &amp;amp;lt;15 years since cessation), and USPSTF 2021 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years with 20 pack-years and &amp;amp;lt;15 years since cessation).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were the numbers of individuals eligible for LCS, the 5-year preventable deaths attributable to LC, and the number of YLGs if death due to LC was averted by LCS.ResultsIn Brazil, the eligible population for LCS was 27 280 920 ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (13 387 552 female [49.1%]; 13 249 531 [48.6%] aged 50-60 years; 394 994 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 3 111 676 Black [11.4%]; 10 942 640 Pardo [40.1%]; 12 830 904 White [47.0%]; 12 428 536 [45.6%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 12 860 132 [47.1%] living in the Southeast region); 5 144 322 individuals met the USPSTF 2013 criteria for LCS (2 090 636 female [40.6%]; 2 290 219 [44.5%] aged 61-70 years; 66 430 Asian or Indigenous [1.3%]; 491 527 Black [9.6%]; 2 073 836 Pardo [40.3%]; 2 512 529 [48.8%] White; 2 436 221 [47.4%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 2 577 300 [50.1%] living in the Southeast region), and 8 380 279 individuals met the USPSTF 2021 LCS criteria (3 507 760 female [41.9%]; 4 352 740 [51.9%] aged 50-60 years; 119 925 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 839 171 Black [10.0%]; 3 330 497 Pardo [39.7%]; 4 090 687 [48.8%] White; 4 022 784 [48.0%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 4 162 070 [49.7%] living in the Southeast region). The number needed to screen to prevent 1 death was 177 individuals according to the USPSTF 2013 criteria and 242 individuals according to the USPSTF 2021 criteria. The YLG was 23 for all ever-smokers, 19 for the USPSTF 2013 criteria, and 21 for the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Being Black, having less than a high school education, and living in the North and Northeast regions were associated with increased 5-year risk of LC death.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study, USPSTF 2021 criteria were better than USPSTF 2013 in reducing disparities in LC death rates. Nonetheless, the risk of LC death remained unequal, and these results underscore the importance of identifying an appropriate approach for high-risk populations for LCS, considering the local epidemiological context.

Comparison of the European and US guidelines for lipid-lowering therapy in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Population-wide impacts of new guidelines in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) should be explored in independent cohorts. Assess and compare the lipid-lowering therapy eligibility and predictive classification performance of 2016 and 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC), 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC), and 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. Participants from the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study, without ASCVD and not taking lipid-lowering therapy at baseline. Derivation of 10-year risk for ASCVD using Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE1), SCORE2 [including SCORE2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP)], and pooled cohort equation. Computation of the number of people eligible for lipid-lowering therapy based on each guideline and assessment of discrimination and calibration metrics of the risk models using first incident ASCVD as an outcome. Among 4,092 individuals, 158 (3.9%) experienced an incident ASCVD during a median follow-up of 9 years (interquartile range, 1.1). Lipid-lowering therapy was recommended or considered in 40.2% (95% confidence interval, 38.2-42.2), 26.4% (24.6-28.2), 28.6% (26.7-30.5), and 22.6% (20.9-24.4) of women and in 62.1% (59.8-64.3), 58.7% (56.4-61.0), 52.6% (50.3-54.9), and 48.4% (46.1-50.7) of men according to the 2016 ESC, 2021 ESC, 2019 AHA/ACC, and 2022 USPSTF guidelines, respectively. 43.3 and 46.7% of women facing an incident ASCVD were not eligible for lipid-lowering therapy at baseline according to the 2021 ESC and 2022 USPSTF, compared with 21.7 and 38.3% using the 2016 ESC and 2019 AHA/ACC, respectively. Both the 2022 USPSTF and 2021 ESC guidelines particularly reduced lipid-lowering therapy eligibility in women. Nearly half of women who faced an incident ASCVD were not eligible for lipid-lowering therapy.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: What do the current USPSTF guidelines say?

The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation notes that the decision to initiate daily aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be made on a case-by-case basis for adults ages 40 to 59 with a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk. The recommendation applies to those without signs or symptoms of clinically evident CVD who are not at an increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians are encouraged to use their judgment in weighing the risks and benefits of aspirin therapy, while taking patient preference into account for patients ages 40 to 60.

MP12-20 TRENDS IN PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN SCREENING AMONG YOUNGER MEN OVER THE PAST DECADE - CLOSING OF RACIAL GAP

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP12-20 TRENDS IN PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN SCREENING AMONG YOUNGER MEN OVER THE PAST DECADE - CLOSING OF RACIAL GAP Zhiyu (Jason) Qian, Khalid Alkhatib, Xi Chen, MA Boston, Muhieddine Labban, Benjamin V. Stone, Edoardo Beatrici, Dejan K. Filipas, Hari S. Iyer, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Firas Abdollah, Adam S. Kibel, Alexander P. Cole, and Quoc-Dien Trinh Zhiyu (Jason) QianZhiyu (Jason) Qian More articles by this author , Khalid AlkhatibKhalid Alkhatib More articles by this author , Xi ChenXi Chen More articles by this author , MA BostonMA Boston More articles by this author , Muhieddine Labban Muhieddine Labban More articles by this author , Benjamin V. StoneBenjamin V. Stone More articles by this author , Edoardo BeatriciEdoardo Beatrici More articles by this author , Dejan K. FilipasDejan K. Filipas More articles by this author , Hari S. IyerHari S. Iyer More articles by this author , Stuart R. LipsitzStuart R. Lipsitz More articles by this author , Firas AbdollahFiras Abdollah More articles by this author , Adam S. KibelAdam S. Kibel More articles by this author , Alexander P. ColeAlexander P. Cole More articles by this author , and Quoc-Dien TrinhQuoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003227.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommended against routine screening for prostate cancer with Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), which were modified in 2018 into shared decision making for men aged 55-70. While high-risk populations like black men may benefit from screening at earlier ages, USPSTF guidelines have consistently recommended against routine screening in younger men (aged 40-54). We studied the trends in PSA screening in younger black and white men following implementation of 2012 and 2018 guidelines. METHODS: Younger men aged 40-54 years were identified in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database from 2012 to 2020. Our primary outcome was PSA screening within two years of the survey. Primary independent variables were race and survey year. We fit adjusted multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the associations between race, survey year, and PSA screening. Effect modification by race and year was assessed using interaction terms. Subsequent marginal effect analyses were performed to compare the rate of change in PSA screening between white and black men throughout the study period. RESULTS: A weighted total of 118,342,956 men were included. PSA screening decreased across both races from 2012 to 2020. Multivariable regression with analysis of marginal effects of interaction terms showed significantly lower odds of PSA screening among both younger white and black men in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 compared to 2012 (OR= 0.77, 95%CI [0.62,0.96], 0.51, 95%CI [0.41, 0.63], 0.33, 95%CI [0.27, 0.42], 0.25, 95%CI [0.18, 0.32] for younger black men, and OR=0.81, 95%CI [0.76, 0.87], 0.66, 95%CI [0.61, 0.71], 0.41, 95%CI [0.37, 0.44], 0.36, 95%CI [0.33, 0.39] for younger white men). Significant interaction between race and year of survey was observed (p=0.02). Younger black men showed more rapid decrease in PSA screening in year 2016, 2018, and 2020 compared to younger white men (all p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening among younger men aged 40-54 steadily decreased over the past decade since 2012 USPSTF guideline change, resulting in a narrowing of the screening gap between Black and White men. How this observed trend of rising guideline adherence translates to long-term clinical outcomes for younger black men remains to be seen. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e141 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Zhiyu (Jason) Qian More articles by this author Khalid Alkhatib More articles by this author Xi Chen More articles by this author MA Boston More articles by this author Muhieddine Labban More articles by this author Benjamin V. Stone More articles by this author Edoardo Beatrici More articles by this author Dejan K. Filipas More articles by this author Hari S. Iyer More articles by this author Stuart R. Lipsitz More articles by this author Firas Abdollah More articles by this author Adam S. Kibel More articles by this author Alexander P. Cole More articles by this author Quoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Cross-sectional review of US websites providing lung cancer screening recommendations following the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force updates

BackgroundLung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and an urgent public health priority. Early detection by low-dose CT (LDCT) screening and treatment of lung cancer has been shown to reduce mortality but uptake remains dismal, particularly among historically underserved groups. Following the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expansion of its eligibility criteria to address inequities in utilization, efforts are needed to ensure dissemination of updated health information through digital means such as websites. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate whether online websites have been updated to reflect the recent USPSTF guidelines that expanded the recommended age and smoking pack-years for lung cancer screening. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we identified websites that provide information on lung cancer screening guidelines on May 24, 2022, approximately one year after the emergence of the updated USPSTF guidelines. The websites were assessed for recommended age to begin lung cancer screening and smoking pack-year quantity. ResultsOur study found that a lag in dissemination of updated lung cancer screening information exists. Approximately 1 year after the USPSTF guidelines were updated, 17–32% of websites providing information on lung cancer screening guidelines had not been updated. ConclusionRoutine monitoring of websites that provide information on lung cancer screening can help reduce misinformation, improve uptake of lung cancer screening, and prevent delays in diagnostic evaluation which disproportionally affects traditionally underserved populations.

Black Race Remains Associated with Lower Eligibility for Screening Using 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Among Lung Cancer Patients at an Urban Safety Net Hospital

To evaluate whether the revised US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria reduced inequities in lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility among a racially diverse sample of patients with lung cancer. This is a retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with primary lung malignancies at an urban safety net hospital. For all patients and exclusively ever-smokers, χ2 tests were used to evaluate differences in LCS eligibility among socio-demographic variables using the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF criteria. Patients who were ineligible for LCS were categorized by reason for exclusion. Among 678 lung cancer patients (46% female, mean age 66 ± 10years), 51% were White, and 39% were Black. Using the 2013 guidelines, White patients (57%) would have been more likely to be eligible than Black (37%) and other-race patients (35%) (P < 0.0001) at time of cancer diagnosis. Under the 2021 guidelines, White patients (68%) remained more likely to be eligible for LCS than Black (54%) and other-race patients (48%) (P = 0.0002). Among exclusively ever-smoking patients, we did not observe a significant difference in eligibility by race under the 2021 USPSTF guidelines (White [73%], Black [65%], and other-race [65%]; [P = 0.48]). Sex, ethnicity, education level, and insurance type were not associated with differential screening eligibility under either the 2013 or 2021 guidelines. The revised 2021 USPSTF LCS guidelines may not be sufficient to eliminate racial inequities in LCS eligibility among patients who go on to be diagnosed with primary lung cancer. Differential rates of lung cancer among never-smokers may contribute to this inequity.

Predictors of Low-Value PSA Screening in Elderly Men

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advises against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer in men over 70 and identifies men aged 55 - 69 as the target screening group. The PSA test for prostate cancer is limited by its high false-positive rate and often leads to overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Together, these can expose patients to anxiety, invasive biopsies, and possible over-treatment. We evaluate the predictors of recent PSA testing in men over 70 using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> BRFSS 2020 data from PSA-related questions were analyzed, including time since last PSA test, PSA test reason, and whether a provider discussed the advantages and disadvantages of PSA screening with respondents. Men over 70 who answered PSA-related questions met our study criteria. We defined "recent testing" as having had a PSA test within the past two years. We used weighted multivariable logistic regressions with two-sided significance tests to measure effects of age, insurance status, having a primary care physician (PCP), and having discussion of PSA test risks and benefits with a provider on recent testing. Recent testing rates and percentages of men tested via routine screening vs. prostate-specific evaluations were calculated. <h3>Results</h3> Our cohort included 33,556 men. Recent PSA testing was high in men over 70. Men aged 70-75, 75-80, 80+ had testing rates of 56.3%, 53.4%, and 40.8% respectively. In a multivariable regression model, positive predictors of recent testing in men over 70 included being insured (OR = 1.202, 95% CI 1.195 - 1.21, p < 0.001), having a PCP (OR = 1.459, 95% CI 1.454 - 1.465, p < 0.001), and discussing the advantages of PSA testing with a PCP (OR = 3.507, 95% CI 3.5 - 3.515, p < 0.001). Discussing the disadvantages of PSA testing with a PCP had only a small, negative effect on recent testing in men over 70 (OR = 0.996, 95% CI 0.995 - 0.998, p < 0.001). Among men over 70 who had recent PSA tests, 73.3% reported routine testing as the main reason for their tests. We repeated our analysis with the unweighted survey data and found no significant changes in results. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Despite USPSTF guidelines, men over 70 continue to be screened with PSA at a high rate. Routine testing accounted for the majority of recent PSA tests in men over 70. Having a discussion of the benefits of PSA tests with a provider had the largest effect on recent testing in men over 70, which underscores the role of the provider in positively influencing PSA testing rates. Other related predictors of PSA testing in men over 70 included being insured and having a PCP. These findings suggest changes can be made at the provider-level to increase adherence to guidelines on age-based PSA testing.

Analysis of Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening by Race After 2021 Changes to US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Guidelines

Lung cancer incidence and mortality have disproportionate consequences for racial and ethnic minority populations. The extent to which the 2021 changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines have reduced the racial disparity gap in lung cancer screening eligibility is not known. To assess the consequences of the changes in USPSTF low-dose computed tomography eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening between 2013 and 2021 among Black and White community-dwelling adults. This cohort study analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of community-dwelling Black and White adults 45 years and older who were initially recruited across the US between January 2003 and October 2007, with ongoing follow-up. All participants who would have been potentially eligible for lung cancer screening based on the 2021 USPSTF guidelines (N = 14 285) were included. Follow-up data for the current cohort study were collected and analyzed between January 2013 and December 2017, with final analysis performed in 2021. Self-reported Black vs White race. Differences in the proportion of Black vs White participants eligible for lung cancer screening according to 2013 and 2021 guidelines were assessed using modified Poisson models with robust SEs. Associations between important covariates (demographic characteristics and social factors associated with health), including interaction and dissimilarity indices (2 measures of residential segregation), and differences in screening eligibility were also examined. Among 14 285 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [7.5] years; 7675 men [53.7%]), 5787 (40.5%) self-identified as Black and 8498 (59.5%) as White. Based on the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, 1109 of 5787 Black participants (19.2%) and 2313 of 8498 White participants (27.2%) were eligible for lung cancer screening (difference, -8.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.44 to -6.67 percentage points). Based on the 2021 guidelines, 1667 of 5787 Black participants (28.8%) and 2940 of 8498 White participants (34.6%) were eligible for screening (difference, -5.73 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.28 to -4.19 percentage points). After adjustment for differences in individual characteristics and residential segregation, the 2013 difference in screening eligibility among Black vs White participants was -12.66 percentage points (95% CI, -14.71 to -10.61 percentage points), and the 2021 difference was -12.15 percentage points (95% CI, -14.37 to -9.93 percentage points). In this study, 2021 changes to the USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines were associated with reductions in but not elimination of existing eligibility disparities in lung cancer screening among Black and White adults. These findings suggest that accounting for factors beyond age and pack-years of smoking is needed when tailoring guidelines to improve screening eligibility among groups at high risk of lung cancer.

USPSTF concludes daily aspirin may hurt more than help, especially for older adults

USPSTF concludes daily aspirin may hurt more than help, especially for older adults

72-OR: Who Is Eligible and Gets Diabetes Screening in the U.S.?

To identify prediabetes/diabetes, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended glucose testing in 40-70 year olds (2015) and now 35-70 year olds (2021) with overweight/obesity. Since 2002, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recommended prediabetes/diabetes screening based on a larger set of diabetes risk factors. We analyzed cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 6,0non-pregnant US adults aged ≥18 years without diagnosed diabetes. For USPSTF 2015 and 2021, and ADA guidelines, we described which adults were eligible and ineligible for glucose testing, and proportions reporting receiving testing. We assessed sensitivity and specificity in identifying prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 100-125mg/dL or A1c 5.7-6.4% or both) or undiagnosed diabetes (FPG≥126mg/dL or A1c≥6.5% or both) . During 2013-2018, an estimated 76.7 million, 90.4 million, and 157.7 million US adults met eligibility for glucose testing by the USPSTF 2015, 2021, and ADA guidelines, respectively. Eligibility and proportions receiving testing varied by guideline (Figure 1) . Across definitions of prediabetes/diabetes, ADA recommendations were most sensitive (range: 91.0-99.1%) and least specific (24.1-35.3%) ; 2015 (sensitivity: 51.9-59.4%; specificity: 63.2-74.5%) and 2021 USPSTF (sensitivity: 57.5-66.6%; specificity: 56.6-67.1%) guideline sensitivity and specificity were comparable. Disclosure M.K.Ali: Advisory Panel; Bayer AG, Research Support; Merck &amp; Co., Inc. G.Imperatore: None. S.R.Benoit: None. C.S.Holliday: None. M.J.O'brien: None. J.B.Echouffo tcheugui: None. K.M.Bullard: None. Funding MKA was partially supported by the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK111024)

Cotesting for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Sexually Transmitted Infections in the Emergency Department.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in patients aged 15 to 65 years, as well as those at increased risk. Patients screened in the emergency department (ED) for gonorrhea (GC) and/or chlamydia represent an increased-risk population. Our aim was to assess compliance with CDC and USPSTF guidelines for HIV testing in a national sample of EDs. We examined data from the 2010 to 2018 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, which can be used to create national estimates of ED care to query tests for GC, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis testing. Weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported, and Rao-Scott χ 2 tests were used. We identified 13,443,831 (weighted n = 3,094,214) high-risk encounters in which GC/chlamydia testing was performed. HIV screening was performed in 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4-4.3) of such visits, and syphilis testing was performed in 2.9% (95% CI, 2.7-3.2). Only 1.5% of patients with increased risk encounters received both HIV and syphilis cotesting. Despite CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HIV and syphilis screening in patients undergoing STI evaluation, only a small proportion of patients are being tested. Further studies exploring the barriers to HIV screening in patients undergoing STI assessment in the ED may help inform future projects aimed at increasing guidance compliance.

Association of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation Against Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening With Prostate Cancer–Specific Mortality

The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for all men has been controversial, with data documenting a shift to a higher stage of disease at diagnosis. The association between the Grade D recommendation and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among contemporary cohorts, however, is unclear. To evaluate PCSM rates between 1999 and 2019, comparing trends in rates before and after the change in the 2012 USPSTF screening guideline to assess its association with PCSM. The 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation against PSA screening for all men. This cross-sectional study used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics to collect data on cause of death for all individuals who died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Analysis was performed from January to August 2021. Trends in PCSM rates were calculated from 1999 to 2012 and from 2014 to 2019, with a washout year of 2013, using linear regression, with year and binary indicator of pre-2013 and post-2013 status as interaction terms. Trends were further analyzed by age, race and ethnicity, urbanization category, and US Census region. Other measures included diagnosis of localized or metastatic prostate cancer and overall cancer mortality. A total of 618 095 patients died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Age-adjusted PCSM decreased linearly at a rate of -0.273 per 100 000 population per year from 1999 to 2012 and stalled at a rate of -0.009 per 100 000 per year from 2014 to 2019 (P < .001). This finding was significant among men aged 60 years or older, especially among men aged 60 to 69 years, men aged 80 years or older, and among Black men. Men aged 60 to 64 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.0088 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0014 per 100 000 per year. Men aged 65 to 69 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.024 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0011 per 100 000 population per year. Men aged 80 years or older had the largest absolute difference between rates before and after 2013 compared with all other age groups, with a difference of 0.06 for men aged 80 to 84 years and 0.07 for men 85 aged years or older. Black men had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.700 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by a flattened rate of -0.091 per 100 000 population per year. Changes were observed across races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions and were accompanied by increased diagnoses of metastatic disease, which are inconsistent with mortality trends across all malignant neoplasms. This cross-sectional study using comprehensive PCSM data through 2019 demonstrated decreasing PCSM rates that flattened or increased after the 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation, suggesting that decreased PSA screening may be a factor associated with this change. This change was seen across ages, races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions. The updated 2018 USPSTF guideline supporting shared decision-making may reverse these trends in the coming years.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BackgroundIn 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population.MethodsIn the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases.ResultsAmong 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases.ConclusionsIn the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

Estimating Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening by Neighborhood in Philadelphia Using Previous and Current USPSTF Guidelines.

The National Lung Screening Trial established the benefits of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening (LCS) to identify lung cancer at earlier stages. In February 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised the eligibility recommendations to increase the number of high-risk individuals eligible for LCS and, in effect, expand screening eligibility for vulnerable populations. One strategy for facilitating LCS is to implement targeted screening in geographic areas with the greatest need. In Philadelphia, although neighborhood smoking rates have been defined, it is not known which neighborhoods have the greatest number of people eligible for LCS. In this study, the authors estimate eligibility for LCS within Philadelphia neighborhoods using both previous and current USPSTF guidelines. They used the Public Health Management Corporation's Household Health Survey from 2010, 2012, and 2015 to identify the number of people within ever-smoker groups (current every day, current occasional, and former smokers) by neighborhood in Philadelphia. Using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Cancer Supplement, they identified the percentages within ever-smoker groups that were LCS eligible using the previous and current USPSTF guidelines. Finally, they applied the percentages eligible for the ever-smoker groups from the NHIS to the numbers in these groups within Philadelphia neighborhoods. They found that the number of Philadelphians eligible for LCS increased from 41,946 to 89,231 after the revised USPSTF guidelines. The current USPSTF guidelines increased eligibility for LCS within all Philadelphia neighborhoods, with the greatest increases in the River Wards planning district. Local providers should use these results to prioritize LCS services within neighborhoods with greatest eligibility.

Intervention during wait time: identification and referral of individuals non-adherent for colorectal cancer screening

BackgroundDespite unanimous recommendations from numerous specialty societies on regular colorectal cancer screening, a substantial proportion of eligible adults are non-adherent with screening. The current study investigated whether research associates (RAs) in the emergency department (ED) can adequately assess patients’ adherence with colorectal cancer screening recommendations, outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and provide referrals to individuals who are found to be non-adherent.MethodsRAs at seven heterogeneous hospitals in the USA queried non-emergent adult patients and visitors between the ages of 50 and 75. After obtaining verbal consent, the participant’s adherence with USPSTF guidelines for colorectal cancer screening was assessed. Participants found due for screening were provided with referrals to obtain these recommended screenings.ResultsA total of 8258 participants were surveyed on their colorectal cancer screening status, with RAs identifying 2063 participants who were not adherent with USPSTF guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and 67 for whom adherence could not be determined (total 27%).ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that RAs can identify a large volume of eligible adults who would benefit from colorectal cancer screening across a variety of emergency department settings.

Underutilization of Guideline-based Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening in an Academic Health System

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a 1 time screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65-75 who have ever smoked. Our objectives were to identify the AAA screening rates in a large academic health system and assess factors associated with receipt of screening. Data were extracted from electronic health records from the Duke University Health System and the US Census Bureau. Index screening eligibility date was defined as the 65th birthdate for male patients with a history of smoking. Patients with an index screening eligibility date between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018 were included in the study population and followed through December 31, 2019. Screened patients were identified by procedure codes for ultrasonography, CT or MRI. Among 6,682 eligible patients who turned 65 years old between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018 with at least 1 year of follow-up, only 463 (6.9%) received AAA screening during the study period. The odds of receiving AAA screening within 1 year of index eligibility were 27% lower for Black patients compared to whites [OR=0.73, 95% CI (0.58,0.93)]. Patients who visited a PCP or were diagnosed with hypertension had 75% and 41% greater odds of receiving screening, respectively [OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.36,2.25)] and [OR 1.41 95% CI (1.11,1.80)] compared with patients who did not. Among 4,580 men with 2 years of follow-up, AAA screening rate increased to 13.0%. Patients who visited a PCP had 64% greater odds of receiving screening within 2 years of index eligibility compared to those who did not [OR=1.64, 95% CI (1.30,2.06)]. Screening for AAA per USPSTF guidelines is underutilized with evidence of a racial disparity. Although PCP visit is the most consistent predictor of screening, provider screening rates are low.