U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening Research Articles

Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes in a National Network of Federally Qualified Health Centers: An Observational Study.

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and diabetes among adults aged 35-70years with overweight or obesity. Studying dysglycemia screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that serve vulnerable patient populations is needed to understand health equity implications of this recommendation. To investigate screening practices among FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation. Retrospective cohort study analyzing electronic health records from a national network of 282 FQHC sites. We included 183,329 patients without prior evidence of prediabetes or diabetes, who had ≥ 1 office visit from 2018-2020. Screening eligibility was based on age and measured body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome, screening completion, was ascertained using hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose results from 2018-2020. Among 89,543 patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation, 53,263 (59.5%) were screened. Those who completed screening had higher BMI values than patients who did not (33.0 ± 6.7kg/m2 vs. 31.9 ± 6.2kg/m2, p < 0.001). Adults aged 50-64years had greater odds of screening completion relative to younger patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10-1.17). Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as those without health insurance, were more likely to complete screening than White patients and insured patients, respectively. Clinical risk factors for diabetes were also associated with dysglycemia screening. Among patients who completed screening, 23,588 (44.3%) had values consistent with prediabetes or diabetes. Over half of FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation were screened. Screening completion was higher among middle-aged patients, those with greater BMI values, as well as vulnerable groups with a high risk of developing diabetes. Future research should examine adoption of the 2021 USPSTF screening recommendation and its impact on health equity.

Your New Year’s “resolution”—check your “screen!”

Your New Year’s “resolution”—check your “screen!”

Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes: Clinical Performance and Implications for Health Equity

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prediabetes and diabetes screening for asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity, lowering the age from 40 years in its 2015 recommendation. The USPSTF suggested considering earlier screening in racial and ethnic groups with high diabetes risk at younger ages or lower BMI. This study examined the clinical performance of these USPSTF screening recommendations as well as alternative age and BMI cutoffs in the U.S. adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity. Nationally representative data were collected from 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes in January 2017-March 2020 and analyzed from 2021 to 2022. Screening eligibility was based on age and measured BMI. Collectively, prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes were defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL or hemoglobin A1c ≥5.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of alternate screening criteria were examined overall, and by race and ethnicity. The 2021 criteria exhibited marginally higher sensitivity (58.6%, 95% CI=55.5, 61.6 vs 52.9%, 95% CI=49.7, 56.0) and lower specificity (69.3%, 95% CI=65.7, 72.2 vs 76.4%, 95% CI=73.3, 79.2) than the 2015 criteria overall, and within each racial and ethnic group. Screening at lower age and BMI thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable performance across all racial and ethnic groups. The 2021 USPSTF screening criteria will identify more adults with prediabetes and diabetes in all racial and ethnic groups than the 2015 criteria. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years exhibited even higher sensitivity and performed most similarly by race and ethnicity, which may further improve early detection of prediabetes and diabetes in diverse populations.

Assessment of Uptake Appropriateness of Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening According to Patients Meeting Eligibility Criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force

Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used for lung cancer screening (LCS) among populations with various levels of compliance to the eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and may represent suboptimal allocation of health care resources. To evaluate the appropriateness of CT LCS according to the USPSTF eligibility criteria. This cross-sectional study used the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Participants included individuals who responded to the LCS module administered in 20 states and had valid answers to questions regarding screening and smoking history. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022. Screening eligibility groups were categorized according to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, and subgroups of individuals who underwent LCS were analyzed. Main outcomes included LCS among the screening-eligible population and the proportions of the screened populations according to compliance categories established from the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations. In addition, the association between respondents' characteristics and LCS was evaluated for the subgroup who were screened despite not meeting any of the 3 USPSTF screening criteria: age, pack-year, and years since quitting smoking. A total of 96 097 respondents were identified for the full study cohort, and 2 subgroups were constructed: (1) 3374 respondents who reported having a CT or computerized axial tomography to check for lung cancer and (2) 33 809 respondents who did not meet any screening eligibility criteria. The proportion of participants who were under 50 years old was 53.1%; between 50 and 54, 9.1%; between 55 and 79, 33.8%; and over 80, 4.0%. A total of 51 536 (50.9%) of the participants were female. According to the USPSTF 2013 recommendation, 807 (12.8%) of the screening-eligible population underwent LCS. Among those who were screened, only 807 (20.9%) met all 3 screening eligibility criteria, whereas 538 (20.1%) failed to meet any criteria. Among respondents in subgroup 2, being of older age and having a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, or diabetes were associated with higher likelihood of LCS. In this cross-sectional study of the BRFSS 2019 survey, the low uptake rate among screening-eligible patients undermined the goal of LCS of early detection. Suboptimal screening patterns could increase health system costs and add financial stress, psychological burden, and physical harms to low-risk patients, while failing to provide high-quality preventive services to individuals at high risk of lung cancer.

1109-P: Performance of 2021 U.S. Preventative Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Diabetes

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the recommended age range for prediabetes and diabetes screening among those with overweight/obesity to 35-70 years. Using 2017 to pre-pandemic March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, we applied these screening criteria to assess their performance in a nationally representative sample. We included 3243 non-pregnant adults aged ≥18 years without diagnosed diabetes. Screening eligibility was determined based on participants' age and measured body mass index (BMI) [≥23kg/m2 for non-Hispanic (NH) Asian adults and ≥25kg/m2 for other ethnic groups]. Dysglycemia was defined based on A1c ≥5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ≥100mg/dL. We compared participant characteristics by USPSTF eligibility. We also assessed performance [sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) , and negative predictive value (NPV) ] of the screening criteria for detecting dysglycemia overall and by ethnicity. During 2017-2020, 44.4% of US adults aged 35-70 years were eligible for screening, representing 95.9 million US adults. Relative to adults who were ineligible, those who were eligible had a higher burden of diabetes risk factors, as well as greater proportions of some racial ethnic groups, higher proportion of those with less than a high school education, and more likely to be living in poverty. The performance characteristics of the USPSTF screening criteria were: sensitivity 59.4% (95% CI: 56.4-62.4) ; specificity 68.6% (65.1-71.9) ; PPV 62.4% (59.2-65.6) ; and NPV 65.8% (61.9-69.5) . The sensitivity by ethnicity was as follows: NH White adults 59.1% (55.4-62.7) ; NH Black adults 63.6% (57.8-68.9) ; Hispanic adults 62.0% (55.0-68.5) ; and NH Asian adults 57.3% (46.6-67.3) . Screening based on the 2021 USPSTF criteria will detect approximately 60% of US adults with dysglycemia, which was similar across ethnic groups. Disclosure M.J.O'brien: None. K.M.Bullard: None. Y.Zhang: n/a. S.Bailey: Consultant; Lundbeck, Luto, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi, Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Lundbeck, Merck &amp; Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., Retirement Research Foundation for Aging. S.Khan: None. R.T.Ackermann: Consultant; UnitedHealth Group. M.K.Ali: Advisory Panel; Bayer AG, Research Support; Merck &amp; Co., Inc. S.R.Benoit: None. G.Imperatore: None. C.S.Holliday: None.

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.

Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012Race3L risk-prediction model. The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI, 33.8-35.6). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups. In 2013, lung cancer screening (lung screening) was recommended for high risk individuals. The annual rate of lung screening has risen slowly, particularly among Black individuals. In part, this racial disparity resulted in expanded 2021 criteria. Survey data was used to: 1) describe the number of people screened in 2019, 2) compare the percent eligible for lung screening using the 2013 versus 2021 guidelines, and 3) determine the percent eligible using more detailed criteria. Lung screening rates increased in 2019, and the 2021 criteria will result in more individuals eligible for screening. Using additional criteria may identify more individuals eligible for lung screening.

Factors Associated with Mammography Screening Choices by Women Aged 40-49 at Average Risk.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) does not recommend routine mammogram screening for women aged 40-49 years at average risk for breast cancer. We aimed to assess the extent to which women were following guideline recommendations and to examine whether guideline awareness and other individual-level factors were associated with adherence. Materials and Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative panel of 383 U.S. women aged 40-49 years at low risk for hereditary breast cancer in October 2019. Results: Only 29% of women reported not having initiated screening mammography. Most women (80%) were unaware of the USPSTF screening guideline related to age of initiation and frequency of mammography. Being aware of the recommendation to initiate screening at age 50 increased the odds of not initiating screening (odds ratio [OR] = 6.70, p < 0.001), whereas being older than 45 years (OR = 0.22, p < 0.001) and having a primary care doctor decreased the odds of not initiating screening (OR = 0.25, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Mammogram screening in excess of USPSTF recommendations is prevalent among U.S. women aged 40-49 years. Efforts are needed to increase women's awareness of the rationale for guidelines and the opportunities to discuss with providers whether delaying mammograms is appropriate.

Advancing Health Equity for Medicaid Beneficiaries by Adding Colorectal Cancer Screening to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Adult Core Set

Advancing Health Equity for Medicaid Beneficiaries by Adding Colorectal Cancer Screening to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Adult Core Set

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25). A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050. Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective. The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539). This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Incorporating Longitudinal Surveillance Into the Delivery of Pediatric Screening Services.

* Abbreviation: USPSTF — : US Preventive Services Task Force Screening activities aim to identify well-defined diseases at a time when early or presymptomatic identification could lead to better health outcomes compared with identification after symptoms become apparent. For example, newborns are screened for congenital hypothyroidism because they are usually asymptomatic at birth and early detection allows for thyroxine treatment before signs or symptoms develop, leading to the prevention of significant intellectual disability.1 Screening recommendations are formulated around specific conditions with highly specified algorithms and follow-up recommendations for those identified through screening as having the targeted condition. The primary source of preventive services recommendations followed by pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures periodicity schedule, which outlines the specific services to be included as part of routine preventive care for children and adolescents.2 The periodicity schedule includes the recommendations for routine screening (ie, A or B recommendations) from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)3 and other recommendations endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, including some screening services for which the USPSTF either has not evaluated or found insufficient evidence to evaluate (ie, I statement). Examples of periodicity schedule recommendations with a USPSTF I statement include screening for autism spectrum disorder, developmental screening, lead screening, and screening for dyslipidemia. The periodicity schedule does not include any preventive services that the USPSTF has recommended against (ie, D recommendations). Screening for targeted conditions at prescribed age intervals is appealing because it facilitates and standardizes the implementation of these preventive services into practice. By screening for … Address correspondence to Alex R. Kemper, MD, MPH, MS, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700 Children’s Dr, LAC5411, Columbus, OH 43205-2664. E-mail: alex.kemper{at}nationwidechildrens.org

Operational Challenges of a Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Program During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

Operational Challenges of a Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Program During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

Abstract C009: Colorectal cancer screening racial disparities among respondents who participated in 2016 CDC behavioral risk factor surveillance system

Abstract Background: Colorectal Cancer (CRC) almost always develops from precancerous polyps in the colon or rectum. Screening tests can find precancerous polyps for removal before they turn cancerous. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults using fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, or colonoscopy every 10 years, from the age of 50 to 75. However, only about two thirds of people ages 50 to 75 have been screened for CRC, and racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening still exist. Method: We performed logistic regression to determine CRC screening racial disparities by using 2016 CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. Results: 190,000 respondents, ages 50 to 75, were used in logistic regression models. 9.0% of White non-Hispanic participants had FOBT within the last 12 months. Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, other races non-Hispanic only, and Multiracial non-Hispanics are 11.8%, 12.2%, 12.3%, and 13.2%, respectively, to have had FOBT in the last 12 months. 69.0% of White non-Hispanic reported having a colonoscopy within the past 10 years. The percentage of those with a colonoscopy within the past 10 years for Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Other race non-Hispanic only, and Multiracial non-Hispanic is 66.6%, 54.0%, 56.4%, and 60.8%. 2.5% of all participants chose sigmoidoscopy within the past 5 years as CRC screening tool with no significant difference among race. 72.4% of White non-Hispanic fully met the USPSTF recommendation. 70.6%, 59.6%, 62.2%, and 67.3% of Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Other race non-Hispanic only, and Multiracial non-Hispanic, respectively, meet USPSTF recommendations. After adjusting for social economic status and other variables, compared to White non-Hispanics, Black non-Hispanics are still 20% more likely to choose FOBT as a CRC screening tool (OR = 0.800 and 95% CI 0.0.757,0.846). However, Black non-Hispanics were 17.3% more likely to have a colonoscopy as CRC screening tool and 20% more likely to meet USPSTF recommendations (OR =0.827 with 95% CI 0.793,0.862 and OR = 0.840 with 95% CI 0.804,0.846). Conclusion: Compared to White non-Hispanics, Black non-Hispanics are more likely to choose FOBT and less like to choose colonoscopy as CRC screening tool. White non-Hispanics are significantly less likely to choose FOBT as CRC screening tool compared to others. However, colonoscopy as CRC screening between White non-Hispanics and Black non-Hispanics reveals no racial disparity. After adjusting for social economic status, Black non-Hispanics are more likely to choose colonoscopy and more likely to meet USPSTF screening recommendations compared to White non-Hispanic and other minorities. CRC screening between White non-Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic is driven by basic demographics, socioeconomic variables, access and self-rated health. However, CRC screening racial disparities between White non-Hispanics and other minorities still exist, especially among Hispanics. Citation Format: Jingwei Song, Ligeng Tian, Muktar Aliyu. Colorectal cancer screening racial disparities among respondents who participated in 2016 CDC behavioral risk factor surveillance system [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr C009.

Extended screening guidelines for the diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BackgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines are the most widely used criteria for screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). However, when the USPSTF criteria are applied retrospectively to a group of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA, there are many patients who satisfy none of the AAA screening criteria. The more sensitive Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines have expanded the criteria for screening for AAA with the hope of capturing a greater fraction of those individuals who can undergo treatment for their AAA before presenting with AAA rupture. We sought to identify the number of patients who would have been identified as having criteria for screening for AAA by both the USPSTF and SVS criteria, in a cohort of patients who have undergone treatment for AAA. MethodsWe assessed demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative complication data for all patients undergoing endovascular and open AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients meeting each of the screening criteria were identified. Clinical factors and demographic variables were collected. ResultsWe identified 55,197 patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative, including 44,602 patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 10,595 patients undergoing open repair. Of these, the USPTF guidelines would have identified fewer than one-third of patients (32% EVAR and 33% open repair). Applying the SVS guidelines increased the number meeting criteria for screening by 6% and 12% for the EVAR and open repair cohorts, respectively. Finally, adoption of the expanded SVS guidelines (including the “weak recommendations”) would have identified an additional 34% of EVAR patients and 21% of open AAA repair patients. Use of the expanded criteria would have resulted in 27% of patients undergoing EVAR and 33% of patients undergoing open AAA repair who would not have met any screening criteria. In EVAR patients not meeting the criteria, 52% were younger than 65 years had a history of heavy smoking. Of all those who did not meet screening criteria, ruptured AAA was twice as prevalent as those who met screening criteria (8.5% vs 4.4%; P ≤ .0001). ConclusionsExpanding established USPSTF screening guidelines to include the expanded SVS criteria may potentially double the number of patients identified with AAA. Smokers under the age of 65, and elderly patients 70 and older with no smoking history, represent two groups with AAA and potentially twice the risk of presenting with rupture.

CT Lung Screening in Patients with Laryngeal Cancer

Laryngeal cancer (LC) patients who meet the age and smoking criteria of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for annual CT lung screening were analysed for pulmonary nodules (PN) detection and secondary lung cancer (SLC) diagnosis. This is a retrospective chart review of LC patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital from January 2010 to December 2017. The study population included patients who met USPSTF criteria by age and smoking history for annual chest screening and were followed for at least 3 consecutive years. A total of 998 LC patients’ records were reviewed, of which 151 met the inclusion criteria. Inadequate follow-up period (37% of excluded cases) was the most common reason for exclusion, followed by not meeting USPSTF age criteria (27% excluded cases). In seventy-eight patients (n = 78, 52% of analysed patients) PN were reported. Nine individuals (6% of analysed patients) were diagnosed with SLC. Age over 70 (p = 0.003) was an independent predictor of malignancy. White race and smoking history over 40 pack-years were positively associated with a pulmonary nodule detection (p = 0.037 and p = 0.044, respectively). The incidence of PN and SLC in patients with LC is high. Many patients with laryngeal cancer meet the formal guidelines for USPSTF screening, and should be screened annually according to evidence-based medicine for the early detection of secondary lung cancers.

Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System.

Variation in diabetes screening in clinical practice is poorly described. We examined the interplay of patient, provider, and clinic factors explaining variation in diabetes screening within an integrated health care system in the U.S. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of primary care patients aged 18-64 years with two or more outpatient visits between 2010 and 2015 and no diagnosis of diabetes according to electronic health record (EHR) data. Hierarchical three-level models were used to evaluate multilevel variation in screening at the patient, provider, and clinic levels across 12 clinics. Diabetes screening was defined by a resulted gold standard screening test. Of 56,818 patients, 70% completed diabetes screening with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (51-92%; P < 0.001). Of those meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) (69%) and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (36%) screening criteria, three-quarters were screened with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (ADA 53-92%; USPSTF 49-93%). The yield of ADA and USPSTF screening was similar for diabetes (11% vs. 9%) and prediabetes (38% vs. 36%). Nearly 70% of patients not eligible for guideline-based screening were also tested. The USPSTF guideline missed more cases of diabetes (6% vs. 3%) and prediabetes (26% vs. 19%) than the ADA guideline. After adjustment for patient, provider, and clinic factors and accounting for clustering, twofold variation in screening by provider and clinic remained (median odds ratio 1.97; intraclass correlation 0.13). Screening practices vary widely and are only partially explained by patient, provider, and clinic factors available in the EHR. Clinical decision support and system-level interventions are needed to optimize screening practices.

A more effective approach to lung cancer screening?

A more effective approach to lung cancer screening?

Changes in Prostate Cancer Presentation Following the 2012 USPSTF Screening Statement: Observational Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice.

In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men of all ages. Following this change, screening declined yet the complete impact on clinical presentation is not well defined in the screen-eligible population. To determine if the rates of PSA screening, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV at presentation in screen-eligible men in Kaiser Permanente Northern California changed following the 2012 USPSTF Prostate Cancer Screening recommendations. Retrospective study spanning the years 2010 to 2015, in screen-eligible Kaiser Permanente Northern California members (African American men ages 45-69 and all other men ages 50-69) with no prior history of prostate cancer. Participants All screen-eligible, male members during 2010 (n = 403,931) to 2015 (n = 483,286) without a history of prostate cancer within all Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. Annual rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV cancer at presentation were compared between the pre-guideline period, 2010 and 2011, and the post-guideline period, 2014 and 2015, in men under the age of 70. Following the 2012 USPSTF guideline change, screening rates declined 23.4% (95% CI 23.0-23.8%), biopsy rates declined 64.3% (95% CI 62.9-65.6%), and incident prostate cancer detection rates declined 53.5% (95% CI 50.1-56.7%) resulting in 1871 fewer incident cancers detected, and metastatic cancer rates increased 36.9% (95% CI 9.5-71.0%) resulting in 75 more stage IV cancers detected. Less screening resulted in a large decrease in cancer detection, some of which may be beneficial as many cancers may be indolent, yet this decrease occurred at the expense of an increase in metastatic cancer rates. For every 25 fewer cancers detected, one metastatic cancer was diagnosed. This information may be valuable in the shared decision-making process around prostate cancer screening.

IBS30.03 Risk Assessment to Establish Screening Programs: The Canadian Point of View

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) supports screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to decrease lung cancer mortality.1 The Task Force recommends annual screening up to three consecutive years in high risk adults aged 55-74 years with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history, who currently smoke or quit less than 15 years ago. Pilot LDCT screening program or studies are being conducted in Canada to help determine how to best implement organized lung cancer screening for people at high risk at the population level. Based on emerging data that suggests both the CTFPHC and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age and pack-years selection criteria2 are suboptimal and that risk prediction tools such as the PLCOm2012 are more sensitive with better positive predictive power to identify ever smokers who will develop lung cancer with a lower number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death and are more cost-effective,3-8 pilot studies in Canada adopt the PLCOm2012 risk prediction tool to select high risk ever smokers for LDCT screening. A prospective study is being conducted in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients in the Greater Vancouver area. In 1,076 patients, 37% were never smokers reflecting the foreign-born ethnic distribution. Of the 683 ever smokers, 60% met the PLCOm2012 model 6-year risk ≥1.5% screening criteria while only 39.5% met the USPSTF screening criteria. The International Lung Screen Trial (ILST), a multi-center prospective trial in Canada (British Columbia, Alberta), Australia, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom, offer screening to ever smokers age 55 to 80 years if they meet the USPSTF criteria or the PLCOm2012 model 6-year risk ≥1.5% criteria. Participants receive two annual screens and are followed for six years for lung cancer outcomes. Interim results in 4,863 participants with 101 lung cancers showed that PLCOm2012 identified 26.6% more lung cancers than USPSTF criteria (99% of all lung cancers versus 78% with USPSTF). However, PLCOm2012 screened 9.9% more people than USPSTF criteria. If 2% six-year lung cancer risk threshold were used for screening selection criteria as is currently used in the Cancer Care Ontario Pilot, PLCOm2012 would be 12.7% more sensitive identifying 88.1% of lung cancers while screening 11% fewer people compared to USPSTF criteria. A 1.7% six-year lung cancer risk threshold would be 24.1% more sensitive identifying 97% of all lung cancers while screening only 1% more people than USPSTF criteria. The 1.7% threshold may be a better screening selection criterion. The worldwide burden of lung cancer is significant and projected to rise during the coming years especially in East Asian countries, namely, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan because of the large population size, high stable incidence rates in male and significant upward trends in females many of whom are never smokers.9 With global migration and increasing number of new Canadians who are diagnosed with lung cancer are from Asian countries such as in Vancouver, better lung cancer risk assessment tools need to be developed that take into account ethnicity and other environmental exposures such as outdoor and household air pollution exposures.10 Risk prediction tools may be perceived by some to be more complex to use than age and pack-years. The web based PanCan risk prediction tool, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model, was tested in both English and French in 8 centers across Canada from coast to coast.7 The tool was found to be simple to use and took approximately 5 minutes to administer over the telephone. Similar experience was found with the web based PLCOm2012 risk assessment tool for enrollment into the International Lung Screen Trial and the Cancer Care Ontario pilot screening program. Risk assessment can be readily done by a navigator or a physician for enrollment into lung cancer screening programs as part of the shared decision process. Supported by the Terry Fox Research Institute, BC Cancer Foundation, the VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, and the Australian NHMRC.

5-year overall survival in patients with lung cancer eligible or ineligible for screening according to US Preventive Services Task Force criteria: a prospective, observational cohort study.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening among individuals aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year cigarette smoking history and, if they are former smokers, those who quit within the past 15 years. Our previous report found that two-thirds of newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer do not meet these criteria; they are reported to be either long-term quitters (≥15 years since quitting) or from a younger age group (age 50-54 years). We aimed to assess survival outcomes in these two subgroups. For this prospective, observational cohort study we identified and followed up patients aged 50-80 years with lung cancer, with a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more, and included both current smokers and former smokers who quit within the past 30 years. We identified patients from two cohorts in the USA: a hospital cohort (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) and a community cohort (Olmsted County, MN). Patients were divided into those meeting USPSTF criteria (USPSTF group) versus those not meeting USPSTF criteria (long-term quitters or the younger age group). The main outcome was overall survival at 5 years after diagnosis. 5-year overall survival was analysed with and without matching age and pack-years smoked for long-term quitters. The USPSTF group was subdivided into two age subgroups (55-69 years and 70-80 years) for multivariable regression analysis. Between Jan 1, 1997, and Dec 31, 2017, 8739 patients with lung cancer were identified and followed up. Median follow-up was 6·5 (IQR 3·8-10·0) years, and median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 16·2-17·5). 5-year overall survival was 27% (95% CI 25-30) in long-term quitters, 22% (19-25) in the younger age group, and 23% (22-24) in the USPSTF group. In both cohorts, 5-year overall survival did not differ significantly between long-term quitters and the USPSTF group (hospital cohort: hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [95% CI 0·94-1·10]; p=0·72; community cohort: 0·97 [0·75-1·26]; p=0·82); matched analysis showed similar results in both cohorts. 5-year overall survival also did not differ significantly between the younger age group and the USPSTF group in both cohorts (hospital cohort: HR 1·16 [95% CI 0·98-1·38], p=0·08; community cohort: 1·16 [0·74-1·82]; p=0·52); multivariable regression analyses stratified by age group yielded similar findings. Patients with lung cancer who quit 15 or more years before diagnosis and those who are up to 5 years younger than the age cutoff recommended for screening, but otherwise meet USPSTF criteria, have a similar risk of death to those individuals who meet all USPSTF criteria. Individuals in both subgroups could benefit from screening, as expansion of USPSTF screening criteria to include these subgroups could enable earlier detection of lung cancer and improved survival outcomes. National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic Foundation.