Dataset Information

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear.

Objective

To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings.

Design, setting, and participants

This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US.

Interventions

Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years.

Main outcomes and measures

Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations.

Results

This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates.

Conclusions and relevance

This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.

SUBMITTER: Taksler GB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8085765 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Taksler Glen B GB Peterse Elisabeth F P EFP Willems Isarah I Ten Haaf Kevin K Jansen Erik E L EEL de Kok Inge M C M IMCM van Ravesteyn Nicolien T NT de Koning Harry J HJ Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris I

JAMA oncology 20210601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, ...[more]

PMID: 33914025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCanadian and US Task Forces recommend against routine mammography screening for women age 40-49 at average breast cancer risk as harms outweigh benefits. Both suggest individualized decisions based on the relative value women place on potential screening benefits and harms. Population-based data reveal variation in primary care professionals (PCPs) mammography rates in this age group after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, highlighting the need to explore PCP screening perspectives and how this informs clinical behaviours. Results from this study will inform interventions that can improve guideline concordant breast screening for this age group.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were performed with PCPs in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were structured using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to explore determinants of breast cancer screening best-practice behaviours: (1) risk assessment; (2) discussion regarding benefits and harms; and (3) referral for screening.AnalysisInterviews were transcribed and analyzed iteratively until saturation. Transcripts were coded deductively by behaviour and TDF domain. Data that did not fit within a TDF code were coded inductively. The research team met repeatedly to identify potential themes that influenced or were important consequences of the screening behaviours. The themes were tested against further data, disconfirming cases, and different PCP demographics.ResultsEighteen physicians were interviewed. The theme of perceived guideline clarity (a lack of clarity on guideline-concordant practices) influenced all behaviours and moderated the extent to which the risk assessment and discussion occurred. Many were unaware of how risk-assessment factored into the guidelines and/or did not perceive that a shared-care discussion was guideline-concordant. Deferral to patient preference (screening referral without a complete discussion of benefits and harms) occurred when the PCPs had low knowledge regarding harms and/or if they experienced regret (TDF domain: emotion) resulting from prior clinical experiences. Older providers described patient's influence impacting their decisions and physicians trained outside Canada, practicing in higher-resourced areas, and female physicians described being influenced by beliefs about consequences of benefits of screening.ConclusionPerceived guideline clarity is an important driver of physician behaviour. Improving guideline concordant care should start by clarifying the guideline itself. Thereafter, targeted strategies include building skills in identifying and overcoming emotional factors and communication skills important for evidence-based screening discussions.

Project description:ImportanceScreening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women.ObjectiveTo estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985.InterventionsScreening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges.ResultsThe mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women.Conclusions and relevanceThis analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.

Project description: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 <15 years since cessation), and USPSTF 2021 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years with 20 pack-years and <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.

Project description:ImportanceThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. However, USPSTF screening guidelines were derived from a study population including only 4% African American smokers, and racial differences in smoking patterns were not considered.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of USPSTF lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in a predominantly African American and low-income cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThe Southern Community Cohort Study prospectively enrolled adults visiting community health centers across 12 southern US states from March 25, 2002, through September 24, 2009, and followed up for cancer incidence through December 31, 2014. Participants included African American and white current and former smokers aged 40 through 79 years. Statistical analysis was performed from May 11, 2016, to December 6, 2018.ExposuresSelf-reported race, age, and smoking history. Cumulative exposure smoking histories encompassed most recent follow-up questionnaires.Main outcomes and measuresIncident lung cancer cases assessed for eligibility for lung cancer screening using USPSTF criteria.ResultsAmong 48 364 ever smokers, 32 463 (67%) were African American and 15 901 (33%) were white, with 1269 incident lung cancers identified. Among all 48 364 Southern Community Cohort Study participants, 5654 of 32 463 African American smokers (17%) were eligible for USPSTF screening compared with 4992 of 15 901 white smokers (31%) (P < .001). Among persons diagnosed with lung cancer, a significantly lower percentage of African American smokers (255 of 791; 32%) was eligible for screening compared with white smokers (270 of 478; 56%) (P < .001). The lower percentage of eligible lung cancer cases in African American smokers was primarily associated with fewer smoking pack-years among African American vs white smokers (median pack-years: 25.8 [interquartile range, 16.9-42.0] vs 48.0 [interquartile range, 30.2-70.5]; P < .001). Racial disparity was observed in the sensitivity and specificity of USPSTF guidelines between African American and white smokers for all ages. Lowering the smoking pack-year eligibility criteria to a minimum 20-pack-year history was associated with an increased percentage of screening eligibility of African American smokers and with equitable performance of sensitivity and specificity compared with white smokers across all ages (for a 55-year-old current African American smoker, sensitivity increased from 32.2% to 49.0% vs 56.5% for a 55-year-old white current smoker; specificity decreased from 83.0% to 71.6% vs 69.4%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCurrent USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines may be too conservative for African American smokers. The findings suggest that race-specific adjustment of pack-year criteria in lung cancer screening guidelines would result in more equitable screening for African American smokers at high risk for lung cancer.

Project description:BackgroundProfessional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age.ObjectiveThis study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities.DesignWe analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women's Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally.Participants1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis.Main measurePhysician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography.Key results36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %-40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %-37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests.ConclusionsPhysicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources.

Project description:BackgroundRisk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.MethodsFour independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis.ResultsRisk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55-80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (<5 years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%.ConclusionsRisk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.

Project description:ImportanceIn May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation encouraging colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk individuals aged 45 to 49 years. The patterns of screening uptake and possible socioeconomic disparities in screening in this age group remain unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in CRC screening uptake among average-risk individuals aged 45 to 49 years after the USPSTF recommendation was issued in 2021.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used deidentified claims data from commercially insured Blue Cross Blue Shield beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years across the US between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022.ExposurePublication of the May 2021 USPSTF CRC screening recommendation for adults aged 45 to 49 years.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute and relative changes in screening uptake were compared between a 20-month period preceding (May 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019) and a 20-month period following (May 1, 2021, to December, 31, 2022) the USPSTF recommendation. Interrupted time-series analysis and autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to evaluate changes in screening rates, adjusting for temporal autocorrelation and seasonality.ResultsIn this cohort study of 10 221 114 distinct beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years (mean [SD] age, 47.04 [1.41] years; 51.04% female), bimonthly mean (SD) numbers of average-risk beneficiaries were 3 213 935 (31 508) and 2 923 327 (105 716) in the prerecommendation and postrecommendation periods, respectively. Mean (SD) screening uptake increased from 0.50% (0.02%) to 1.51% (0.59%) between the 2 periods (P < .001), representing an absolute change of 1.01 percentage points (95% CI, 0.62-1.40 percentage points) but no significant relative change (202.51%; 95% CI, -30.59% to 436.87%). Compared with average-risk beneficiaries residing in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), those residing in areas with the highest SES experienced the largest absolute change in screening (1.25 [95% CI, 0.77-1.74] percentage points vs 0.75 [95% CI, 0.47-1.02] percentage points), but relative changes were not significant (214.01% [95% CI, -30.91% to 461.15%] vs 167.73% [95% CI, -16.30% to 352.62%]). After the recommendation was issued, the screening uptake rate also increased fastest among average-risk beneficiaries residing in the areas with highest SES (0.24 [95% CI, 0.23-0.25] percentage points every 2 months) and metropolitan areas (0.20 [95% CI, 0.19-0.21] percentage points every 2 months).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that among privately insured beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years, CRC screening uptake increased after the USPSTF recommendation, with potential disparities based on SES and locality.

Project description:ImportanceIn 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) broadened its age and smoking pack-year requirement for lung cancer screening.ObjectivesTo compare the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening criteria with other lung cancer screening criteria and evaluate whether the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria differ by race.Design, setting, and participantsThis study included 912 patients with lung cancer and 1457 controls without lung cancer enrolled in an epidemiology study (INHALE [Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology]) in the Detroit metropolitan area between May 15, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with lung cancer and controls were 21 to 89 years of age; patients with lung cancer who were never smokers and controls who were never smokers were not included in these analyses. Statistical analysis was performed from August 31, 2020, to April 13, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe study assessed whether patients with lung cancer and controls would have qualified for lung cancer screening using the 2013 USPSTF, 2021 USPSTF, and 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCOm2012) screening criteria. Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of patients with lung cancer who qualified for screening, while specificity was defined as the percentage of controls who did not qualify for lung cancer screening.ResultsParticipants included 912 patients with a lung cancer diagnosis (493 women [54%]; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.5] years) and 1457 control participants without lung cancer at enrollment (795 women [55%]; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [9.6] years). With the use of 2021 USPSTF criteria, 590 patients with lung cancer (65%) were eligible for screening compared with 619 patients (68%) per the PLCOm2012 criteria and 445 patients (49%) per the 2013 USPSTF criteria. With the use of 2013 USPSTF criteria, significantly more White patients than African American patients with lung cancer (324 of 625 [52%] vs 121 of 287 [42%]) would have been eligible for screening. This racial disparity was absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (408 of 625 [65%] White patients vs 182 of 287 [63%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 criteria (427 of 625 [68%] White patients vs 192 of 287 [67%] African American patients). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded 950 control participants (65%), while the PLCOm2012 criteria excluded 843 control participants (58%), and the 2021 USPSTF criteria excluded 709 control participants (49%). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded fewer White control participants than African American control participants (514 of 838 [61%] vs 436 of 619 [70%]). This racial disparity is again absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (401 of 838 [48%] White patients vs 308 of 619 [50%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 guidelines (475 of 838 [57%] White patients vs 368 of 619 [60%] African American patients).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that the USPSTF 2021 guideline changes improve on earlier, fixed screening criteria for lung cancer, broadening eligibility and reducing the racial disparity in access to screening.

Dataset Information

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets