PURPOSE: Research has shown that cancer genetic risk is often not well understood by patients undergoing genetic testing and counseling. We describe the barriers to understanding genetic risk and the needs of high-risk persons and cancer survivors who have undergone genetic testing. METHODS: Using data from an internet survey of adults living in the USA who responded 'yes' to having ever had a genetic test to determine cancer risk (N = 696), we conducted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations between demographic, clinical, and communication-related variables by our key outcome of having vs. not having enough information about genetics and cancer to speak with family. Percentages for yes and no responses to queries about unmet informational needs were calculated. Patient satisfaction with counseling and percentage disclosure of genetic risk status to family were also calculated. RESULTS: We found that a lack of resources provided by provider to inform family members and a lack of materials provided along with genetic test results were strongly associated with not having enough information about genetics and cancer (OR 4.54 95% CI 2.40-8.59 and OR 2.19 95% CI 1.16-4.14 respectively). Among participants undergoing genetic counseling, almost half reported needing more information on what genetic risk means for them and their family and how genetic testing results might impact future screening. CONCLUSION: High levels of satisfaction with genetic counseling may not give a full picture of the patient-provider interaction and may miss potential unmet needs of the patient. Accessible resources and ongoing opportunities for updating family history information could reinforce knowledge about genetic risk.

Hysterectomy protects against cervical cancer when the cervix is removed. However, measures of cervical cancer incidence often fail to exclude women with a hysterectomy from the population at risk denominator, underestimating and distorting disease burden. In this study, we estimated hysterectomy prevalence from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys to remove the women who were not at risk of cervical cancer from the denominator and combined these estimates with the United States Cancer Statistics data. From these data, we calculated age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates for women aged >30 years from 2001-2019, adjusted for hysterectomy prevalence. We calculated the difference between unadjusted and adjusted incidence rates and examined trends by histology, age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region using Joinpoint regression. The hysterectomy-adjusted cervical cancer incidence rate from 2001-2019 was 16.7 per 100,000 women-34.6% higher than the unadjusted rate. After adjustment, incidence rates were higher by approximately 55% among Black women, 56% among those living in the East South Central division, and 90% among women aged 70-79 and >80 years. These findings underscore the importance of adjusting for hysterectomy prevalence to avoid underestimating cervical cancer incidence rates and masking disparities by age, race, and geographic region.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. As part of initial response activities in the United States, enhanced contact investigations were conducted to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission.Methods Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified. Close contacts meeting criteria for active monitoring were followed, and selected individuals were targeted for collection of additional exposure details and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Results There were 404 close contacts who underwent active monitoring in the response jurisdictions; 338 had at least basic exposure data, of whom 159 had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all known close contacts under monitoring, two additional cases were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. The secondary attack rate among household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested, was 13% (95% CI: 4 – 38%).Conclusions The enhanced contact tracing investigations undertaken around nine early travel-related cases of COVID-19 in the United States identified two cases of secondary transmission, both spouses. Rapid detection and isolation of the travel-associated case patients, enabled by public awareness of COVID-19 among travelers from China, may have mitigated transmission risk among close contacts of these cases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was sought or received.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData may be available upon reasonable request.

PURPOSE: We estimated up-to-date state- and territory-level hysterectomy prevalence and trends, which can help correct the population at risk denominator and calculate more accurate uterine and cervical cancer rates. METHODS: We analyzed self-reported data for a population-based sample of 1,267,013 U.S. women aged ≥ 18 years who participated in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 2012 to 2020. Estimates were age-standardized and stratified by sociodemographic characteristics and geography. Trends were assessed by testing for any differences in hysterectomy prevalence across years. RESULTS: Hysterectomy prevalence was highest among women aged 70-79 years (46.7%) and ≥ 80 years (48.8%). Prevalence was also higher among women who were non-Hispanic (NH) Black (21.3%), NH American Indian and Alaska Native (21.1%), and from the South (21.1%). Hysterectomy prevalence declined by 1.9 percentage points from 18.9% in 2012 to 17.0% in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in five U.S. women overall and half of U.S. women aged ≥ 70 years reported undergoing a hysterectomy. Our findings reveal large variations in hysterectomy prevalence within and between each of the four census regions and by race and other sociodemographic characteristics, underscoring the importance of adjusting epidemiologic measures of uterine and cervical cancers for hysterectomy status.

This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

This study examines beliefs about sunscreen use among non-Hispanic white adults aged 50 years or older using online survey data (n = 237). Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine beliefs associated with sunscreen use, adjusted by age, gender, education, geographic location, and skin cancer risk score. Those who believed sunscreen use would prevent them from getting sunburned (odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.84) and those who believed that their romantic partners thought they should use sunscreen (OR = 1.72) were more likely to report sunscreen use. Those who believed sunscreen use would "take too much time" were less likely to report sunscreen use (OR = 0.65). These findings can inform future research and messaging efforts, including the evaluation of intervention approaches that highlight the immediate benefits of sunscreen use, address concerns about sunscreen use taking too much time, and tap into the potential influence that older adults may have on the sunscreen use of their romantic partners.

Language barriers have been associated with worse access to healthcare and poorer health outcomes. To assess differences in access to care and utilization of healthcare services between Hispanic adults and non-Hispanic white adults (NHW), we used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2013-2016) to compare Hispanic adults who expressed limited comfort speaking in English (LCE) with Hispanic adults who were comfortable speaking in English (CE) and NHW adults. Hispanic adults with CE were less likely than NHW adults to have a usual source of care, use preventive services, including cervical cancer screening, and healthcare services. However, after adjustment breast and cervical cancer screening exceeded that of NHW adults. Hispanic adults with LCE fared substantially worse than their Hispanic counterparts with CE in having a usual source of care, use of preventive services, breast and colorectal cancer screening, and healthcare services. After adjustment, use of all cancer screening tests were similar. Eliminating disparities for Hispanic adults will require a multi-pronged approach to address access to healthcare and other social determinants of health, including poverty, employment discrimination, and educational inequities. The public health community can help improve health literacy, address barriers to care, and provide appropriate language assistance at point of care using culturally-competent means to promote greater utilization of preventive services, including demand for and delivery of cancer screenings.

Purpose Women undergoing diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer may face challenges in employment. We investigated the impact of demographic, clinical, workplace, and psychosocial characteristics on loss of employment after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. We further describe changes in work status and work environment for cancer survivors who sustain employment. Methods We analyzed responses from a survey of breast cancer survivors from the Sister Study and the Two Sister Study cohorts who reported being employed at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis and who reported employment status (lost vs. sustained employment) at the time of survey administration. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the effects of lymphedema, neuropathy, problems with memory or attention, social support, health insurance, and sick leave on lost employment, adjusting for demographic characteristics, cancer stage, treatment, and general health. Results Of the 1675 respondents who reported being employed at the time of diagnosis, 83.5% reported being 'currently' employed at the time of the survey. Older age, peripheral neuropathy, lack of sick leave, late stage at diagnosis, a recurrence or a new cancer, problems with memory or attention, and poor general health were significantly associated with lost employment. Conclusions The long-term effects of breast cancer treatment and workplace provisions for leave and accommodation may have a substantial effect on women's ability to sustain employment. The findings from this study highlight challenges reported by cancer survivors that may inform clinical and occupational interventions to support survivors' return to work.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

Data on the detailed clinical progression of COVID-19 in conjunction with epidemiological and virological characteristics are limited. In this case series, we describe the first 12 US patients confirmed to have COVID-19 from 20 January to 5 February 2020, including 4 patients described previously(1-3). Respiratory, stool, serum and urine specimens were submitted for SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing, viral culture and whole genome sequencing. Median age was 53 years (range: 21-68); 8 patients were male. Common symptoms at illness onset were cough (n = 8) and fever (n = 7). Patients had mild to moderately severe illness; seven were hospitalized and demonstrated clinical or laboratory signs of worsening during the second week of illness. No patients required mechanical ventilation and all recovered. All had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in respiratory specimens, typically for 2-3 weeks after illness onset. Lowest real-time PCR with reverse transcription cycle threshold values in the upper respiratory tract were often detected in the first week and SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from early respiratory specimens. These data provide insight into the natural history of SARS-CoV-2. Although infectiousness is unclear, highest viral RNA levels were identified in the first week of illness. Clinicians should anticipate that some patients may worsen in the second week of illness.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first detected in China in December, 2019. In January, 2020, state, local, and federal public health agencies investigated the first case of COVID-19 in Illinois, USA. METHODS: Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were defined as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Contacts were people with exposure to a patient with COVID-19 on or after the patient's symptom onset date. Contacts underwent active symptom monitoring for 14 days following their last exposure. Contacts who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath became persons under investigation and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. A convenience sample of 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel contacts were also tested. FINDINGS: Patient 1-a woman in her 60s-returned from China in mid-January, 2020. One week later, she was hospitalised with pneumonia and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Her husband (Patient 2) did not travel but had frequent close contact with his wife. He was admitted 8 days later and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 372 contacts of both cases were identified; 347 underwent active symptom monitoring, including 152 community contacts and 195 health-care personnel. Of monitored contacts, 43 became persons under investigation, in addition to Patient 2. These 43 persons under investigation and all 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: Person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between two people with prolonged, unprotected exposure while Patient 1 was symptomatic. Despite active symptom monitoring and testing of symptomatic and some asymptomatic contacts, no further transmission was detected. FUNDING: None.

Increased breast density (defined as radiopaque areas on a mammogram from heterogeneously or extremely dense breast tissue) is identified in about half of women undergoing digital mammography screening exams.1 Increased breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer and can mask breast cancer.2 From 2009 to 2019, 36 states enacted laws to require information on increased breast density in mammography reports.3 The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)4 included a question about dense breast notification only in 2015.

Serious psychological distress (SPD) can adversely impact health and quality of life after cancer. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between SPD and the receipt of preventive care services and cancer screening among survivors and adults without a cancer history. A total of 12,564 cancer survivors and 160,023 adults without a cancer history as comparison group were identified from the population-based Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008-2015). SPD was assessed using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. We examined use of preventive care and cancer screening services in cancer survivors and comparison adults with/without SPD. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted for each outcome: preventive service (i.e. blood pressure, cholesterol, influenza vaccination, routine and dental check-up) or cancer screening (i.e. mammography, Papanicolau test, colorectal cancer screening) adjusting for demographic, comorbidity, usual source of care covariates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Prevalence of SPD was 9.8% in cancer survivors compared to 4.6% in comparison adults. Survivors with SPD were more frequent utilizers of medical care, reporting 10 or more visits to the doctor's office in the past 12months (29.3% vs. 14.1% without SPD). Having SPD was associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with preventive service use and cancer screening among age- and gender-eligible individuals. The magnitude of the effect was greater in adults' age >/=65years. Better coordination of care and patient-physician discussions are likely needed to improve delivery of recommended preventive services for persons with SPD.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for breast cancer has been associated with cognitive problems; however, the impact of adjuvant hormone therapy is less clear. No studies have explored provider discussions about cognitive concerns or factors associated with neurocognitive treatment. This study examined cognitive problems, factors associated with having a provider discussion, and receipt of neurocognitive treatment. METHODS: Female breast cancer survivors (N=2,537) from the Sister Study and the Two Sister Study who were at least 1 year post-treatment were surveyed in 2012 about their cancer therapies (confirmed by medical records); cognitive concerns; related provider discussions; and neurocognitive treatment. A total of 2,296 women were included in the current 2014 analysis. Extensive covariate information was also ascertained for predictive multivariate models. RESULTS: The prevalence of self-reported cognitive problems after treatment was 60%. Of those reporting cognitive problems, only 37% had discussed those concerns with a provider and 15% had been treated for cognitive symptoms. The odds of reported cognitive concerns that started during and after treatment were elevated for those who received only hormone therapy and no chemotherapy (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.15, 2.33); chemotherapy and no hormone therapy (OR=5.63, 95% CI=3.52, 9.00); or both (OR=6.33, 95% CI=4.21, 9.54) compared with those reporting neither treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of cognitive concerns underscores the importance of monitoring breast cancer survivors for potential neurocognitive effects of hormone and chemotherapy, discussions with survivors about those concerns, and treatment referrals. Monitoring changes over time can help to evaluate both psychosocial and neurocognitive care provided for survivors.