BACKGROUND: Treatment for lung cancer can improve prognosis, but 5-year survival remains low at 26%. An examination of treatment using data with higher population coverage, and among a broader number of treatment modalities and individual characteristics, would provide greater insight into differences in lung cancer treatment. RESEARCH QUESTION: Among adults diagnosed with lung cancer, how does reported receipt of lung cancer treatment differ by sociodemographic characteristics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used 2015-2020 National Program of Cancer Registry data covering 89% of the US population to describe first-course treatment among persons ages ≥20 years diagnosed with lung and bronchus cancer. We performed multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and treatment received. RESULTS: Among 1,068,155 people diagnosed with lung cancer, 22% received surgery, 41% received chemotherapy, 40% received radiation, 13% received immunotherapy, and 75% received at least one of the four treatments. People who were ages >45 years (odds ratio [OR] range=0.08-0.67); American Indian or Alaska Native (OR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.77-0.87), Black (OR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.81-0.84), or Hispanic (OR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.78-0.82); resided in a non-metropolitan county (OR=0.98; 0.96-0.99); resided in the bottom 25% (OR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.78-0.81) and middle 50% (OR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.86-0.88) of counties by economic status (considers unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate); and in the West US census region (OR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.94-0.97) had significantly lower odds of receiving at least one of the four treatments. INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy and radiation were the most common types of first-course treatment reported. Receipt of at least one of the four treatments examined was lower among several groups, including certain racial and ethnic groups and those residing in counties with lower economic status. Future studies might further identify and intervene upon factors underlying differences.

PURPOSE: Cancer incidence declined during the COVID-19 pandemic in part due to health care delivery challenges. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in lung cancer incidence. METHODS: We used 2019-2020 US Cancer Statistics data from 49 cancer registries covering 97% of the US population. We calculated the number of new lung cancer diagnoses in 2019 and 2020, age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates per 100,000 persons, and 2019-to-2020 percentage changes in incidence rates. We also calculated number and percentage of new lung cancer diagnoses by month and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rate per 100,000 persons was 47.9 in 2019 vs. 41.4 in 2020-a 13.6% decrease. Differences in the percentage change in incidence rates were observed by age, race and ethnicity, US census region, histology, and stage at diagnosis. A higher percentage of people were diagnosed at distant stage in 2020 than 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides new insight into subgroups that experienced the greatest decline in observed lung cancer incidence during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings can be used to inform intervention efforts to improve lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy screening can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Colonoscopies may achieve maximum benefit when they are performed with high quality and accompanied by follow-up recommendations that adhere to clinical guidelines. This study aimed to determine to what extent endoscopists met targets for colonoscopy quality from 2016 through 2019 (the most recent years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). METHODS: We examined measures of colonoscopy quality and recommended follow-up intervals in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a large nationwide endoscopy registry. The analysis included over 2.5 million outpatient screening colonoscopies in average risk adults aged 50-75 years. RESULTS: At least 90% of endoscopists met performance targets for adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and adenoma detection rate. However, nonadherence to guidelines for follow-up intervals was common. For patients with no colonoscopy findings, 12.0% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 10 years. For patients with 1-2 small tubular adenomas, 13.5% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5-10 years. For patients with small sessile serrated polyps, 30.7% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5 years. Some patients with higher risk findings received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≥5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 3 years, including 18.2% of patients with advanced serrated lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Additional attention may be needed to achieve more consistent adherence to guidelines for colonoscopy follow-up recommendations.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a severe, post-infectious sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection(1,2), yet the pathophysiological mechanism connecting the infection to the broad inflammatory syndrome remains unknown. Here we leveraged a large set of samples from patients with MIS-C to identify a distinct set of host proteins targeted by patient autoantibodies including a particular autoreactive epitope within SNX8, a protein involved in regulating an antiviral pathway associated with MIS-C pathogenesis. In parallel, we also probed antibody responses from patients with MIS-C to the complete SARS-CoV-2 proteome and found enriched reactivity against a distinct domain of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. The immunogenic regions of the viral nucleocapsid and host SNX8 proteins bear remarkable sequence similarity. Consequently, we found that many children with anti-SNX8 autoantibodies also have cross-reactive T cells engaging both the SNX8 and the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein epitopes. Together, these findings suggest that patients with MIS-C develop a characteristic immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein that is associated with cross-reactivity to the self-protein SNX8, demonstrating a mechanistic link between the infection and the inflammatory syndrome, with implications for better understanding a range of post-infectious autoinflammatory diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Over 30 million U.S. working adults use tobacco, and tobacco use varies by occupation. Limited information is available on employment characteristics and tobacco use prevalence. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of current tobacco use by employment characteristics and occupation group among U.S. working adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used 2021 National Health Interview Survey data for currently working adults (n=16,461) analyzed in 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds of tobacco use by employment characteristics and occupation group. RESULTS: In 2021, 20.0% of working adults used tobacco. Any tobacco use was significantly lower among workers who were offered workplace health insurance (aOR=0.86, 95% CI=0.77-0.97), had paid sick leave (aOR=0.81, 95% CI=0.73-0.91), and government vs. private employment (aOR=0.61, 95% CI=0.52-0.70). Any tobacco use was significantly higher among workers who usually worked ≥35 hours per week vs. did not usually work ≥35 hours per week (aOR=1.21, 95% CI=1.06-1.39), worked a rotating or 'some other' shift vs. daytime shift (aOR=1.19, 95% CI=1.02-1.38), experienced schedule instability (aOR=1.17, 95% CI=1.03-1.31), and worked while physically ill in the past 3 months (aOR=1.25, 95% CI=1.11-1.41). Tobacco use by employment characteristics also varied by occupation group. CONCLUSIONS: Current tobacco use varied according to employment characteristics and occupation group. Findings from this study could inform workplace tobacco cessation interventions and policies (e.g., access to paid sick leave or insurance coverage) to better support tobacco cessation and overall worker health.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 40,000 U.S. women die from breast cancer each year. Mammography is recommended to screen for breast cancer and reduce breast cancer mortality. Adverse social determinants of heath (SDOH) and health-related social needs (HRSNs) (e.g., lack of transportation and social isolation) can be barriers to getting mammograms. METHODS: Data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of mammography use within the previous 2 years among women aged 40-74 years by jurisdiction, age group, and sociodemographic factors. The association between mammography use and measures of SDOH and HRSNs was assessed for jurisdictions that administered the Social Determinants and Health Equity module. RESULTS: Among women aged 50-74 years, state-level mammography use ranged from 64.0% to 85.5%. Having health insurance and a personal health care provider were associated with having had a mammogram within the previous 2 years. Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography prevalence was 83.2% for those with no adverse SDOH and HRSNs and 65.7% for those with three or more adverse SDOH and HRSNs. Life dissatisfaction, feeling socially isolated, experiencing lost or reduced hours of employment, receiving food stamps, lacking reliable transportation, and reporting cost as a barrier for access to care were all strongly associated with not having had a mammogram within the previous 2 years. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Identifying specific adverse SDOH and HRSNs that women experience and coordinating activities among health care providers, social services, community organizations, and public health programs to provide services that help address these needs might increase mammography use and ultimately decrease breast cancer deaths.

INTRODUCTION: Social risk factors such as food insecurity and lack of transportation can negatively affect health outcomes, yet implementation of screening and referral for social risk factors is limited in medical settings, particularly in cancer survivorship. METHODS: We conducted 18 qualitative, semistructured interviews among oncology teams in 3 health systems in Washington, DC, during February and March 2022. We applied the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework to develop a deductive codebook, performed thematic analysis on the interview transcripts, and summarized our results descriptively. RESULTS: Health systems varied in clinical and support staff roles and capacity. None of the participating clinics had an electronic health record (EHR)-based process for identifying patients who completed their cancer treatment ("survivors") or a standardized cancer survivorship program. Their capacities also differed for documenting social risk factors and referrals in the EHR. Interviewees expressed awareness of the prevalence and effect of social risk factors on cancer survivors, but none employed a systematic process for identifying and addressing social risk factors. Recommendations for increasing screening for social risk factors included designating a person to fulfill this role, improving data tracking tools in the EHR, and creating systems to maintain up-to-date information and contacts for community-based organizations. CONCLUSION: The complexity of cancer care workflows and lack of reimbursement results in a limited ability for clinic staff members to screen and make referrals for social risk factors. Creating clinical workflows that are flexible and tailored to staffing realities may contribute to successful implementation of a screening and referral program. Improving ongoing communication with community-based organizations to address needs was deemed important by interviewees.

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and predictors of testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) under an accountable care model of health care delivery. Data sources were claims and encounter records from the Massachusetts Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (MassHealth) for enrollees aged 13 to 64 years in 2019. This cross-sectional study examines the one-year prevalence of STI testing and evaluates social determinants of health and other patient characteristics as predictors of such testing in both primary care and other settings. We identified visits with STI testing using procedure codes and primary care settings from provider code types. Among 740,417 members, 55% were female, 11% were homeless or unstably housed, and 15% had some level of disability. While the prevalence of testing in any setting was 20% (N = 151,428), only 57,215 members had testing performed in a primary care setting, resulting in an 8% prevalence of testing by primary care clinicians (PCCs). Members enrolled in a managed care organization (MCO) were significantly less likely to be tested by a primary care provider than those enrolled in accountable care organization (ACO) plans that have specific incentives for primary care practices to coordinate care. Enrollees in a Primary Care ACO had the highest rates of STI testing, both overall and by primary care providers. Massachusetts' ACO delivery systems may be able to help practices increase STI screening with explicit incentives for STI testing in primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: We examined national estimates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use and compared them with Healthy People 2030 national targets. Test use in 2021 was compared with prepandemic estimates. METHODS: In 2022, we used 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to estimate proportions of adults up to date with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast (women aged 50-74 y), cervical (women aged 21-65 y), and CRC screening (adults aged 50-75 y) across sociodemographic and health care access variables. We compared age-standardized estimates from the 2021 and 2019 NHIS. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date in 2021 were 75.7% (95% CI, 74.4%-76.9%), 75.2% (95% CI, 73.9%-76.4%), and 72.2% (95% CI, 71.2%-73.2%) for breast, cervical, and CRC screening, respectively. Estimates were below 50% among those without a wellness check in 3 years (all screening types), among those without a usual source of care or insurance (aged <65 y) (breast and CRC screening), and among those residing in the US for less than 10 years (CRC screening). Percentages of adults who were up to date with breast and cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy were similar in 2019 and 2021. Fecal occult blood/fecal immunochemical test (FOBT/FIT) use was modestly higher in 2021 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In 2021, approximately 1 in 4 adults of screening age were not up to date with breast, cervical, and CRC screening recommendations, and Healthy People 2030 national targets were not met. Disparities existed across several characteristics, particularly those related to health care access. Breast, cervical, and colonoscopy test use within recommended screening intervals approximated prepandemic levels. FOBT/FIT estimates were modestly higher in 2021.

BACKGROUND: National organizations have issued comprehensive cancer survivorship care guidelines to improve care of cancer survivors, many of whom receive care from primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: We analyzed Porter Novelli's 2019 fall DocStyles survey to assess use of cancer survivorship care guidelines, receipt of survivorship training, types of survivorship services provided, and confidence providing care among PCPs in the United States. We grouped PCPs by use of any guideline ("users") versus no guideline use ("nonusers"). We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine guideline use, having received training on providing survivorship care services, and confidence in providing care. Within the panel, sampling quotas were set so that 1000 primary care physicians, 250 OB/GYNs, 250 pediatricians, and 250 nurse practitioners/physician assistants were recruited. RESULTS: To reach selected quotas, 2696 health professionals were initially contacted to participate, resulting in a response rate of 64.9%. Sixty-two percent of PCPs reported using guidelines and 17% reported receiving survivorship care training. Use of any guidelines or receiving training was associated with reporting providing a range of survivorship services and confidence in providing care. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, guideline users were more likely than nonusers to report assessing genetic cancer risk (OR = 2.65 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.68, 4.17)), screening for cancer recurrence (OR = 2.32 95% CI (1.70, 3.18)) or a new cancer (OR = 1.63, 95% CI (1.20, 2.22)), and treating depression (OR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.20, 2.25)). Receipt of training was also positively associated with providing genetic risk assessment, surveillance for recurrence, as well as assessing late/long-term effects, and treating pain, fatigue, and sexual side effects. CONCLUSION: Survivorship care guidelines and training support PCPs in providing a range of survivorship care services.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a severe, post-infectious sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet the pathophysiological mechanism connecting the infection to the broad inflammatory syndrome remains unknown. Here we leveraged a large set of MIS-C patient samples (n=199) to identify a distinct set of host proteins that are differentially targeted by patient autoantibodies relative to matched controls. We identified an autoreactive epitope within SNX8, a protein expressed primarily in immune cells which regulates an antiviral pathway associated with MIS-C pathogenesis. In parallel, we also probed the SARS-CoV-2 proteome-wide MIS-C patient antibody response and found it to be differentially reactive to a distinct domain of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein relative to controls. This viral N region and the mapped SNX8 epitope bear remarkable biochemical similarity. Furthermore, we find that many children with anti-SNX8 autoantibodies also have T-cells cross-reactive to both SNX8 and this distinct domain of the SARS-CoV-2 N protein. Together, these findings suggest that MIS-C patients develop a distinct immune response against the SARS-CoV-2 N protein that is associated with cross reactivity to the self-protein SNX8, demonstrating a link from the infection to the inflammatory syndrome. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) was established in 2002 to conduct applied research and undertake related activities to translate evidence into practice, with a special focus on the unmet needs of populations at higher risk of getting cancer and dying from it. A network of academic, public health and community partners, CPCRN is a thematic research network of the Prevention Research Centers Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) has been a consistent collaborator. The CPCRN has fostered research on geographically dispersed populations through cross-institution partnerships across the network. Since its inception, the CPCRN has applied rigorous scientific methods to fill knowledge gaps in the application and implementation of evidence-based interventions, and it has developed a generation of leading investigators in the dissemination and implementation of effective public health practices. This article reflects on how CPCRN addressed national priorities, contributed to CDC's programs, emphasized health equity and impacted science over the past twenty years and potential future directions.

INTRODUCTION: To assess timing of Medicaid enrollment with late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and estimate treatment costs by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed 2000-2009 California and Texas Medicaid data linked with cancer registry data. We assessed the association of Medicaid enrollment timing with late-stage colorectal cancer and estimated total and incremental 6-month treatment costs to Medicaid by stage using a noncancer comparison group matched on age group and sex. RESULTS: Compared with Medicaid enrollment before diagnosis, enrolling after diagnosis was associated with late-stage diagnosis. Incremental per-person treatment costs were $31,063, $39,834, and $47,161 for localized, regional, and distant stage in California, respectively; and $28,701, $38,212, and $49,634 in Texas, respectively. DISCUSSION: In California and Texas, Medicaid enrollment after CRC diagnosis was associated with later-stage disease and higher treatment costs. Facilitating timely and continuous Medicaid enrollment may lead to earlier stage at diagnosis, reduced costs, and improved outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Mammography is a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Uptake in screening use in states can be influenced by Medicaid coverage and eligibility policies, public health outreach efforts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. We described state-specific mammography use in 2020 and changes as compared with 2012. METHODS: We estimated the proportion of women aged ≥40 years who reported receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years, by age group, state, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, using 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We also compared 2020 state estimates with 2012 estimates. RESULTS: The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who received a mammogram in the past 2 years was 78.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-78.8%) in 2020. Across measures of socioeconomic status, mammography use was generally lower among women who did not have health insurance (52.0%; 95% CI, 48.3%-55.6%) than among those who did (79.9%; 95% CI, 79.3%-80.6%) and among those who had a usual source of care (49.4%; 95% CI, 46.1%-52.7%) than among those who did not (81.0%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.7%). Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography use varied across states, from a low of 65.2% (95% CI, 61.4%-69.0%) in Wyoming to a high of 86.1% (95% CI, 83.8%-88.3%) in Massachusetts. Four states had significant increases in mammography use from 2012 to 2020, and 8 states had significant declines. CONCLUSION: Mammography use varied widely among states. Use of evidence-based interventions tailored to the needs of local populations and communities may help close gaps in the use of mammography.

INTRODUCTION: Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.523.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.421.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.517.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status. DISCUSSION: Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates for mammography use to examine disparities among counties. Materials and Methods: We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 111,902 women) and linked them to county-level data from the American Community Survey. We defined two outcomes: mammography within the past 2 years (current); and mammography 5 or more years ago or never (rarely or never). We poststratified the data with U.S. Census estimated county population counts, ran Monte Carlo simulations, and generated county-level estimates. We aggregated estimates to state and national levels. We validated internal consistency between our model-based and BRFSS state estimates using Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Nationally, more than three in four women [78.7% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 78.2%-79.2%)] were current with mammography, although with large variations among counties. Also, nationally, about one in nine women [11% (95% CI: 10.8%-11.3%)] rarely or never had a mammogram. County estimates for being current ranged from 60.4% in New Mexico to 86.9% in Hawaii. Rarely or never having a mammogram ranged from 6% in Connecticut to 23.0% in Alaska, and on average, almost one in eight women in all the counties. Internal consistency correlation coefficient tests were ≥0.94. Conclusions: Our analyses identified marked county variations in mammography use across the country among women aged 50-74 years. We generated estimates for all counties, which may be helpful for targeted outreach to increase mammography uptake.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality. Implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) increases CRC screening. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which combinations of EBIs or strategies led to increases in clinic-level screening rates among clinics participating in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Data were collected from CRCCP clinics between 2015 and 2018 and the analysis was conducted in 2020. The outcome variable was the annual change in clinic level CRC screening rate in percentage points. We used first difference (FD) estimator of linear panel data regression model to estimate the associations of outcome with independent variables, which include different combinations of EBIs and intervention strategies. The study sample included 486 unique clinics with 1156 clinic years of total observations. The average baseline screening rate was 41 % with average annual increase of 4.6 percentage points. Only two out of six combinations of any two EBIs were associated with increases in screening rate (largest was 6.5 percentage points, P < 0.001). Any combinations involving three EBIs or all four EBIs were significantly associated with the outcome with largest increase of 7.2 percentage points (P < 0.001). All interventions involving 2-3 strategies led to increases in rate with largest increase associated with the combination of increasing community demand and access (6.1 percentage points, P < 0.001). Clinics implementing combinations of these EBIs, particularly those including three or more EBIs, often were more likely to have impact on screening rate change than those implementing none.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce mortality from these cancers, but screening use has been below national targets. The purpose of this study is to examine the proportion of screening-eligible adults who are up to date with these screenings and how screening use compares with Healthy People 2020 targets. METHODS: Data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were used to examine the percentages of adults up to date with breast cancer screening among women aged 5074 years without previous breast cancer, cervical cancer screening among women aged 2165 years without previous cervical cancer or hysterectomy, and colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 5075 years without previous colorectal cancer. Estimates are presented by sociodemographic characteristics and healthcare access factors. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date were 76.2% (95% CI= 75.0, 77.5) for breast cancer screening, 76.4% (95% CI= 75.2, 77.6) for cervical cancer screening, and 68.3% (95% CI= 67.3, 69.3) for colorectal cancer screening. Although some population subgroups met breast and colorectal cancer screening targets (81.1% and 70.5%, respectively), many did not, and cervical cancer screening was below the target for all examined subgroups. Lower education and income, nonmetropolitan county of residence (which included rural counties), no usual source of care or health insurance coverage, and Medicaid coverage were associated with lower screening test use. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests based on the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were below national targets. Continued monitoring may allow for examination of screening trends, inform interventions, and track progress in eliminating disparities.

PURPOSE-: National screening estimates mask county-level variations. We aimed to generate county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence estimates for 2018 among adults aged 50-75 years and identify counties with low screening prevalence. METHODS-: We combined individual-level county data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n=204,947) with the 2018 American Community Survey county poverty data as a covariate, and the 2018 U.S. Census county population count data to generate county-level prevalence estimates for being current with any CRC screening test, colonoscopy, and home stool blood test. Because BRFSS is a state-based survey, and because some counties did not have samples for analysis, we used correlation coefficients to test internal consistency between model-based and BRFSS state estimates. RESULTS-: Correlation coefficients tests were ≥0.97. Model-based national prevalence for any test was 69.9% (95% CI, 69.5%-70.4%) suggesting 30% are not current with screening test use. State mean estimates ranged from 62.1% in Alaska and Wyoming to 76.6% in Maine and Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 42.2% in Alaska to 80.0% in Florida and Rhode Island. Most tests were performed with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS-: Estimates across all U.S. counties showed large variations. Estimates may be informative for planning by states and local screening programs.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer screening for men aged 55 to 69 years who express a preference for being screened after being informed about and understanding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test benefits and risks. USPSTF recommended against screening men aged ≥70 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates, masked by national and state estimates, to identify counties with high PSA screening prevalence. METHODS: We fitted multilevel logistic regression mixed models for 4 age groups (≥40, 40 to 54, 55 to 69, ≥70 years), using data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 116,654) and other sources. We evaluated consistency between our model-based state and BRFSS direct state estimates with Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: PSA screening prevalence increased with increasing age groups: 7.7% for men aged 40 to 54 years, 27.2% for men aged 55 to 69 years, and 33.7% among men age ≥70 years, and was largely clustered in the South and Appalachia. Many county estimates among men aged ≥70 years exceeded 40%, especially in the South. Correlation coefficients were 0.94 for men aged ≥40, and ≥0.85 for men aged 40 to 54 years, 55 to 69 years, and ≥70 years. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening was highest among men ≥70 years, for whom it is not recommended, and in the South among all age groups. Screening varied substantially within states. IMPACT: In 2018, on average, more than 1 in 4 men aged 55 to 69 years and 1 in 3 men aged ≥70 years underwent PSA screening in the prior year, suggesting potential overuse among some men.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). CRC screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey data, we examined CRC screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N=10,595). We also examined time trends in CRC screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a CRC screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, CRC testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population CRC screening goals.

Background: Other than skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Lower uptake of mammography screening is associated with higher rates of late-stage breast cancers. This study aims to show geographic patterns in the United States, where rates of late-stage breast cancer are high and persistent over time, and examines factors associated with these patterns. Materials and Methods: We examined all primary breast cancers diagnosed among all counties in 43 U.S. states with available data. We used spatial cluster analysis to identify hot spots (i.e., spatial clusters with above average late-stage diagnosis rates among counties). Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were compared between persistent hot spots and those counties that were never hot spots. Results: Of the 2,599 counties examined in 43 states, 219 were identified as persistent hot spots. Counties with persistent hot spots (compared with counties that were never hot spots) were located in more deprived areas with worse housing characteristics, lower socioeconomic status, lower levels of health insurance, worse access to mammography, more isolated American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, or Hispanic neighborhoods, and larger income disparity. In addition, persistent hot spots were significantly more likely to be observed among poor, rural, African American, or Hispanic communities, but not among poor, rural, White communities. This analysis includes a broader range of socioeconomic conditions than those included in previous literature. Conclusion: We found geographic disparities in late-stage breast cancer diagnosis rates, with some communities experiencing persistent disparities over time. Our findings can guide public health efforts aimed at reducing disparities in stage of diagnosis for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The death rate for female breast cancer increases progressively with age, but organizations differ in their mammography screening recommendations for older women. To understand current patterns of screening mammography use and breast cancer diagnoses among older women, we examined recent national data on mammography screening use and breast cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis among women aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: We examined breast cancer incidence using the 2016 United States Cancer Statistics dataset and analyzed screening mammography use among women aged ≥ 65 years using the 2018 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Women aged 70-74 years had the highest breast cancer incidence rate (458.3 cases per 100,000 women), and women aged ≥ 85 years had the lowest rate (295.2 per 100,000 women). The proportion of cancer diagnosed at distant stage or with unknown stage increased with age. Over half of women aged 80-84 years and 26.0% of women aged ≥ 85 years reported a screening mammogram within the last 2 years. Excellent/very good/good self-reported health status (p = .010) and no dependency in activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living (p < .001) were associated with recent mammography screening. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer incidence rates and stage at diagnosis vary by age. Many women aged ≥ 75 years receive screening mammograms. The results of this study point to areas for further investigation to promote optimal mammography screening among older women.

Screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality from these cancers.* However, screening test receipt has been below national targets with disparities observed in certain populations (1,2). National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2018 were analyzed to estimate percentages of adults up to date with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendations. Screening test receipt remained below national Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) targets, although CRC test receipt neared the target. Disparities were evident, with particularly low test receipt among persons who were uninsured or did not have usual sources of care. Continued monitoring helps assess progress toward targets and could inform efforts to promote screening and reduce barriers for underserved populations.

CONTEXT: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was performed with a search period through April 2019 to identify relevant economic evaluation studies. All monetary values were adjusted to 2018 U.S. dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2019. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 19 studies were included in the final analysis with 3 on breast cancer, 5 on cervical cancer, 9 on colorectal cancer, and 2 that combined costs for breast and cervical cancers and for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. For cervical cancer screening, 2 U.S. studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year saved of $762 and $34,405. For colorectal cancer screening, 2 U.S. studies reported both a negative incremental cost and an increase in quality-adjusted life years saved with colonoscopy screening. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging community health workers to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screenings is cost effective on the basis of estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were less than the conservative $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year threshold. In addition, quality-adjusted life years saved from colorectal screening with colonoscopy were associated with net healthcare cost savings.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize recent prostate cancer incidence, distant stage diagnosis, and mortality rates by region, race/ethnicity, and age-group. METHODS: In SEER*Stat, we examined age-specific and age-adjusted prostate cancer incidence, distant stage diagnosis, and mortality rates by race/ethnicity, Census region, and age group. Incidence and mortality analyses included men diagnosed with (n=723,269) and dying of (n=112,116) prostate cancer between 2012-2015. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic black (NHB) and NH Asian/Pacific Islander (NHAPI) men had the highest and lowest rates, respectively, for each indicator across regions and age-groups. Hispanic men had lower incidence and mortality rates than non-Hispanic white (NHW) men in all regions except the Northeast where they had higher incidence (RR 1.16 (95%CI 1.14-1.19)) and similar mortality. Hispanics had higher distant stage rates in the Northeast (RR 1.18 (95%CI 1.08-1.28)) and South (RR 1.22 (95%CI 1.15-1.30)), but similar rates in other regions. Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native (NHAIAN) men had higher distant stage rates than NHWs in the West (RR 1.38 (95%CI 1.15-1.65)). NHBs and Hispanics had higher distant stage rates than NHWs among those ages 55-69 years (RR 2.91 (95% CI 2.81-3.02) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.18-1.31) respectively), despite lower overall incidence for Hispanics in this age group. CONCLUSIONS: For Hispanic and NHAIAN men, prostate cancer indicators varied by region, while NHB and NHAPI men consistently had the highest and lowest rates, respectively, across regions. IMPACT: Regional and age-group differences in prostate cancer indicators between populations may improve understanding of prostate cancer risk and help inform screening decisions.

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.

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016. Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred approximately 1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

CONTEXT: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is one of the thematic networks of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Prevention Research Centers. Network members are academic research centers in the United States who collaborate with public health and community partners to accelerate the use of evidence-based interventions in communities to reduce the burden of cancer, especially among underserved populations. CPCRN studies include geographically dispersed populations, cross-institution partnerships, and opportunities for collaborative learning across network centers. Since its inception in 2002, CPCRN has worked to translate research on community-based intervention strategies into practice to improve cancer screening and reduce cancer risk. This commentary describes CPCRN's role in contributing to public health and the field of dissemination and implementation science. In addition, CDC and the National Cancer Institute describe how their joint support of the network contributes to each organization's goals and missions.