Background: Bilateral oophorectomy has been linked to numerous health outcomes, some of which can have a long latency period. Limited data are available on bilateral oophorectomy prevalence among U.S. women. Methods: The National Health Interview Survey fielded measures of bilateral oophorectomy most recently in 2010 and 2015. We pooled these 2 data years to present bilateral oophorectomy prevalence estimates by age-group, race, ethnicity, geographic region, and hysterectomy status. Results: Our study found bilateral oophorectomy was common among older women. Among women aged 70-79 years, 29% reported a bilateral oophorectomy, compared with <1% for women aged 20-29 years. By geographic region, bilateral oophorectomy prevalence among women 20-84 years was 12.3% in the South, 10.8% in the Midwest, 9.4% in the West, and 8.0% in the Northeast. Small numbers limited our ability to generate age-specific estimates for American Indian and Alaska Native women and subgroups of Asian and Hispanic women. Nearly half of women who had a bilateral oophorectomy reported their procedure occurred more than 20 years ago. Among women aged 20-84 years who reported a hysterectomy, 57% reported they also had both of their ovaries removed. Conclusion: Standard measures of incidence rates for ovarian cancer are not adjusted for oophorectomy status. These findings suggest that ovarian cancer incidence rates may be underestimated among older women. Continued monitoring of bilateral oophorectomy prevalence will be needed to track its potential impact on ovarian cancer incidence and numerous other chronic health outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To explore current literature on social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE(®), CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases for articles published during 2000 to 2020, which included terms for SDOH and cancer occurrence in AI/AN populations. We derived the data extraction elements from the PROGRESS-Plus framework. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Equity extension guided the evidence map. RESULTS: From 2180 screened articles, 297 were included. Most were observational (93.9%), employed a cross-sectional design (83.2%), were categorized as cancer occurrence and surveillance research (62%), and included no cancer-related risk factors (70.7%). Race, gender, and place were the most frequently included PROGRESS-Plus categories. Religion, relationship features, and characteristics of discrimination were least common. Only 12% of articles mentioned historical/current trauma or historical context. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps exist in our understanding of SDOH as drivers of cancer disparities in AI/AN populations. Future studies in health equity science may incorporate historical and cultural factors into SDOH frameworks tailored for AI/AN populations.

PURPOSE: Women exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero were at elevated risk of clear-cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix (CCA) as young women. Previous research suggested that this elevated risk of CCA may persist into adulthood. We extended a published analysis to measure CCA risk as these women aged. METHODS: Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) compared CCA risk among women born from 1947 through 1971 (the DES-era) to CCA risk among the comparison group of women born prior to 1947, using registry data that covered the US population. RESULTS: Incidence rates of CCA among both cohorts increased with age. Among the DES-era birth cohort, higher rates of CCA were observed across all age groups except 55-59 years. SIR estimates had wide confidence intervals that often included the null value. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with prior research and suggest an elevated risk of CCA in midlife and at older ages among women exposed in utero to DES. These results highlight unresolved issues regarding cancer risk among aging DES daughters and appropriate screening guidance. The examination of population-based cancer surveillance data may be a useful tool for monitoring trends in the incidence of other rare cancers over time among specific birth cohorts.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) creates age-based recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Their most recent statement, published in 2021, recommends screening for adults aged 45–49 years (B-grade) and 50–75 years (A-grade), selective screening for adults aged 76–85 years (C-grade), and does not recommend screening for adults aged 86 years and older (no grade assigned).1 Several types of tests are available to screen for CRC, and the potential harms and potential benefits of screening vary by test type and age group.1 We provide national estimates of CRC screening test use among adults aged 65 years and older by test type and age group.

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.

Cervical cancer is highly preventable when precancerous lesions are detected early and appropriately managed. However, the complexity of and frequent updates to existing evidence-based clinical guidelines make it challenging for clinicians to stay abreast of the latest recommendations. In addition, limited availability and accessibility to information technology (IT) decision supports make it difficult for groups who are medically underserved to receive screening or receive the appropriate follow-up care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC), is leading a multiyear initiative to develop computer-interpretable ("computable") version of already existing evidence-based guidelines to support clinician awareness and adoption of the most up-to-date cervical cancer screening and management guidelines. DCPC is collaborating with the MITRE Corporation, leading scientists from the National Cancer Institute, and other CDC subject matter experts to translate existing narrative guidelines into computable format and develop clinical decision support tools for integration into health IT systems such as electronic health records with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes and decreasing disparities in cervical cancer outcomes among populations that are medically underserved. This initiative meets the challenges and opportunities highlighted by the President's Cancer Panel and the President's Cancer Moonshot 2.0 to nearly eliminate cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous reports of gynecologic cancer rates have adjusted for hysterectomy prevalence with data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) or the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We sought to determine if BRFSS and NHIS produce similar estimates of hysterectomy prevalence. METHODS: Using data from BRFSS and NHIS, we calculated hysterectomy prevalence for women aged 20-79 years, stratified by 10-year age groups, survey year (2010, 2018), and race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic all other race groups). RESULTS: BRFSS and NHIS produced similar increasing trends in hysterectomy prevalence by age and directional differences by race and ethnicity. Fewer than 2% of women aged 20-29 years and more than 4 out of 10 women aged 70-79 years reported having had a hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Our analyses suggest adjustment for hysterectomy prevalence with data from either survey would likely reduce distortion in cervical and uterine cancer rates. BRFSS, a survey which has a larger sample size than NHIS, may better support analyses of hysterectomy estimates for smaller subpopulations.

INTRODUCTION: The number of adults entering the age groups at greatest risk for being diagnosed with cancer is increasing. Projecting cancer incidence can help the cancer control community plan and evaluate prevention strategies aimed at reducing the growing number of cancer cases. METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and the US Census Bureau to estimate average, annual, age-standardized cancer incidence rates and case counts (for all sites combined and top 22 invasive cancers) in the US for 2015 and to project cancer rates and counts to 2050. We used age, period, and cohort models to inform projections. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2050, we predict the overall age-standardized incidence rate (proxy for population risk for being diagnosed with cancer) to stabilize in women (1%) and decrease in men (-9%). Cancers with the largest change in risk include a 34% reduction for lung and bronchus and a 32% increase for corpus uterine (32%). Because of the growth and aging of the US population, we predict that the annual number of cancer cases will increase 49%, from 1,534,500 in 2015 to 2,286,300 in 2050, with the largest percentage increase among adults aged ≥75 years. Cancers with the largest projected absolute increase include female breast, colon and rectum, and prostate. DISCUSSION: By 2050, we predict the total number of incident cases to increase by almost 50% as a result of the growth and aging of the US population. A greater emphasis on cancer risk reduction is needed to counter these trends.

PURPOSE: Differences in hysterectomy prevalence by rural or urban residence could distort comparisons of rural-urban cervical and uterine cancer incidence. Using data from a large population-based survey, we sought to understand whether hysterectomy prevalence varies by rural or urban residence and whether the relationship between hysterectomy prevalence and rurality varies by race or ethnicity. METHODS: Our analysis included 197,759 female respondents to the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, aged 20-79 years. We calculated population weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals for hysterectomy prevalence, stratified by rural-urban residence and 5-year age groups. We also report estimates of hysterectomy prevalence by rural-urban residence for specific race and ethnic groups. FINDINGS: Hysterectomy prevalence increased with age and was more common among rural women than urban women. The largest absolute difference occurred among women aged 45-49 years; 28.6% of rural women (95% CI: 25.1-32.2) and 16.6% of urban women (95% CI: 15.3-17.8) reported a hysterectomy. For hysterectomy prevalence by race and ethnicity, rural estimates were higher than urban estimates for the following groups of women: non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic other race, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White. Among Hispanic women and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native women, rural-urban differences in hysterectomy prevalence were not statistically different at the 95% confidence level. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that variation in hysterectomy prevalence, if not adjusted in the analysis, could produce distorted comparisons in measures of the relationship between rurality and uterine and cervical cancer rates. The magnitude of this confounding bias may vary by race and ethnicity.

Cancer incidence varies among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations, as well as between AI/AN and White populations. This study examined trends for cancers with elevated incidence among AI/AN compared with non-Hispanic White populations and estimated potentially avoidable incident cases among AI/AN populations. Incident cases diagnosed during 2012-2016 were identified from population-based cancer registries and linked with the Indian Health Service patient registration databases to improve racial classification of AI/AN populations. Age-adjusted rates (per 100,000) and trends were calculated for cancers with elevated incidence among AI/AN compared with non-Hispanic White populations (rate ratio of >1.0) according to region. Trends were estimated using joinpoint regression analyses. Expected cancers were estimated by applying age-specific cancer incidence rates among non-Hispanic White populations to population estimates for AI/AN populations. Excess cancer cases among AI/AN populations were defined as observed minus expected cases. Liver, stomach, kidney, lung, colorectal, and female breast cancers had higher incidence rates among AI/AN populations across most regions. Between 2012 and 2016, nearly 5,200 excess cancers were diagnosed among AI/AN populations, with the largest number of excess cancers (1,925) occurring in the Southern Plains region. Culturally informed efforts could reduce cancer disparities associated with these and other cancers among AI/AN populations.

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.

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.

The Monographs produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) apply rigorous procedures for the scientific review and evaluation of carcinogenic hazards by independent experts. The Preamble to the IARC Monographs, which outlines these procedures, was updated in 2019, following recommendations of a 2018 expert advisory group. This article presents the key features of the updated Preamble, a major milestone that will enable IARC to take advantage of recent scientific and procedural advances made during the 12 years since the last Preamble amendments. The updated Preamble formalizes important developments already being pioneered in the Monographs program. These developments were taken forward in a clarified and strengthened process for identifying, reviewing, evaluating, and integrating evidence to identify causes of human cancer. The advancements adopted include the strengthening of systematic review methodologies; greater emphasis on mechanistic evidence, based on key characteristics of carcinogens; greater consideration of quality and informativeness in the critical evaluation of epidemiological studies, including their exposure assessment methods; improved harmonization of evaluation criteria for the different evidence streams; and a single-step process of integrating evidence on cancer in humans, cancer in experimental animals, and mechanisms for reaching overall evaluations. In all, the updated Preamble underpins a stronger and more transparent method for the identification of carcinogenic hazards, the essential first step in cancer prevention.

INTRODUCTION: American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations have higher gastric cancer rates than the general US population. This study provides a comprehensive overview of incidence rates among AI/AN persons during 2005-2016 compared with non-Hispanic whites (whites). METHODS: Population-based cancer registry data for 2005-2016 were linked with the Indian Health Service patient registration databases to address racial misclassification. Age-adjusted gastric cancer incidence rates were expressed per 100,000 per year. Incidence and trend analyses were restricted to purchased/referred care delivery area counties in 6 geographic regions, comparing gastric cancer incidence rates for AI/AN vs white populations in the United States. RESULTS: Gastric cancer rates were higher in the AI/AN compared with white populations in nearly every US region. Incidence rates for central/distal portions of the stomach were higher in AI/AN individuals compared with whites. Rates of later stage gastric cancer were higher in AI/AN populations overall and in every region except the Pacific Coast and East. Incidence rates decreased significantly over time in both populations. Declining rates in the AI/AN populations were driven by changes in the Pacific Coast and Northern Plains regions. DISCUSSION: AI/AN populations have a disproportionately high incidence of gastric cancer, especially in Alaska. High incidence in the central/distal portions of the stomach among AI/AN populations likely reflects a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in these populations. These data can be used to develop interventions to reduce risk factors and improve access to health services among AI/AN people at high risk for gastric cancer.

Advances in breast cancer science, early detection, and treatment have resulted in improvements in breast cancer survival but not in breast cancer incidence. After skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the United States. Each year, nearly a quarter million U.S. women receive a breast cancer diagnosis, and the number continues to rise each year with the growth in the population of older women. Although much remains to be understood about breast cancer origins and prevention, action can be taken on the existing scientific knowledge to address the systemic factors that drive breast cancer risk at the population level. The California Breast Cancer Research Program funded a team at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) to convene leaders in advocacy, policy, and research related to breast cancer prevention from across the state of California. The objective was the development of a strategic plan to direct collective efforts toward specific and measurable objectives to reduce the incidence of breast cancer. The structured, innovative approach used by BCPP to integrate scientific evidence with community perspectives provides a model for other states to consider, to potentially change the future trajectory of breast cancer incidence in the United States.

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: Cancer incidence rates for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations vary by geographic region in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine cancer incidence rates and trends in the AI/AN population compared with the non-Hispanic white population in the United States for the years 2010 to 2015. METHODS: Cases diagnosed during 2010 to 2015 were identified from population-based cancer registries and linked with the Indian Health Service (IHS) patient registration databases to describe cancer incidence rates in non-Hispanic AI/AN persons compared with non-Hispanic whites (whites) living in IHS purchased/referred care delivery area counties. Age-adjusted rates were calculated for the 15 most common cancer sites, expressed per 100,000 per year. Incidence rates are presented overall as well as by region. Trends were estimated using joinpoint regression analyses. RESULTS: Lung and colorectal cancer incidence rates were nearly 20% to 2.5 times higher in AI/AN males and nearly 20% to nearly 3 times higher in AI/AN females compared with whites in the Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Pacific Coast, and Alaska. Cancers of the liver, kidney, and stomach were significantly higher in the AI/AN compared with the white population in all regions. We observed more significant decreases in cancer incidence rates in the white population compared with the AI/AN population. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the importance of examining cancer disparities between AI/AN and white populations. Disparities have widened for lung, female breast, and liver cancers. IMPACT: These findings highlight opportunities for targeted public health interventions to reduce AI/AN cancer incidence.

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.

Over two-thirds of all new cancers are diagnosed among adults aged ≥60 years. As the number of adults living to older ages continues to increase, so too will the number of new cancer cases. Can we do more as a society to reduce cancer risk and preserve health as adults enter their 60s, 70s, and beyond? Cancer development is a multi-step process involving a combination of factors. Each cancer risk factor represents a component of cancer causation, and opportunities to prevent cancer may exist at any time up to the final component, even years after the first. The characteristics of the community in which one lives often shape cancer risk-related behaviors and exposures over time, making communities an ideal setting for efforts to reduce cancer risk at a population level. A comprehensive approach to cancer prevention at older ages would lower exposures to known causes of cancer, promote healthy social and physical environments, expand the appropriate use of clinical preventive services, and engage older adults in these efforts. The collection of articles in this supplement provide innovative insights for exciting new directions in research and practice to expand cancer prevention efforts for older adults. This brief commentary sets the stage for the papers that follow.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and socioeconomic disparities exist in cervical cancer screening, incidence, and mortality. The purpose of this study was to investigate how cervical cancer stage at diagnosis is associated with rurality and race/ethnicity. METHODS: We analyzed 2010 through 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. We compared cervical cancer frequency and age-adjusted incidence for each stage by county-level rurality and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: There were 59,432 incident cases of cervical cancer reported from 2010 through 2014. The most common stage at diagnosis was localized (urban, 43.3%; rural 41.3%). Rural counties had higher incidence than urban counties for localized (rate ratio [RR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.15), regional (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), and distant (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19) stage cervical cancer. Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women had higher incidence of regional and distant cervical cancer than non-Hispanic white women. Non-Hispanic white women in rural counties had higher incidence than those in urban counties at every stage. However, incidence for non-Hispanic white women was lower than for non-Hispanic black or Hispanic women. CONCLUSION: Rural counties had higher incidence of cervical cancer than urban counties at every stage. However, the association of rural residence with incidence varied by race/ethnicity.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests. METHODS: Data from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged >/=40 years without lung cancer. RESULTS: In 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial.

BACKGROUND: Because cost may be a barrier to receiving mammography screening, cost sharing for "in-network" screening mammograms was eliminated in many insurance plans with implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We examined prevalence of out-of-pocket payments for screening mammography after elimination in many plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 2015 National Health Interview Survey data, we examined whether women aged 50-74 years who had screening mammography within the previous year (n = 3,278) reported paying any cost for mammograms. Logistic regression models stratified by age (50-64 and 65-74 years) examined out-of-pocket payment by demographics and insurance (ages 50-64 years: private, Medicaid, other, and uninsured; ages 65-74 years: private +/- Medicare, Medicare+Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Medicare only, and other). RESULTS: Of women aged 50-64 years, 23.5% reported payment, including 39.1% of uninsured women. Compared with that of privately insured women, payment was less likely for women with Medicaid (adjusted OR 0.17 [95% CI 0.07-0.41]) or other insurance (0.49 [0.25-0.96]) and more likely for uninsured women (1.99 [0.99-4.02]) (p < 0.001 across groups). For women aged 65-74 years, 11.9% reported payment, including 22.5% of Medicare-only beneficiaries. Compared with private +/- Medicare beneficiaries, payment was less likely for Medicare+Medicaid beneficiaries (adjusted OR 0.21 [95% CI 0.06-0.73]) and more likely for Medicare-only beneficiaries (1.83 [1.01-3.32]) (p = 0.005 across groups). CONCLUSIONS: Although most women reported no payment for their most recent screening mammogram in 2015, some payment was reported by >20% of women aged 50-64 years or aged 65-74 years with Medicare only, and by almost 40% of uninsured women aged 50-64 years. Efforts are needed to understand why many women in some groups report paying out of pocket for mammograms and whether this impacts screening use.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. County-level information on population measures of mammography use can inform targeted intervention to reduce geographic disparities in mammography use. County-level estimates for mammography use nationwide are rarely presented. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n=130,289 women), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models with two outcomes: mammography within the past 2 years (up-to-date); and most recent mammography 5 or more years ago or never (rarely/never). We post-stratified the data with US Census population counts to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level estimates nationally and by urban-rural county classifications. County-level prevalence estimates were aggregated into state and national estimates. We validated internal consistency between our model-based state-specific estimates and urban-rural estimates with BRFSS direct estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients and mean absolute differences. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients were 0.94 or larger. Mean absolute differences for the 2 outcomes ranged from 0.79 to 1.03. Although 78.45% (95% CI: 77.95% horizontal line 78.92%) of women nationally were up-to-date with mammography, more than half of the states had counties with >15% of women rarely/never using a mammogram, many in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: We provided estimates for all U.S. counties and identified marked variations in mammography use. Many states and counties were far from the 2020 target (81.1%). IMPACT: Our results suggest a need for planning and resource allocation on a local level to increase mammography uptake.

PURPOSE: To evaluate liver cancer incidence rates and risk factor correlations in non-Hispanic AI/AN populations for the years 1999-2009. METHODS: We linked data from 51 central cancer registries with the Indian Health Service patient registration databases to improve identification of the AI/AN population. Analyses were restricted to non-Hispanic persons living in Contract Health Service Delivery Area counties. We compared age-adjusted liver cancer incidence rates (per 100,000) for AI/AN to white populations using rate ratios. Annual percent changes (APCs) and trends were estimated using joinpoint regression analyses. We evaluated correlations between regional liver cancer incidence rates and risk factors using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: AI/AN persons had higher liver cancer incidence rates than whites overall (11.5 versus 4.8, RR = 2.4, 95% CI 2.3-2.6). Rate ratios ranged from 1.6 (Southwest) to 3.4 (Northern Plains and Alaska). We observed an increasing trend among AI/AN persons (APC 1999-2009 = 5%). Rates of distant disease were higher in the AI/AN versus white population for all regions except Alaska. Alcohol use (r = 0.84) and obesity (r = 0.79) were correlated with liver cancer incidence by region. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight disparities in liver cancer incidence between AI/AN and white populations and emphasize opportunities to decrease liver cancer risk factor prevalence.

Although annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk for breast cancer as an adjunct to screening mammography, breast MRI use remains low. We examined factors associated with breast MRI use in a cohort of women with a family history of breast cancer but no personal cancer history. Study participants came from the Sister Study cohort, a nationwide, prospective study of women with at least 1 sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer but who themselves had not ever had breast cancer (n = 17 894). Participants were surveyed on breast cancer beliefs, cancer worry, breast MRI use, provider communication, and genetic counseling and testing. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with having a breast MRI overall and for those at high risk. Breast MRI was reported by 16.1% and was more common among younger women and those with higher incomes. After adjustment for demographics, ever use of breast MRI was associated with actual and perceived risk. Odds ratios (OR) were 12.29 (95% CI, 8.85-17.06), 2.48 (95% CI, 2.27-2.71), and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.09-2.99) for positive BRCA1/2 test, lifetime breast cancer risk >/= 20%, and being told by a health care provider of higher risk, respectively. Women who believed they had much higher risk than others or had higher level of worry were twice as likely to have had breast MRI; OR = 2.23 (95% CI, 1.82-2.75) and OR = 1.76 (95% CI, 1.52-2.04). Patterns were similar among women at high risk. Breast cancer risk, provider communication, and personal beliefs were determinants of breast MRI use. To support shared decisions about the use of breast MRI, women could benefit from improved understanding of the chances of getting breast cancer and increased quality of provider communications.

PURPOSE: Younger women diagnosed with breast cancer have poorer prognoses and higher mortality compared to older women. Young black women have higher incidence rates of breast cancer and more aggressive subtypes than women of other races/ethnicities. In this study, we examined recent trends and variations in breast cancer incidence among young women in the United States. METHODS: Using 2004-2013 National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data, we calculated breast cancer incidence rates and trends and examined variations in stage, grade, and tumor subtype by age and race/ethnicity among young women aged 20-49 years. RESULTS: The majority of breast cancer cases occurred in women aged 40-44 and 45-49 years (77.3%). Among women aged < 45 years, breast cancer incidence was highest among black women. Incidence trends increased from 2004 to 2013 for Asian or Pacific Islander (API) women and white women aged 20-34 years. Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic women had higher proportions of cases diagnosed at later stages than white and API women. Black women had a higher proportion of grade III-IV tumors than other racial/ethnic groups. Across all age groups, incidence rates for triple-negative breast cancer were significantly higher in black women than women of other races/ethnicities, and this disparity increased with age. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer among young women is a highly heterogeneous disease. Differences in tumor characteristics by age and race/ethnicity suggest opportunities for further research into personal and cultural factors that may influence breast cancer risk among younger women.