Search

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [ BI- RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI- RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI- RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI- RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as 'nondense' ( BI- RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as 'dense' ( BI- RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as 'dense' by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as 'nondense' by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI- RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI- RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI- RADS density and percent density. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In 2005, mammography rates in the United States dropped nationally for the first time among age-eligible women. An increased risk of breast cancer related to hormone therapy (HT) use reported in 2002 led to a dramatic drop in its use by 2005. Because current users of HT also tend to have higher mammography rates, the authors examined whether concurrent drops in HT and mammography use were associated. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between HT use and survey year, controlling for a range of measurable factors in data from the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS). RESULTS: Women ages 50 to 64 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported more education, a usual source of care, private health insurance, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT. Women aged ≥65 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported younger age (ages 65-74 years), more education, a usual source of care, having Medicare Part B or other supplemental Medicare insurance, excellent health, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT. CONCLUSIONS: The change in HT use was associated with the drop in mammography use for women ages 50 to 64 years but not for women aged ≥65 years. NHIS data explained 70% to 80% of the change in mammography use. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a prospective cohort study conducted on several women aged between 40 to 59 years at mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to determine and compare the effectiveness of the digital screening mammography and film-Screening mammography in the U.S. Community practice. The study found that both the methods yielded similar results in the cancer diagnosis in U.S. INSET: Untitled.

Background Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists. Methods We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998–2002 vs 2003–2006). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. Conclusion CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Practice registry measurement provides a foundation for quality improvement, but experiences in practice are not widely reported. One setting where practice registry measurement has been implemented is the Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Disparities Cancer Collaborative (HDCC).Methods: Using practice registry data from 16 community health centers participating in the HDCC, we determined the completeness of data for screening, follow-up, and treatment measures. We determined the size of the change in cancer care processes that an aggregation of practices has adequate power to detect. We modeled different ways of presenting before/after changes in cancer screening, including count and proportion data at both the individual health center and aggregate collaborative level.Results: All participating health centers reported data for cancer screening, but less than a third reported data regarding timely follow-up. For individual cancers, the aggregate HDCC had adequate power to detect a 2 to 3% change in cancer screening, but only had the power to detect a change of 40% or more in the initiation of treatment. Almost every health center (98%) improved cancer screening based upon count data, while fewer (77%) improved cancer screening based upon proportion data. The aggregate collaborative appeared to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates by 12%, 15%, and 4%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all before/after comparisons). In subgroup analyses, significant changes were detectable among individual health centers less than one-half of the time because of small numbers of events.Conclusions: The aggregate HDCC registries had both adequate reporting rates and power to detect significant changes in cancer screening, but not follow-up care. Different measures provided different answers about improvements in cancer screening; more definitive evaluation would require validation of the registries. Limits to the implementation and interpretation of practice registry measurement in the HDCC highlight challenges and opportunities for local and aggregate quality improvement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether rates of using mammography to identify breast cancer have decreased in the U.S. Mammography rates from 1987 through 2005 were assessed. The 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates were used to characterize trends and current patterns in mammography use in the country. The researchers discovered that estimates from the 2005 NHIS showed a decline compared with 2000.

Context: Breast augmentation is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; however, implants may interfere with the detection of breast cancer thereby delaying cancer diagnosis in women with augmentation. Objective: To determine whether mammography accuracy and tumor characteristics are different for women with and without augmentation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort of 137 women with augmentation and 685 women without augmentation diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 1995, and October 15, 2002, matched (1:5) by age, race/ethnicity, previous mammography screening, and mammography registry, and 10 533 women with augmentation and 974 915 women without augmentation and without breast cancer among 7 mammography registries in Denver, Colo; Lebanon, NH; Albuquerque, NM; Chapel Hill, NC; San Francisco, Calif; Seattle, Wash; and Burlington, Vt. Main Outcome Measures: Comparison between women with and without augmentation of mammography performance measures and cancer characteristics, including invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, tumor stage, nodal status, size, grade, and estrogen-receptor status. Results: Among asymptomatic women, the sensitivity of screening mammography based on the final assessment was lower in women with breast augmentation vs women without (45.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 29.3%-61.5%] vs 66.8% [95% CI, 60.4%-72.8%]; P = .008), and specificity was slightly higher in women with augmentation (97.7% [95% CI, 97.4%-98.0%] vs 96.7% [95% CI, 96.6%-96.7%]; P<.001). Among symptomatic women, both sensitivity and specificity were lower for women with augmentation compared with women without but these differences were not significant. Tumors were of similar stage, size, estrogen-receptor status, and nodal status but tended to be lower grade (P = .052) for women with breast augmentation vs without. Conclusions: Breast augmentation decreases the sensitivity of screening mammography among asymptomatic women but does not increase the false-positive rate. Despite the lower accuracy of mammography in women with augmentation, the prognostic characteristics of tumors are not influenced by augmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in women undergoing screening mammography in the U.S. Total number of identified cases of breast cancer; Decrease in the percentage of screen-detected DCIS breast cancers; Increase in the incidence rates of DCIS of the breast.

Compares the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women with similar age without the history in the U.S. Risk factors for breast cancer; Positive predictive value and sensitivity of screening mammography; Rate of cancer; Breast biopsies.

Evaluates the effects of stage at diagnosis, age and level of comorbidity on the costs of treating three types of cancer among members of a health maintenance organization called Group Health Cooperative from Puget Sound, Washington. Costs of care for cancer case subjects; Costs of care for control subjects; Net costs of cancer care.

Reviews lessons from 20 years of experience in development and provision of clinical preventive services at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Washington. Critical factors for enhancing service; Outcome results from clinical prevention efforts; Synthesis of clinical medicine and public health approaches.

Evaluates the impact of community organization strategies to promote breast cancer screening ordering by primary care physicians in Washington State. Intervention activities; Increase in number of physicians who order regular mammography.

Describes the role of medical communities in two counties targeted by the Washington State Community Breast Cancer Screening Project. Role of physician planning groups; Evidence that physicians practicing in medium-sized cities are willing to be active in community disease prevention programs.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including breast cancer, women's health, and mammogram.

The author reflects on the study by E. Ben-Ami and colleagues on ways to achieve three goals for the health care system in the U.S. He discusses the triple aim for health care delivery recommended by research organization Institute for Health Care Improvement which are improving patient care experience, improving citizens' health, and reducing medical care costs. He stresses the value of using existing information systems to improve cancer care.

Abstract: Population science and disease control researchers can benefit from a more proactive approach to applying bioinformatics tools for clinical and public health research. Bioinformatics utilizes principles of information sciences and technologies to transform vast, diverse, and complex life sciences data into a more coherent format for wider application. Bioinformatics provides the means to collect and process data, enhance data standardization and harmonization for scientific discovery, and merge disparate data sources. Achieving interoperability (i.e. the development of an informatics system that provides access to and use of data from different systems) will facilitate scientific explorations and careers and opportunities for interventions in population health. The National Cancer Institute''s (NCI''s) interoperable Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG®) is one of a number of illustrative tools in this report that are being mined by population scientists. Tools are not all that is needed for progress. Challenges persist, including a lack of common data standards, proprietary barriers to data access, and difficulties pooling data from studies. Population scientists and informaticists are developing promising and innovative solutions to these barriers. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the application of bioinformatics systems can accelerate population health research across the continuum from prevention to detection, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In general, it has been found that cancer fatalism is negatively associated with important cancer prevention and control behaviors, whereas religiosity is positively associated with these behaviors. Yet, the notion that religiosity gives rise to fatalistic beliefs that may discourage health behaviors is deeply ingrained in the public health literature. In addition, racial/ethnic group membership is associated with higher reports of cancer fatalism, though this association may be confounded by socioeconomic status (SES). A better understanding of the relationships between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and religiosity may contribute to the development of effective interventions to address cancer fatalism and improve health behaviors. In this study, we examined associations between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and cancer fatalism as the outcome. In addition, we tested whether religiosity (as measured by religious service attendance) moderated these relationships.

Purpose: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988., Methods: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications., Results: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors., Conclusion: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks.

Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015)., Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process., Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT., Results: Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder., Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

Introduction: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs., Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017., Results: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing., Conclusions: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The movement toward accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes will increase with implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA will therefore give further impetus to the growing importance of teams in health care. Teams typically involve 2 or more people embedded in a larger social system who differentiate their roles, share common goals, interact with each other, and perform tasks affecting others. Multiple team types fit within this definition, and they all need support from leadership to succeed. Teams have been invoked as a necessary tool to address the needs of patients with multiple chronic conditions and to address medical workforce shortages. Invoking teams, however, is much easier than making them function effectively, so we need to consider the implications of the growing emphasis on teams. Although the ACA will spur team development, organizational leadership must use what we know now to train, support, and incentivize team function. Meanwhile, we must also advance research regarding teams in health care to give those leaders more evidence to guide their work.

Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a well-established ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.

The complex environmental context must be considered as we move forward to improve cancer care and, ultimately, patient and population outcomes. The cancer care continuum represents several care types, each of which includes multiple technical and communication steps and interfaces among patients, providers, and organizations. We use two case scenarios to 1) illustrate the variability, diversity, and interaction of factors from multiple levels that affect care quality and 2) discuss research implications and provide hypothetical examples of multilevel interventions. Each scenario includes a targeted literature review to illustrate contextual influences upon care and sets the stage for theory-informed interventions. The screening case highlights access issues in older women, and the survivorship case illustrates the multiple transition challenges faced by patients, families, and organizations. Example interventions show the potential gains of implementing intervention strategies that work synergistically at multiple levels. While research examining multilevel intervention is a priority, it presents numerous study design, measurement, and analytic challenges.

This summary reflects on this monograph regarding multilevel intervention (MLI) research to 1) assess its added value; 2) discuss what has been learned to date about its challenges in cancer care delivery; and 3) identify specific ways to improve its scientific soundness, feasibility, policy relevance, and research agenda. The 12 submitted chapters, and discussion of them at the March 2011 multilevel meeting, were reviewed and discussed among the authors to elicit key findings and results addressing the questions raised at the outset of this effort. MLI research is underrepresented as an explicit focus in the cancer literature but may improve implementation of studies of cancer care delivery if they assess contextual, organizational, and environmental factors important to understanding behavioral and/or system-level interventions. The field lacks a single unifying theory, although several psychological or biological theories are useful, and an ecological model helps conceptualize and communicate interventions. MLI research designs are often complex, involving nonlinear and nonhierarchical relationships that may not be optimally studied in randomized designs. Simulation modeling and pilot studies may be necessary to evaluate MLI interventions. Measurement and evaluation of team and organizational interventions are especially needed in cancer care, as are attention to the context of health-care reform, eHealth technology, and genomics-based medicine. Future progress in MLI research requires greater attention to developing and supporting relevant metrics of level effects and interactions and evaluating MLI interventions. MLI research holds an unrealized promise for understanding how to improve cancer care delivery.

Multilevel interventions, implemented at the individual, physician, clinic, health-care organization, and/or community level, increasingly are proposed and used in the belief that they will lead to more substantial and sustained changes in behaviors related to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment than would single-level interventions. It is important to understand how intervention components are related to patient outcomes and identify barriers to implementation. Designs that permit such assessments are uncommon, however. Thus, an important way of expanding our knowledge about multilevel interventions would be to assess the impact of interventions at different levels on patients as well as the independent and synergistic effects of influences from different levels. It also would be useful to assess the impact of interventions on outcomes at different levels. Multilevel interventions are much more expensive and complicated to implement and evaluate than are single-level interventions. Given how little evidence there is about the value of multilevel interventions, however, it is incumbent upon those arguing for this approach to do multilevel research that explicates the contributions that interventions at different levels make to the desired outcomes. Only then will we know whether multilevel interventions are better than more focused interventions and gain greater insights into the kinds of interventions that can be implemented effectively and efficiently to improve health and health care for individuals with cancer. This chapter reviews designs for assessing multilevel interventions and analytic ways of controlling for potentially confounding variables that can account for the complex structure of multilevel data.

Background: Although systems strategies are effective in improving health care delivery, little is known about their use for cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice., Methods: We assessed primary care physicians' (N = 2,475) use of systems strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national survey conducted in 2007. Systems strategies included patient and physician screening reminders, performance reports of screening rates, electronic medical records, implementation of in-practice guidelines, and use of nurse practitioners/physician assistants. We evaluated use of both patient and physician screening reminders with other strategies in separate models by screening type, adjusted for the effects of physician and practice characteristics with multivariate logistic regression., Results: Fewer than 10% of physicians used a comprehensive set of systems strategies to support cancer screening; use was greater for mammography and Pap testing than for CRC screening. In adjusted analyses, performance reports of cancer screening rates, medical record type, and in-practice guidelines were associated with use of both patient and physician screening reminders for mammography, Pap testing, and CRC screening (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Despite evidence supporting use of systems strategies in primary care, few physicians report using a comprehensive set of strategies to support cancer screening., Impact: Current health policy initiatives underscore the importance of increased implementation of systems strategies in primary care to improve the use and quality of cancer screening in the United States.

Background: Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists., Methods: We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer., Conclusion: CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.

Background: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening., Objectives: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions., Research Design and Methods: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions., Results: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.

Background: Interpretive performance of screening mammography varies substantially by facility, but performance of diagnostic interpretation has not been studied., Methods: Facilities performing diagnostic mammography within three registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were surveyed about their structure, organization, and interpretive processes. Performance measurements (false-positive rate, sensitivity, and likelihood of cancer among women referred for biopsy [positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation {PPV2}]) from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2005, were prospectively measured. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, adjusted for patient and radiologist characteristics, were used to assess the association between facility characteristics and interpretive performance. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Forty-five of the 53 facilities completed a facility survey (85% response rate), and 32 of the 45 facilities performed diagnostic mammography. The analyses included 28 100 diagnostic mammograms performed as an evaluation of a breast problem, and data were available for 118 radiologists who interpreted diagnostic mammograms at the facilities. Performance measurements demonstrated statistically significant interpretive variability among facilities (sensitivity, P = .006; false-positive rate, P < .001; and PPV2, P < .001) in unadjusted analyses. However, after adjustment for patient and radiologist characteristics, only false-positive rate variation remained statistically significant and facility traits associated with performance measures changed (false-positive rate = 6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.5% to 7.4%; sensitivity = 73.5%, 95% CI = 67.1% to 79.9%; and PPV2 = 33.8%, 95% CI = 29.1% to 38.5%). Facilities reporting that concern about malpractice had moderately or greatly increased diagnostic examination recommendations at the facility had a higher false-positive rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.01) and a non-statistically significantly higher sensitivity (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.94 to 3.23). Facilities offering specialized interventional services had a non-statistically significantly higher false-positive rate (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 0.94 to 4.1). No characteristics were associated with overall accuracy by ROC curve analyses., Conclusions: Variation in diagnostic mammography interpretation exists across facilities. Failure to adjust for patient characteristics when comparing facility performance could lead to erroneous conclusions. Malpractice concerns are associated with interpretive performance.

Background: The population served by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) has lower levels of cancer screening compared with the general population and suffers a disproportionate cancer burden. To address these disparities, 3 federal agencies and a primary care association established and tested the feasibility of a Regional Cancer Collaborative (RCC) in 2005., Methods: RCC faculty implemented a learning model to improve cancer screening across 4 FQHCs that met explicit organizational readiness criteria. Regional faculty trained "care process leaders," who worked with primary care teams to plan and implement practice changes. FQHCs monitored progress across the following measures of screening implementation: self-management goal-setting; number and percent screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer; percent timely results notification; and percent abnormal screens evaluated within 90 days. Progress and plans were reviewed in regular teleconferences. FQHCs were encouraged to create local communities of practice (LCOP) involving community resources to support cancer screening and to participate in a monthly teleconference that linked the LCOPs into a regional community of practice. Summary reports and administrative data facilitated a process evaluation of the RCC. chi test and test of trends compared baseline and follow-up screening rates., Results: The RCC taught the collaborative process using process leader training, teleconferences, 2 regional meetings, and local process improvement efforts. All organizations created clinical tracking capabilities and 3 of the 4 established LCOPs, which met monthly in an regional community of practice. Screening documentation increased for all 3 cancers from 2005 to 2007. Colorectal cancer screening increased from 8.6% to 21.2%., Conclusions: A regional plan to enable collaborative learning for cancer screening implementation is feasible, and improvements in screening rates can occur among carefully selected organizations.

Objective: United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for certification require that radiologists interpret > or = 960 mammography examinations within each 2-year period (approximately 480 annually). The purpose of our study was to estimate per-physician annual volumes of mammography interpretation., Subjects and Methods: Our study includes 4.2 million mammography examinations performed at 196 facilities between 1998 and 2004. We calculated the annual interpretive volumes per physician, the proportion of mammography examinations interpreted by radiologists in specified volume categories, and the impact on mammography capacity if annual interpretive volume requirements increased., Results: The mean annual mammographic interpretive volume was 1,777. Approximately 31% of radiologists interpreted < 1,000 mammography examinations annually, yet these low-volume radiologists interpreted only 10% of all mammograms. The 10% of radiologists who interpreted > or = 3,000 mammography examinations annually interpreted 32% of all examinations. Rural radiologists interpreted fewer examinations annually compared with urban radiologists. If the minimum annual volume requirement were increased to 1,000 mammograms per year, only 10% of the overall U.S. mammography capacity would be affected. If the requirement were increased to 2,000 mammograms annually, 47% of capacity would be eliminated, and a major rearrangement of workload would be required because most radiologists would no longer interpret enough examinations to meet the revised standards., Conclusion: Doubling physician annual volume requirements would result in a small impact on overall mammography capacity. Increasing volume requirements to 2,000 mammography examinations annually would require a dramatic increase in the number of mammography examinations interpreted by the higher volume radiologists. Unless previously low-volume radiologists increased their volumes, raising requirements to 2,000 examinations could curtail access to mammography, particularly in rural areas.

Background: Medical expenditures adjusted for price differences are a barometer of total resources devoted to patient care and thus may reflect treatment differentials., Objective: We sought to estimate costs of the surgical and adjuvant treatment phases of colorectal cancer (CRC) care and cost differences by race (African American-white) and other patient characteristics., Methods: We used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for stage II-III rectal and stage III colon cancer cases diagnosed in 1992-1996 to track Medicare approved payments for fee-for-service beneficiaries 66 and older in surgical (within 3 months of diagnosis) and postsurgical phases (13 months after the surgical phase). Net costs adjusted for expected noncancer expenditures were estimated with generalized linear models using pooled CRC and non-CRC cohorts. Using model results, we projected adjusted net costs for different patient groups (eg, by race, age)., Results: Total unstandardized CRC costs for African American recipients were $44,199, a statistically significant 15% higher than for white recipients ($38,378). Adjusting for covariates and expected non-CRC costs decreased the estimate for African American recipients to $34,588, a statistically insignificant $974 (2.9%) more than white recipients. Differential expenditures by age, urban-rural setting, region, and neighborhood median income were all much larger than differences by race, although only region was statistically significant., Conclusions: African American CRC patients cost more than their white counterparts, but adjusted differences were nonsignificant and trivial. Several nonracial cost differences were considerably larger (but not all statistically significant), and suggest that future research pay more attention to these characteristics.

Background: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear., Methods: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve., Results: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005)., Conclusions: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer., (Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Black-white disparities exist in receipt of recommended medical care, including colorectal cancer treatment. This retrospective cohort study examines the degree to which health systems (e.g., physician, hospital) factors explain black-white disparities in colon cancer care., Methods: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; Medicare claims; the American Medical Association Masterfile; and hospital surveys were linked to examine chemotherapy receipt after stage III colon cancer resection among 5294 elderly (> or = 66 years of age) black and white Medicare-insured patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with black-white differences in chemotherapy use. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Black and white patients were equally likely to consult with a medical oncologist, but among patients who had such a consultation, black patients were less likely than white patients (59.3% versus 70.4%, difference = 10.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.1% to 16.4%, P < .001) to receive chemotherapy. This black-white disparity was highest among patients aged 66-70 years (black patients 65.7%, white patients 86.3%, difference = 20.6%, 95% CI = 10.7% to 30.4%, P < .001) and decreased with age. The disparity among patients aged 66-70 years also remained statistically significant in the regression analysis. Overall, patient, physician, hospital, and environmental factors accounted for approximately 50% of the disparity in chemotherapy receipt among patients aged 66-70 years; surgical length of stay and neighborhood socioeconomic status accounted for approximately 27% of the disparity in this age group, and health systems factors accounted for 12%., Conclusions: Black and white Medicare-insured colon cancer patients have an equal opportunity to learn about adjuvant chemotherapy from a medical oncologist but do not receive chemotherapy equally. Little disparity was explained by health systems; more was explained by illness severity, social support, and environment. Further qualitative research is needed to understand the factors that influence the lower receipt of chemotherapy by black patients.

Background: Invasive cervical cancer is highly preventable, yet it continues to occur, even among women who have access to cancer screening and treatment services. To reduce cervical cancer among such women, reasons for its occurrence must be better understood. We examined factors associated with the diagnosis of cervical cancer among women enrolled in health plans., Methods: We identified all cases of invasive cervical cancer (n = 833) diagnosed from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2000, among women who were long-term members of seven prepaid comprehensive health plans and reviewed each woman's medical records for the 3 years prior to her cancer diagnosis. Women were classified into one of three categories based on Pap test histories 4-36 months before diagnosis: failure to screen with a Pap test, failure in detection by a Pap test, or failure in follow-up of an abnormal test result., Results: The majority of cases (n = 464; 56%) were in women who had no Pap tests during the period 4-36 months prior to diagnosis. Of the remaining cases, 263 (32%) were attributed to Pap test detection failure and 106 (13%) to follow-up failure. Being older (odds ratio [OR] = 6.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.89 to 10.79) or living in an area of higher poverty (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.67) or having a lower education level (OR= 1.52; 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.16) was associated with the likelihood of being assigned to the failure to screen category versus either of the other two categories. A total of 375 (81%) of the 464 patients who had not had Pap screening had had at least one outpatient visit 4-36 months prior to cancer diagnosis. The cancer diagnostic process was triggered by a routine screening examination in 44% of patients, whereas 53% of the patients presented with symptoms consistent with cervical cancer; the remaining 3% were identified fortuitously during the course of receiving noncervical care., Conclusions: To reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer among women with access to screening and treatment, Pap screening adherence should be increased. In addition, strategies to improve the accuracy of Pap screening could afford earlier detection of cervical cancer.

Objective: We evaluated the association of pre-term delivery (PTD), low birth weight (LBW), and fetal death with breast density by age at mammogram and years since birth., Methods: Subjects were women aged < or =55 years who had a screening mammogram between 1 June 1996 and 1 August 1997 in Seattle, Washington, and whose records were linked to their previous state birth (1 January 1968 to 1 August 1997) or fetal death (1/1/1984-8/1/1997) records. We used unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for age at mammogram, body mass index, age at first birth, and menopausal status, to calculate the odds of dense (extremely or heterogeneously dense by BI-RADS) (n=3593) versus fatty breasts (scattered fibroglandular tissue or almost entirely fat) (n=2378) for women with a prior PTD (< 34, 34-36 versus > or =37 weeks gestation), LBW (< 2500 versus > or =2500 g), or fetal death (stillborn 20 weeks gestation versus live birth)., Results: The odds for denser breasts increased among women with PTD at <34 weeks gestation who were < or =45 years at time of mammogram (odds ratio (OR) and 95 confidence interval (CI)=2.8 (1.3-6.1)) and for whom <10 years had elapsed since pregnancy (OR=8.8 (1.7-45.8)). We observed similar increases in density among women with LBW (OR=3.3 (1.3-8.2)) when <10 years had elapsed., Conclusions: PTD and LBW may have a transitory effect on breast density.

Background: Delay in diagnosis of breast cancer can occur at several points on the diagnostic pathway. We examined characteristics of women with breast cancer who before diagnosis actively refused recommended follow-up of tests or symptoms suggestive of breast cancer., Methods: We identified women aged 50 years or older diagnosed with late-stage (metastatic disease or tumors > or = 3 cm at diagnosis) and a matched sample of women with early-stage (tumors < 3 cm) breast cancer from 1995 to 1999. Using medical records, we investigated clinical characteristics, use of health care, and documentation of care refusal during the 3 years before diagnosis. We used logistic regression models to compare refusers to nonrefusers., Results: Of the 2694 women studied, 7.2% refused provider follow-up advice during the 3 years. These women were more likely to have late-stage breast cancer at diagnosis than were nonrefusers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 2.6). They were more likely to be aged 75 years or older (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.7 compared with age 50-64) or to have six or more children (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.3 to 4.2 compared to women with one to two children). Clinical factors associated with refusal included low use of mammography, high use of clinical breast exam, and missed appointments. A minority of women who refused had a reason documented in the medical record; the most frequent reasons were avoidance-denial-fatalism, fear of diagnostic tests, and fear of surgery or disfigurement., Conclusions: Our results suggest that certain demographic and clinical characteristics are associated with women's refusal of diagnostic testing for breast cancer. Further study is needed on refusers' characteristics and on how such refusals affect outcomes. Efforts aimed at identifying and counseling women with abnormal results who refuse follow-up are warranted.

Critical questions about cancer prevention, care, and outcomes increasingly require research involving large patient populations and their care delivery organizations. The Cancer Research Network (CRN) includes 11 integrated health systems funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to conduct collaborative cancer research. This article describes the challenges of constructing a productive consortium of large health systems, and explores the CRN's responses. The CRN was initially funded through an NCI cooperative agreement in 1999 and has since received a second 4-year grant. Leadership and policy development are provided through a steering committee, subcommittees, and an external advisory committee. The CRN includes integral and affiliated research projects supported by a Scientific and Data Resources Core. Three characteristics of the CRN intensified the general challenges of consortium research: 1) its members are large health systems with legitimate concerns about confidentiality of data about enrollees, providers, and the organization; 2) CRN research projects often generate highly sensitive data about quality of care; and therefore 3) each participating organization wants a strong voice in CRN direction. CRN experience to date confirms that a consortium of health systems with internal research capacity can address a range of important cancer research questions that would be difficult to study in other venues. The advantages and challenges of consortium research are explored, with suggestions for the development, execution, and management of multisystem population laboratories.

Background: Obesity is increasing among American women, especially as they age. The influence of obesity on the accuracy of screening mammography has not been studied extensively., Methods: We analyzed 100 622 screening mammography examinations performed on members of a nonprofit health plan. The relationship between body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and measures of screening accuracy was assessed. Body mass index was categorized as underweight or normal weight (<25), overweight (25-29), obesity class I (30-34), and obesity classes II to III (> or =35)., Results: Compared with underweight or normal weight women, overweight and obese women were more likely to be recalled for additional tests after adjusting for important covariates, including age and breast density (overweight odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.23); obesity class I OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35; obesity classes II-III OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.41). As body mass index increased, women were more likely to have lower specificity (overweight OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90; obesity class I OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84; and obesity classes II-III OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82). No statistically significant differences were noted in sensitivity. Adjusted receiver operating characteristic analysis showed statistically significant improvement in the area under the curve (AUC) for underweight or normal weight women (AUC = 0.941) vs overweight women (AUC = 0.916, P =.02) and underweight or normal weight women vs obesity classes II and III women (AUC = 0.904, P =.02)., Conclusions: Obese women had more than a 20% increased risk of having false-positive mammography results compared with underweight and normal weight women, although sensitivity was unchanged. Achieving a normal weight may improve screening mammography performance.

This commentary presents a conceptual framework, Quality in the Continuum of Cancer Care (QCCC), for quality improvement studies and research. Data sources include review of relevant literature (cancer care, quality improvement, organizational behavior, health services evaluation, and research). The Detecting Early Tumors Enables Cancer Therapy (DETECT) project is used to apply the QCCC model to evaluate the quality of secondary prevention. Cancer care includes risk assessment, primary prevention, screening, detection, diagnosis, treatment, recurrence surveillance, and end-of-life care. The QCCC model represents a systematic approach for assessing factors that influence types of cancer care and the transitions between them, the factors at several levels (community, plan and practice setting) that potentially impact access and quality, and the strategies groups and organizations can consider to reduce potential failures. Focusing on the steps and transitions in care where failures can occur can facilitate more organized systems and medical practices that improve care, establish meaningful measures of quality that promote improved outcomes, and enhance interdisciplinary research.