Rates and Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Introduction: Despite widespread recommendations for colorectal cancer screening, the U.S. screening rate is low. The objectives of this study were to describe the rates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening use by examining groups in two categories — 1) those who have ever been screened and 2) those with up-to-date screening — and to assess whether trends and predictors change over time. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2000 and 2003 National Health Interview Surveys about the use of fecal occult blood tests, sigmoidoscopies, and colonoscopies for adults aged 50 years and older and without a history of colorectal cancer (N = 11,574 in 2000 and N = 11,779 in 2003). Results: Rates in the 2000 study population of those who have ever been screened for colorectal cancer (53%) had increased in the 2003 study population (55%) as had the rates in the 2003 study population of those with up-to-date colorectal screening (53%) compared with the rates in the 2000 study population (38%). Among those who were ever screened, 76% were up-to-date with screening in 2003, compared with 68% in 2000. There was increased use of colonoscopies but decreased use of fecal occult blood tests and sigmoidoscopies. Individuals were more likely to be up-to-date with screening if they had higher income, higher education, insurance coverage, a usual source of care, and a dental visit in the last year than if these predictors were not evident. Since 2000, these predictors of colorectal cancer screening use have remained stable. Conclusion: Although there has been relatively limited success in increasing overall screening, it is encouraging that most people in the group of those who have ever been screened are up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Predictors for colorectal screening were stable over time despite changes in screening policies and rates. Further research is needed to uncover barriers to colorectal cancer screening

Utilization of cardiac monitoring tests in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab.

AimsTrastuzumab, one of the best known examples of personalized medicine, requires regular cardiac monitoring because it can cause heart failure. We aimed to assess the utilization of cardiac monitoring in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab-based chemotherapy in routine clinical practice.Patients & methodsThe medical records of women continuously enrolled in a large national health insurance plan who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer and treated with trastuzumab from 2006 to 2008 were reviewed (n = 109). The primary outcome variables were the use and type of cardiac monitoring testing before and during trastuzumab therapy. An exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for receiving cardiac monitoring both at baseline and during trastuzumab treatment.ResultsMonitoring both before and during therapy was less common (62%), although 74% had cardiac monitoring before therapy and 80% had at least one test during therapy. Radionuclide ventriculogram was utilized more often than echocardiography (48 vs 42%). Only the use of anthracycline (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.01-5.71) was significantly associated with use of a cardiac monitoring both at baseline and during trastuzumab treatment.ConclusionThe use of cardiac monitoring testing was variable and opportunities to improve quality and reduce cost are evident. These results have clinical implications for other personalized medicine interventions requiring regular laboratory monitoring

Reducing Variation in the “Standard of Care” for Cancer Screening

Standard of care for cancer screening: the term implies certainty and consensus. Physicians, patients, and organizations have created guidelines, policies, and regulations regarding how, when, and for whom screening should be used or reimbursed; cumulatively, these statements become the standards of care. However, these standards vary markedly across organ type, often without rationale or evidence. In this Viewpoint, we highlight 3 areas in which cancer screening standards differ markedly for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer: funding, quality measures, and reporting. These variations were delineated through a cross-disciplinary collaboration among scientists, health care organizations, and society leaders within the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium.1 PROSPR studies how breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is implemented in diverse, real-world settings

Thoracic outlet syndrome: Pattern of clinical success after operative decompression

ObjectiveTo evaluate the pattern of clinical results in patients with neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (N-TOS) after operative decompression and longitudinal follow-up.MethodsFrom May 1994 to December 2002, 254 operative sides in 185 patients with N-TOS were treated by the same operative protocol: (1) transaxillary first rib resection and the lower part of scalenectomy for the primary procedure with or without (2) the subsequent upper part of scalenectomy with supraclavicular approach for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms. This retrospective cohort study included 38 men and 147 women with an age range of 19 to 80 years (mean, 40 years). Evaluated were primary success, defined as uninterrupted success with no procedure performed, and secondary success, defined as success maintained by the secondary operation after the primary failure. Success was defined as ≥50% symptomatic improvement judged by the patient using a 10-point scale, returning to preoperational work status, or both.ResultsFollow-up was 2 to 76 months (mean, 25 months). Eighty sides underwent a secondary operation for the primary clinical failure. No technical failures and no deaths occurred ≤30 days after the operations. The complication rate was 4% (13/334) and consisted of 7 pneumothoraxes, 3 subclavian vein injuries, 1 nerve injury, 1 internal mammary artery injury, and 1 suture granuloma. Of 254 operative sides, the primary and secondary success was 46% (118/254) and 64% (163/254). Most the primary failures (90%, 122/136) and the secondary failures (66%, 23/35) occurred ≤18 months after the respective operation.ConclusionsThe long-term results of operations for TOS in this study were much worse than those initially achieved, and most of the primary and secondary failures occurred ≤12 months of the respective operations. A minimum of 18-month follow-up on patients and standardized definition of the outcomes are necessary to determine the true effectiveness and outcome of operative treatment of N-TOS

Travel Burden to Breast MRI and Utilization: Are Risk and Sociodemographics Related?

Mammograms, unlike magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are relatively geographically accessible. Additional travel time is often required to access breast MRI. However, the amount of additional travel time and whether it varies based on sociodemographic or breast cancer risk factors is unknown

Multilevel factors associated with long-term adherence to screening mammography in older women in the U.S.

In the U.S., guidelines recommend that women continue mammography screening until at least age 74, but recent evidence suggests declining screening rates in older women. We estimated adherence to screening mammography and multilevel factors associated with adherence in a longitudinal cohort of older women. Women aged 66–75 years receiving screening mammography within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to Medicare claims (2005–2010). Claims data identified baseline adherence, defined as receiving subsequent mammography within approximately 2 years, and length of time adherent to guidelines. Characteristics associated with adherence were investigated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Analyses were stratified by age to investigate variation in relationships between patient factors and adherence. Among 49,775 women, 89% were adherent at baseline. Among women 66–70 years, those with less than a high school education were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (odds ratio [OR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65–2.33) and remain adherent for less time (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41; 95% CI 1.11–1.80) compared to women with a college degree. Women with ≥1 versus no Charlson co-morbidities were more likely to be non-adherent at baseline (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.31–1.62) and remain adherent for less time (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.24–1.66). Women aged 71–75 had lower adherence overall, but factors associated with non-adherence were similar. In summary, adherence to guidelines is high among Medicare-enrolled women in the U.S. receiving screening mammography. Efforts are needed to ensure that vulnerable populations attain these same high levels of adherence

Effects Of The ACA’s Health Insurance Marketplaces On The Previously Uninsured: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis

Descriptive studies have suggested that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) health insurance Marketplaces improved access to care. However, no quasi-experimental evidence is currently available to support these findings. We use longitudinal survey data to compare previously- uninsured adults to adults who had employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) prior to the ACA, in the income range eligible for subsidized Marketplace coverage (138-400% of poverty). Among the previously-uninsured group, the ACA led to a significant decline in the uninsurance rate (-10.8 percentage points), decreased barriers to medical care, increased use of outpatient services and prescriptions drugs, and increased identification of high blood pressure, compared to a control group with stable ESI. Changes were largest among those with incomes between 138-250% of poverty, who were eligible for the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions. Our quasi-experimental approach provides rigorous new evidence that the ACA’s Marketplaces led to improvements in several important health care outcomes, particularly among lower-income adults

Is the Closest Facility the One Actually Used? An Assessment of Travel Time Estimation Based on Mammography Facilities

Characterizing geographic access depends on a broad range of methods available to researchers and the healthcare context to which the method is applied. Globally, travel time is one frequently used measure of geographic access with known limitations associated with data availability. Specifically, due to lack of available utilization data, many travel time studies assume that patients use the closest facility. To examine this assumption, an example using mammography screening data, which is considered a geographically abundant health care service in the United States, is explored. This work makes an important methodological contribution to measuring access--which is a critical component of health care planning and equity almost everywhere. We analyzed one mammogram from each of 646,553 women participating in the US based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for years 2005-2012. We geocoded each record to street level address data in order to calculate travel time to the closest and to the actually used mammography facility. Travel time between the closest and the actual facility used was explored by woman-level and facility characteristics

Association of Regional Variation in Primary Care Physicians’ Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations with Individual Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Introduction: Studies show that the recommendations of a primary care physician for colorectal cancer screening may be one important influence on an individual's use of screening. However, another possible influence, the effect of regional differences in physicians' beliefs and recommendations on screening use, has not been assessed. Methods: We linked data from the National Health Interview Survey on the use of colorectal cancer screening by respondents aged 50 years or older, by hospital-referral region, with data from the Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices on the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians, by region. Our principal independent variables were the proportion of physicians in a region who recommended screening at age 50 and continuing screening at the recommended frequency. Results: On average, 53.3% of physicians in a region correctly recommended initiating colorectal cancer screening, and 64.8% advised screening at the recommended frequency. Of adults who lived in regions where less than 30% of physicians correctly recommended initiating screening, 47.3% had been screened, in contrast to 54.8% in areas where 70% or more of physicians made correct recommendations. Seventy-one percent of respondents living in regions where less than 30% of physicians advised screening at the recommended frequency were current on screening, in contrast to 79.9% of respondents living in regions where 70% or more of physicians made this recommendation. These differences were statistically significant after adjustment for individual characteristics. Conclusion: Strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians may improve the use of screening for millions of Americans