Reducing Variation in the "Standard of Care" for Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the PROSPR Consortium.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Corley DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4920648 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reducing Variation in the "Standard of Care" for Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the PROSPR Consortium.
Corley Douglas A DA Haas Jennifer S JS Kobrin Sarah S
JAMA 20160501 19
Similar Datasets
Project description:Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5980732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers and health systems have prominent roles in guiding effective cancer screening.ObjectiveTo characterize variation in screening abnormality rates and timely initial follow-up for common cancer screening tests.DesignPopulation-based cohort undergoing screening in 2011, 2012, or 2013 at seven research centers comprising the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium.ParticipantsAdults undergoing mammography with or without digital breast tomosynthesis (n = 97,683 ages 40-75 years), fecal occult blood or fecal immunochemical tests (n = 759,553 ages 50-75 years), or Papanicolaou with or without human papillomavirus tests (n = 167,330 ages 21-65 years).InterventionBreast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening.Main measuresAbnormality rates per 1000 screens; percentage with timely initial follow-up (within 90 days, except 9-month window for BI-RADS 3). Primary care clinic-level variation in percentage with screening abnormality and percentage with timely initial follow-up.Key resultsThere were 10,248/97,683 (104.9 per 1000) abnormal breast cancer screens, 35,847/759,553 (47.2 per 1000) FOBT/FIT-positive colorectal cancer screens, and 13,266/167,330 (79.3 per 1000) abnormal cervical cancer screens. The percentage with timely follow-up was 93.2 to 96.7 % for breast centers, 46.8 to 68.7 % for colorectal centers, and 46.6 % for the cervical cancer screening center (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher). The primary care clinic variation (25th to 75th percentile) was smaller for the percentage with an abnormal screen (breast, 8.5-10.3 %; colorectal, 3.0-4.8 %; cervical, 6.3-9.9 %) than for the percentage with follow-up within 90 days (breast, 90.2-95.8 %; colorectal, 43.4-52.0 %; cervical, 29.6-61.4 %).ConclusionsVariation in both the rate of screening abnormalities and their initial follow-up was evident across organ sites and primary care clinics. This highlights an opportunity for improving the delivery of cancer screening through focused study of patient, provider, clinic, and health system characteristics associated with timely follow-up of screening abnormalities.
| S-EPMC4803707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough United States clinical guidelines differ, the earliest recommended age for average risk breast cancer screening is 40 years. Little is known about factors influencing screening initiation.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study within the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We identified 3413 women on their 40th birthday in primary care networks at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (DH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) during 2011-2013 with no prior breast imaging or breast cancer. Cumulative incidence curves and Cox modeling were used to determine time from the 40th birthday to first breast cancer screening, cohort exit, or 42nd birthday. We calculated hazards ratios and 95 % confidence intervals from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsBreast cancer screening cumulative incidence by the 42nd birthday was 62.9 % (BWH) and 39.8 % (DH). Factors associated with screening initiation were: a primary care visit within a year (HR 4.99, 95 % CI 4.23-5.89), an increasing number of primary care visits within a year (p for trend <0.0001), ZIP code of residence annual median household income ≤$52,000 (HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.68-0.92), and health insurance type (Medicaid HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58-0.88; Medicare HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.39-0.77; uninsured HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.25-0.57).ConclusionsBreast cancer screening uptake after the 40th birthday varies by health system, primary care visits, median household income, and health insurance type, suggesting the need for further exploration. Future research should evaluate screening performance metrics after initiation and consider cumulative benefits and risks associated with breast cancer screening over time.
| S-EPMC5576986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT.ObjectiveTo determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening.Design and subjectsWe conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019.Main measuresThe primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date.Key resultsDuring the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake.ConclusionsOverall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.
| S-EPMC10853157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.MethodsWe describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.ResultsThe overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.ConclusionsComprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.
| S-EPMC7073922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.
| S-EPMC6941787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the importance of characterizing colonoscopy indication for quality monitoring and cancer screening program evaluation, there is no standard approach to documenting colonoscopy indication in medical records.MethodsWe applied two algorithms in three health care systems to assign colonoscopy indication to persons 50-89 years old who received a colonoscopy during 2010-2013. Both algorithms used standard procedure, diagnostic, and laboratory codes. One algorithm, the KPNC algorithm, used a hierarchical approach to classify exam indication into: diagnostic, surveillance, or screening; whereas the other, the SEARCH algorithm, used a logistic regression-based algorithm to provide the probability that colonoscopy was performed for screening. Gold standard assessment of indication was from medical records abstraction.ResultsThere were 1,796 colonoscopy exams included in analyses; age and racial/ethnic distributions of participants differed across health care systems. The KPNC algorithm's sensitivities and specificities for screening indication ranged from 0.78-0.82 and 0.78-0.91, respectively; sensitivities and specificities for diagnostic indication ranged from 0.78-0.89 and 0.74-0.82, respectively. The KPNC algorithm had poor sensitivities (ranging from 0.11-0.67) and high specificities for surveillance exams. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the SEARCH algorithm for screening indication ranged from 0.76-0.84 across health care systems. For screening indication, the KPNC algorithm obtained higher specificities than the SEARCH algorithm at the same sensitivity.ConclusionDespite standardized implementation of these indication algorithms across three health care systems, the capture of colonoscopy indication data was imperfect. Thus, we recommend that standard, systematic documentation of colonoscopy indication should be added to medical records to ensure efficient and accurate data capture.
| S-EPMC6676916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings.MethodsWe collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities.ResultsVariations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal).ConclusionsPROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators.ImpactPROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.
| S-EPMC9350927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening patterns among primary care physicians (PCPs) may be influenced by patient age and comorbidity. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has little benefit among patients with limited life expectancy.ObjectiveTo characterize the extent to which PCPs modify their recommendations for CRC screening based upon patients' increasing age and/or worsening comorbidityDesignCross-sectional, nationally representative survey.ParticipantsThe study comprised primary care physicians (n = 1,266) including general internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics-gynecology physicians.Main measuresPhysician CRC screening recommendations among patients of varying age and comorbidity were measured based upon clinical vignettes. Independent variables in adjusted models included physician and practice characteristics.Key resultsFor an 80-year-old patient with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 25 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. For an 80-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (New York Heart Association, Class II), 71 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. PCPs were more likely to recommend fecal occult blood testing than colonoscopy as the preferred screening modality for a healthy 80-year-old, compared to healthy 50- or 65-year-old patients (19 % vs. 5 % vs. 2 % p < 0.001). For an 80-year-old with unresectable NSCLC, PCPs who were an obstetrics-gynecology physician were more likely to recommend CRC screening, while those with a full electronic medical record were less likely to recommend screening.ConclusionsPCPs consider comorbidity when screening older patients for CRC and may change the screening modality from colonoscopy to FOBT. However, a sizable proportion of PCPs would recommend screening for patients with advanced cancer who would not benefit. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these patterns will facilitate the design of future medical education and policy interventions to reduce unnecessary care.
| S-EPMC3539036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neuroblastoma cells were treated with a barcoded library of >600 genes and one of several standrard of care neuroblastoma compounds (or vehicle control)
2023-09-28 | GSE223991 | GEO