Dataset Information

Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

National guidelines balance risks and benefits of population-level cancer screening among adults with average risk. Older adults are not recommended to receive routine screening, but many continue to be screened (ie, are overscreened).

Objective

To assess the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults as well as differences in overscreening by metropolitan status.

Design, setting, and participants

The cross-sectional study examined responses to a telephone survey of 176 348 community-dwelling adults. Participants were included if they met age and sex criteria, and they were excluded from each cancer-specific subsample if they had a history of that cancer. Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exposures

Metropolitan status, according to whether participants lived in a metropolitan statistical area.

Main outcomes and measures

Overscreening was assessed using US Preventive Services Task Force definitions, ie, whether participants self-reported having a screening after the recommended upper age limit for colorectal (75 years), cervical (65 years), or breast (74 years) cancer.

Results

Of 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence) the cancer-specific subsamples contained 20 937 [11.9%] men and 34 244 [19.4%] women for colorectal cancer, 82 811 [47.0%] women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 [21.8%] women for breast cancer. Overall, 9461 men (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%-61.1%) were overscreened for colorectal cancer; 14 463 women (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-57.6%), for colorectal cancer; 31 988 women (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%-46.7%), for cervical cancer; and 26 198 women (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%-75.3%), for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57). Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care compared with not (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.25; breast cancer: aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58-2.76), good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with fair or poor self-reported health (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; breast cancer: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28-1.69), an educational attainment greater than a high school diploma compared with a high school diploma or less (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23; breast cancer: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46), and being married or living as married compared with other marital status (eg, cervical cancer: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46; breast cancer: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.77).

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, overscreening for cancer among older adults was high, particularly for women living in metropolitan areas. Overscreening could be associated with health care access and patient-clinician relationships. Additional research on why overscreening persists and how to reduce overscreening is needed to minimize risks associated with cancer screening among older adults.

SUBMITTER: Moss JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127072 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are stark disparities in cervical cancer burden in the United States, notably by race and ethnicity and geography. Late-stage diagnosis is an indicator of inadequate access to and utilization of screening.ObjectiveTo identify geospatial clusters of late-stage cervical cancer at time of diagnosis in Texas.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional study used incident cervical cancer data from the Texas Cancer Registry from 2014 to 2018 of female patients aged 18 years or older. Late-stage cervical cancer cases were geocoded at the census tract level (n = 5265) using their residential coordinates (latitude and longitude) at the time of diagnosis. Statistical analysis was performed from April to September 2023.ExposuresCensus tract of residence at diagnosis.Main outcome and measuresLate-stage cervical cancer diagnosis (ie, cases classified by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results summary stages 2 to 4 [regional spread] or 7 [distant metastasis]). A Poisson probability-based model of the SaTScan purely spatial scan statistics was applied at the census tract-level to identify geographic clusters of higher (hot spots) or lower (cold spots) proportions than expected of late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis and adjusted for age.ResultsAmong a total of 6484 female patients with incident cervical cancer cases (mean [SD] age, 48.7 [14.7] years), 2300 (35.5%) were Hispanic, 798 (12.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3090 (47.6%) were non-Hispanic White, and 296 (4.6%) were other race or ethnicity. Of the 6484 patients, 2892 with late-stage diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 51.8 [14.4] years were analyzed. Among patients with late-stage diagnosis, 1069 (37.0%) were Hispanic, 417 (14.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 1307 (45.2%) were non-Hispanic White, and 99 (3.4%) were other race or ethnicity. SaTScan spatial analysis identified 7 statistically significant clusters of late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis in Texas, of which 4 were hot spots and 3 were cold spots. Hot spots included 1128 census tracts, predominantly in the South Texas Plains, Gulf Coast, and Prairies and Lakes (North Texas) regions. Of the 2892 patients with late-stage cervical cancer, 880 (30.4%) were observed within hot spots. Census tract-level comparison of characteristics of clusters suggested that hot spots differed significantly from cold spots and the rest of Texas by proportions of racial and ethnic groups, non-US born persons, and socioeconomic status.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study examining geospatial clusters of late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis, place-based disparities were found in late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis in Texas. These findings suggest that these communities may benefit from aggressive cervical cancer interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care providers and health systems have prominent roles in guiding effective cancer screening. OBJECTIVE:To characterize variation in screening abnormality rates and timely initial follow-up for common cancer screening tests. DESIGN:Population-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. PARTICIPANTS:Adults 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). INTERVENTION:Breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. MAIN MEASURES:Abnormality 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 RESULTS:There 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 %). CONCLUSIONS:Variation 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.

Project description:IntroductionDespite overall reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) morbidity and mortality, survival disparities by sex persist among young patients (age <50 years). Our study sought to quantify variance in early-onset CRC survival accounted for by individual/community-level characteristics among a population-based cohort of US women.MethodsGeographic hot spots-counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates among women-were derived using 3 geospatial autocorrelation approaches with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national mortality data. We identified women (age: 15-49 years) diagnosed with CRC from 1999 to 2016 in the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Patterns of community health behaviors by hot spot classification were assessed by Spearman correlation (ρ). Generalized R values were used to evaluate variance in survival attributed to individual/community-level features.ResultsApproximately 1 in every 16 contiguous US counties identified as hot spots (191 of 3,108), and 52.9% of hot spot counties (n = 101) were located in the South. Among 28,790 women with early-onset CRC, 13.7% of cases (n = 3,954) resided in hot spot counties. Physical inactivity and fertility were community health behaviors that modestly correlated with hot spot residence among women with early-onset CRC (ρ = 0.21 and ρ = -0.23, respectively; P < 0.01). Together, individual/community-level features accounted for distinct variance patterns in early-onset CRC survival among women (hot spot counties: 33.8%; non-hot spot counties: 34.1%).DiscussionIndividual/community-level features accounted for approximately one-third of variation in early-onset CRC survival among women and differed between hot spot vs non-hot spot counties. Understanding the impact of community health behaviors-particularly in regions with high early-onset CRC mortality rates-is critical for tailoring strategies to reduce early-onset CRC disparities.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing the adoption of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013-2020, an update to the Appendix 3 of the action plan was requested by Member States in 2016, endorsed by the Seventieth World Health Assembly in May 2017 and provides a list of recommended NCD interventions. The main contribution of this paper is to present results of analyses identifying how decision makers can achieve maximum health gain using the cancer interventions listed in the Appendix 3. We also present methods used to calculate new WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness results for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer in Southeast Asia and eastern sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsWe used "Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" for our analysis which uses a hypothetical null reference case, where the impacts of all current interventions are removed, in order to identify the optimal package of interventions. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included. Health outcomes are reported as the gain in healthy life years due to a specific intervention scenario and were estimated using a deterministic state-transition cohort simulation (Markov model).ResultsVaccination against human papillomavirus (two doses) for 9-13-year-old girls (in eastern sub-Saharan Africa) and HPV vaccination combined with prevention of cervical cancer by screening of women aged 30-49 years through visual inspection with acetic acid linked with timely treatment of pre-cancerous lesions (in Southeast Asia) were found to be the most cost effective interventions. For breast cancer, in both regions the treatment of breast cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± systemic therapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. For colorectal cancer, treatment of colorectal cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± chemotherapy and radiotherapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention.ConclusionThe results demonstrate that cancer prevention and control interventions are cost-effective and can be implemented through a step-wise approach to achieve maximum health benefits. As the global community moves toward universal health coverage, this analysis can support decision makers in identifying a core package of cancer services, ensuring treatment and palliative care for all.