Anna N A Tosteson1,2, Elisabeth F Beaber3, Jasmin Tiro4, Jane Kim5, Anne Marie McCarthy6, Virginia P Quinn7, V Paul Doria-Rose8, Cosette M Wheeler9, William E Barlow10, Mackenzie Bronson11, Michael Garcia3, Douglas A Corley12, Jennifer S Haas13, Ethan A Halm14, Aruna Kamineni15, Carolyn M Rutter16, Tor D Tosteson11,17, Amy Trentham-Dietz18, Donald L Weaver19. 1. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. Anna.Tosteson@Dartmouth.edu. 2. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. Anna.Tosteson@Dartmouth.edu. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA. 8. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 10. Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA. 11. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 12. Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA. 13. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 14. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 15. Group Health, Seattle, WA, USA. 16. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 17. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 18. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 19. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer screening; cervical cancer screening; colorectal cancer screening; practice variation
Authors: Christie R Eheman; Vicki B Benard; Donald Blackman; Herschel W Lawson; Christa Anderson; William Helsel; Nancy C Lee Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Vicki B Benard; William Howe; Janet Royalty; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Yingye Zheng; Joanne S Schottinger; Carolyn M Rutter; Douglas A Corley; Celette S Skinner; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Karen J Wernli; Carrie Klabunde Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Andrew Freedman; Martin L Brown; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Timothy McNeel; Stephen Taplin Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Simon Craddock Lee; Robin T Higashi; Joanne M Sanders; Hong Zhu; Stephen J Inrig; Caroline Mejias; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Yingye Zheng; Virginia P Quinn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Carolyn M Rutter; Ethan A Halm; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Aruna Kamineni; Marilyn M Schapira; Pamela M Vacek; Michael P Garcia; Douglas A Corley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 5.043