Background: Cancer 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. Methods: We 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Comprehensive 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.

Background: Cancer 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Variations 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). Conclusions: PROSPR 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. Impact: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Screening guidelines should consider both benefits and harms of screening. The authors reviewed screening guidelines in 5 organ systems (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate), and they ... Background: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within a...

Background: To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval. Methods: We describe patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan–Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy. Results: Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%–27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%–65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60–74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt. Conclusions: Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas. Impact: Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 1–8. ©2018 AACR.