BACKGROUND:In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012 Race3L risk-prediction model. METHODS: The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. RESULTS: Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI,). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012 Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups.

Objective. To analyze the use of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) to screen for depression, as compared to 2 reference standards, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression domain (HADS-D). Methods. Patients from Barcelona with a primary diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) completed the MDHAQ, the PHQ-9 (depression ≥10), and the HADS-D (depression ≥8) measures. The MDHAQ includes 2 depression items, 1 in the patient-friendly HAQ, scored in a 4-point format from 0 to 3.3, and a yes/no item on a 60-symptom checklist. Percentage agreement and kappa statistics quantified the agreement between 6 screening criteria: yes on the 60-symptom checklist, a score of ≥1.1, a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale, and either a response of yes on the 60-symptom checklist or scores of ≥2.2, PHQ-9 ≥10, and HADS-D ≥8. Results. Depression screening was positive according to 6 criteria in 19.6-32.4% of 102 patients with RA, and 27.9-44.8% of 68 with SpA (total = 170). All MDHAQ scores, including depression items, were higher in patients with SpA compared to patients with RA, and within each diagnostic group in patients who met PHQ-9 ≥10 and HADS-D ≥8 depression screening criteria. The highest percentage agreement between an MDHAQ screening criterion versus PHQ-9 ≥10 was 83.3% for either an answer of yes on the 60-symptom checklist or a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale, which we have termed MDHAQ-Dep. The agreement of MDHAQ-Dep versus HADS-D ≥8 was 81.7%, similar to the agreement of PHQ-9 ≥10 versus HADS-D ≥8, which was 82.2%. Kappa measures of agreement were 0.63 for MDHAQ-Dep versus PHQ-9 ≥10, 0.60 for MDHAQ-Dep versus HADS-D ≥8, and 0.62 for PHQ-9 ≥10 versus HADS-D ≥8. Conclusion. A positive MDHAQ-Dep response (either an answer of yes on a 60-symptom checklist or a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale) yielded similar results to PHQ-9 ≥10 or HADS-D ≥8 to screen for depression in these RA and SpA patients.

No abstract

Offering smoking cessation treatment at lung cancer screening (LCS) will maximize mortality reduction associated with screening, but predictors of treatment engagement are not well understood. We examined participant characteristics of engagement in an NCI SCALE cessation trial. Eligible LCS patients (N = 818) were randomized to the Intensive arm (8 phone counseling sessions +8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) vs. Minimal arm (3 sessions + 2 weeks of NRT). Engagement was measured by number of sessions completed (none, some, or all) and NRT mailed (none vs. any) in each arm. In the Intensive arm, those with ≥some college (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.0) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.2) engaged in some counseling vs. none. Individuals with higher nicotine dependence were more likely (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.3, 6.2) to request NRT. In the Minimal arm, those with higher education (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.9) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.8) completed some sessions vs. none. Requesting NRT was associated with more pack-years (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.5). Regardless of treatment intensity, additional strategies are needed to engage those with lower education, less intensive smoking histories, and undergoing a first scan. These efforts will be important given the broader 2021 LCS guidelines.

Objective This study examined patterns of breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This retrospective study was approved by the Georgetown University IRB. Review of electronic medical records identified screening mammograms and breast MRIs between March 13, 2018 to December 31, 2020, for female patients aged 18 to 85 years. Descriptive statistics characterized patterns of breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression analyses examined whether receipt of breast MRI differed over time and demographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of breast MRI in 2020. Results Data included 47 956 mammography visits in 32 778 patients and 407 screening breast MRI visits in 340 patients. After an initial decrease following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, both screening mammograms and screening breast MRI demonstrated early recovery. Although the mammography receipt remained sustained, the receipt of screening breast MRI decreased in late 2020. Odds of having a breast MRI did not differ between 2018 and 2019 (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.92%–1.25%; P = 0.384) but were significantly lower in 2020 versus 2019 (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61%–0.94%; P = 0.011). No demographic or clinical factors were associated with receipt of breast MRI during the COVID-19 pandemic (all P-values ≥0.225). Conclusion Breast cancer screening decreased following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although both procedures demonstrated early recovery, the rebound in screening breast MRI was not sustained. Interventions promoting return to screening breast MRI may be needed for high-risk women.