Veenstra, David L.

11135 Background: Cancer screening programs can improve outcomes and may reduce treatment cost and utilization by shifting cancers to earlier, more curable stages at diagnosis (Dx). Few studies have evaluated the impact of screening on outcomes prior to diagnosis. Such information is needed to better understand the potential impact of newer blood-based multicancer early detection technologies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using SEER cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims. Patients with a breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) Dx between 2010-2019 were included if they were 65-74 years old at Dx, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A&B, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≤2, and no cancer for ≥12 months prior to Dx. Those enrolled in an HMO or with high genetic risk for BC (in BC cohort) were excluded. Patients were assigned to screening groups prior to Dx; screening was defined as ≥1 screening procedure in the 6 months prior to Dx using CPT/HCPCS codes. Screening included FIT/FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography, mt-sDNA (CRC), and mammography (BC). Screened and not screened groups were compared for statistical significance using chi-squared for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Results: Screening procedures were more prevalent in the BC cohort (68%) than the CRC cohort (44%) (table). Both screened subgroups (vs non-screened subgroups) had significantly lower proportions of patients diagnosed at stage 4 (2% vs 10% BC, 16% vs 27% CRC) and shorter times from first screening or imaging procedure to confirmed diagnosis (BC: 33 vs 227 days, CRC: 14 vs 29 days). Screened patients in both cancer cohorts had a similar number of average procedures prior to treatment initiation as non-screened (BC: 4.8 vs 4.2, CRC: 3.3 vs 3.3 respectively, including screening procedures). Conclusions: Individuals diagnosed with BC and CRC through screening exhibit earlier stage diagnoses and shorter intervals to diagnosis. Novel screening technologies such as MCED tests can potentially improve peri-diagnostic outcomes in cancers lacking existing or widely adopted screening methods. [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundThe extent to which participants act to clinically verify research results is largely unknown. This study examined whether participants who received Lynch syndrome (LS)‐related findings pursued researchers’ recommendation to clinically verify results with testing performed by a CLIA‐certified laboratory.MethodsThe Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center site of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry offered non‐CLIA individual genetic research results to select registry participants (cases and their enrolled relatives) from 2011 to 2013. Participants who elected to receive results were counseled on the importance of verifying results at a CLIA‐certified laboratory. Twenty‐six (76.5%) of the 34 participants who received genetic results completed 2‐ and 12‐month postdisclosure surveys; 42.3% of these (11/26) participated in a semistructured follow‐up interview.ResultsWithin 12 months of result disclosure, only 4 (15.4%) of 26 participants reported having verified their results in a CLIA‐certified laboratory; of these four cases, all research and clinical results were concordant. Reasons for pursuing clinical verification included acting on the recommendation of the research team and informing future clinical care. Those who did not verify results cited lack of insurance coverage and limited perceived personal benefit of clinical verification as reasons for inaction.ConclusionThese findings suggest researchers will need to address barriers to seeking clinical verification in order to ensure that the intended benefits of returning genetic research results are realized.