Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Dosing limits in opioid clinical practice guidelines in the United States are likely misapplied to cancer patients, however, opioid use may be difficult to ascertain as they are largely excluded from opioid use studies. Methods The primary objective was to determine whether cancer patients were more likely to be chronic opioid users after diagnosis. We described prescription opioid use among U.S. older adult cancer patients during two time periods, within 2 years of diagnosis (short‐term) and at least 2 years beyond diagnosis (long‐term), compared to those without cancer (controls). Among participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial with linkages to Medicare Part D data during 2011–2015, we used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between cancer diagnosis and opioid use outcomes controlling for demographics. The primary outcome of opioid use was measured with the following metrics: Any opioid use, chronic use (90 consecutive days supply of opioid use while allowing for a 7‐day gap between refills), high use (average daily morphine equivalent (MME) ≥120 mg for any 90‐day period), and total MME dose above 2,000 mg (MME2000). Results The short‐term cohort included 1,491 cancer patients and 24,930 controls. Any use in the 2‐year post‐diagnosis period was higher among cancer patients OR 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0–3.7). Chronic use rates were similar by cancer status (4.6% vs. 3.8% for cases and controls, respectively). The long‐term cohort included 4,377 cancer patients and 27,545 controls. Rates of any use were similar among cancer patients and controls (63% vs. 59%). Conclusions Any opioid use was similar among long‐term cancer survivors compared to controls, but differed among short‐term survivors for any opioid use and marginally for chronic opioid use. Use of any opioid was similar among long‐term cancer survivors compared to controls, but differed among short‐term survivors for any opioid use and marginally for chronic opioid use. Continued monitoring of opioid use among subgroups of cancer patients is important. This should include concomitant use of opioids and non‐opioid medications commonly used to manage pain among cancer patients.

Understanding how incentives and their timing influence study enrollment rates is important to efficient study design and increasing the generalizability of findings. This 2-arm, parallel randomized trial evaluated how conditional vs. unconditional mailed incentives of a $20 gift card affected study enrollment in a sample of participants screened for lung cancer screening. Eligible participants included Black and White adults who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose CT and had negative screening results at two North Carolina imaging facilities in 2018. We used a stratified randomization scheme, by sex and race, to assign incentive type (conditional vs. unconditional). We used the Tailored Design Method with six points of mailed contact to engage participants. We compared study enrollment rates using chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. After adjusting for sex, race, age, smoking status, participant residence, and screening site, participants who received unconditional incentives were 74% more likely to enroll than those who received conditional incentives (adjusted OR = 1.74 (95% CI: 1.01, 3.00). Type of incentive can play a role in increasing study enrollment, especially mailed surveys that target individuals who currently or previously smoked. Unconditional incentives may be worth the initial cost to engage study participants.

Purpose Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (FHBC) are sometimes advised to initiate screening mammography when they are 10 years younger than the age at which their youngest relative was diagnosed, despite a lack of unambiguous evidence that this is an effective strategy. It is unknown how often this results in women initiating screening earlier (< 40 years) than screening guidelines recommend for average-risk women. Methods We examined screening initiation age by FHBC and age at diagnosis of the youngest relative using data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium on 74,838 first screening mammograms performed between 1996 and 2016. Results Of the 74,838 women included in the study, nearly 9% reported a FHBC. Approximately 16.8% of women who initiated mammography before 40 years reported a FHBC. More women with a FHBC than without initiated screening < 40 years (48% vs. 23%, respectively). Among women with a FHBC who initiated screening < 40 years, 65% were 10 years younger than the age at which their relative was diagnosed. Conclusion Women with a first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer were more likely to start screening before 40 years than women reporting no FHBC, especially if their relative was diagnosed before 50 years.

PurposeMany patients with cancer seek care for pain in the emergency department (ED). Prospective research on cancer pain in this setting has historically been insufficient. We conducted this study to describe the reported pain among cancer patients presenting to the ED, how pain is managed, and how pain may be associated with clinical outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter cohort study on adult patients with active cancer presenting to 18 EDs in the USA. We reported pain scores, response to medication, and analgesic utilization. We estimated the associations between pain severity, medication utilization, and the following outcomes: 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and ED disposition.ResultsThe study population included 1075 participants. Those who received an opioid in the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.88) and OR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.07)), respectively. Severe pain at ED presentation was associated with increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.02), though this risk was attenuated when adjusting for clinical factors (most notably functional status).ConclusionsPatients with severe pain had a higher risk of mortality, which was attenuated when correcting for clinical characteristics. Those patients who required opioid analgesics in the ED were more likely to require admission and were more at risk of 30-day hospital readmission. Future efforts should focus on these at-risk groups, who may benefit from additional services including palliative care, hospice, or home-health services.

Better understanding of the emergency care needs of patients with cancer will inform outpatient and emergency department (ED) management. To provide a benchmark description of patients who present to the ED with active cancer. This multicenter prospective cohort study included 18 EDs affiliated with the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN). Of 1564 eligible patients, 1075 adults with active cancer were included from February 1, 2016, through January 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from February 1 through August 1, 2018. The proportion of patients reporting symptoms (eg, pain, nausea) before and during the ED visit, ED and outpatient medications, most common diagnoses, and suspected infection as indicated by ED antibiotic administration. The proportions observed, admitted, and with a hospital length of stay (LOS) of no more than 2 days were identified. Of 1075 participants, mean (SD) age was 62 (14) years, and 51.8% were female. Seven hundred ninety-four participants (73.9%; 95% CI, 71.1%-76.5%) had undergone cancer treatment in the preceding 30 days; 674 (62.7%; 95% CI, 59.7%-65.6%) had advanced or metastatic cancer; and 505 (47.0%; 95% CI, 43.9%-50.0%) were 65 years or older. The 5 most common ED diagnoses were symptom related. Of all participants, 82 (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-9.4%) were placed in observation and 615 (57.2%; 95% CI, 54.2%-60.2%) were admitted; 154 of 615 admissions (25.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-28.7%) had an LOS of 2 days or less (median, 3 days; interquartile range, 2-6 days). Pain during the ED visit was present in 668 patients (62.1%; 95% CI, 59.2%-65.0%; mean [SD] pain score, 6.4 [2.6] of 10.0) and in 776 (72.2%) during the prior week. Opioids were administered in the ED to 228 of 386 patients (59.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-23.8%) with moderate to severe ED pain. Outpatient opioids were prescribed to 368 patients (47.4%; 95% CI, 3.14%-37.2%) of those with pre-ED pain, including 244 of 428 (57.0%; 95% CI, 52.2%-61.8%) who reported quite a bit or very much pain. Nausea in the ED was present in 336 (31.3%; 95% CI, 28.5%-34.1%); of these, 160 (47.6%; 95% CI, 12.8%-17.1%) received antiemetics in the ED. Antibiotics were administered in the ED to 285 patients (26.5%; 95% CI, 23.9%-29.2%). Of these, 209 patients (73.3%; 95% CI, 17.1%-21.9%) were admitted compared with 427 of 790 (54.1%; 95% CI, 50.5%-57.6%) not receiving antibiotics. This initial prospective, multicenter study profiling patients with cancer who were treated in the ED identifies common characteristics in this patient population and suggests opportunities to optimize care before, during, and after the ED visit. Improvement requires collaboration between specialists and emergency physicians optimizing ED use, improving symptom control, avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, and appropriately stratifying risk to ensure safe ED treatment and disposition of patients with cancer.

Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result. To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category. This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022. Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence. Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe. Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80). In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.

Purpose We evaluated self-report of decision quality and regret with breast cancer surgical treatment by pre-operative breast MRI use in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods We conducted a survey with 957 women aged 18 + with stage 0-III breast cancer identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants self-reported receipt of pre-operative breast MRI. Primary outcomes were process measures in the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (BCS-DQI) (continuous outcome) and Decision Regret Scale (dichotomized outcome as any/none). Generalized estimating equations with linear and logit link were used to estimate adjusted associations between breast MRI and primary outcomes. All analyses were also stratified by breast density. Results Survey participation rate was 27.9% (957/3430). Study population was primarily > 60 years, White, college educated, and diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Pre-operative breast MRI was reported in 46% of women. A higher proportion of women who were younger age (< 50 years), commercially insured, and self-detected their breast cancer reported pre-operative breast MRI use. In adjusted analysis, pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use was associated with a small but statistically significantly higher decision quality scores (69.5 vs 64.7, p-value = 0.043). Decision regret did not significantly differ in women who reported pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use (54.2% v. 48.7%, respectively, p-value = 0.11). Study results did not vary when stratified by breast density for either primary outcome. Conclusions and relevance Breast MRI use in the diagnostic work-up of breast cancer does not negatively alter women’s perceptions of surgical treatment decisions in early survivorship. Clinical Trials Registration Number : NCT03029286.

Cancer survivorship in the US is increasing greatly, and cancer survivors are at increased risk of developing second primary cancers, with lung cancer being the most common. However, data on lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in cancer survivors are lacking. To compare characteristics, LDCT interpretation, lung cancer detection rate (CDR), and all-cause mortality rate among cancer survivors vs individuals without prior cancer undergoing LCS. This cohort study used North Carolina Lung Screening Registry (NCLSR) data from 2015 to 2019 among individuals undergoing LCS at 8 sites in North Carolina. The NCLSR was linked with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry from 2000 to 2020 to identify cancer survivors and individuals without prior cancer. Data analysis was performed from June 2024 to April 2025. Undergoing LCS. The primary outcome was whether lung cancer was diagnosed within 1 year after the first LCS examination. Comparison of demographic characteristics between cancer survivors and those without prior cancer was performed with χ2 tests. The association of previous cancer with LDCT interpretation, lung CDR, and all-cause mortality rate was modeled using logistic regression. Of a total of 7295 individuals (mean [SD] age, 64.71 [6.34] years), 814 were cancer survivors (425 men [52.2%]), and 6481 (3290 men [50.8%]) had no history of cancer. Compared with the individuals without prior cancer, cancer survivors were older (3267 individuals without prior cancer [50.4%] vs 501 cancer survivors [61.6%] were aged ≥65 years; χ21 = 35.93; P < .001), were more likely to be Black than White or other races (871 individuals without prior cancer [13.4%] vs 137 cancer survivors [16.8%] were Black; χ22 = 12.46; P = .002), were more likely to have formerly vs currently smoked (2728 individuals without prior cancer [42.7%] vs 418 cancer survivors [51.9%] formerly smoked; χ22 = 24.62; P < .001), and had higher rates of respiratory comorbidities (1834 individuals without prior cancer [35.0%] vs 268 cancer survivors [39.9%]; χ21 = 6.19; P = .01) and cardiovascular comorbidities (3043 individuals without prior cancer [58.1%] vs 432 cancer survivors [64.4%]; χ21 = 9.70; P = .002). Cancer survivors and those without prior cancer had similar adjusted rates of positive LDCT results (120 of 758 cancer survivors [15.8%] vs 1032 of 6059 individuals without prior cancer [17.0%]; χ21 = 0.86; P = .35). The adjusted lung CDRs were 26.0 cases per 1000 (95% CI, 17.0-38.2 cases per 1000) among cancer survivors vs 17.0 cases per 1000 (95% CI, 14.1-20.6 cases per 1000) among those without prior cancer (χ21 = 3.38; P = .07); the all-cause mortality rates were 19.4 cases per 1000 (95% CI, 12.0-31.3 cases per 1000) among cancer survivors vs 17.1 cases per 1000 (95% CI, 14.1-20.6 cases per 1000) among those without prior cancer (χ22 = 0.25; P = .62). In this cohort study of LCS-screened individuals, cancer survivors were more likely to be older and formerly smoked and had slightly more comorbidities compared with individuals without prior cancer. Although rates of positive LDCT findings were similar, these findings suggest that the lung CDR may be higher in cancer survivors vs those without prior cancer and should be evaluated in larger studies. The complex relationship between cancer survivorship and the risk of second primary lung cancer underscores both the challenges and the opportunities for preventive care, such as LCS, in this population.

This cohort study evaluates associations of communication methods and content of positive lung cancer screening findings with receipt of recommended follow-up care.

Comorbidities characterize the underlying health status of individuals. In the context of lung cancer screening (LCS), lung-related comorbidities may influence the observed benefits and harms. To compare the characteristics of individuals undergoing LCS, the LCS examination result, the cancer detection rate (CDR), and the false-positive rate (FPR) in those with and without lung-related comorbidities. A prospective cohort study was conducted in 5 academic and community screening sites across North Carolina from January 1, 2014, to November 7, 2020. Participants included 611 individuals screened for lung cancer who completed a 1-page health history questionnaire. Presence of at least 1 self-reported lung-related comorbidity, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, bronchiectasis, pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis, asbestosis, sarcoidosis, and tuberculosis. The LCS examination result was determined from the radiologist's Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment (negative, 1 or 2; positive, 3 or 4). The age-adjusted CDR and FPR were calculated per 100 LCS examinations, using binary logistic regression. Among the 611 individuals screened for lung cancer (308 men [50.4%]; mean [SD] age, 64 [6.2] years), 335 (54.8%) had at least 1 lung-related comorbidity. Individuals with vs without lung-related comorbidities were more likely to be female than male (180 of 335 [53.7%] vs 123 of 276 [44.6%]; P = .02), White vs non-White race (275 of 326 [84.4%] vs 193 of 272 [71.0%]; P < .001), and have high school or less education vs greater than a high school education (108 of 231 [46.7%] vs 64 of 208 [30.8%]; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the proportion of positive LCS examinations in those with vs without a lung-related comorbidity at baseline (37 [16.0%] vs 22 [11.1%]; P = .14) or subsequent (40 [12.3%] vs 23 [10.6%]; P = .54) LCS examination. Comparing individuals with vs without lung-related comorbidities, there was no statistically significant difference in the CDR (1.6 vs 1.9 per 100; P = .73) or FPR (13.0 vs 9.3 per 100; P = .16). Of the 17 individuals with lung cancer, 13 patients (76.5%) were diagnosed with stage I lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that individuals with self-reported lung-related comorbidities undergoing LCS were more likely to be female, of White race, and have less education than those without lung-related comorbidity. Although no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive examinations, CDR, or FPR by self-reported lung comorbidities were noted, additional studies with larger numbers of individuals undergoing screening are needed to understand LCS outcomes in those with lung-related comorbidities.