Rural barriers to early lung cancer detection: Exploring access to lung cancer screening programs in New Hampshire and Vermont

BackgroundRural populations face many health disadvantages compared to urban areas. There is a critical need to better understand the current lung cancer screening landscape in these communities to identify targeted areas to improve the impact of this proven tool.MethodsData from the County Health Rankings of New Hampshire and Vermont was reviewed for population density, distribution of adult smokers, and level of education compared to the distribution of Lung Cancer Screening Facilities throughout these two states.ResultsScreening programs in southern counties of Vermont with lower levels of education have decreased access. In New Hampshire, there are no programs within 30 miles of the areas with the largest distribution of smokers, and decreased access in some areas with the lowest levels of education.ConclusionsImproving equitable access to high-quality screening services in rural regions and the creation of targeted interventions to address decreased access in areas of high tobacco use and low education is vital to decreasing the incidence of latestage presentations of lung cancer within these populations.     

Evidence from a BreastScreen cohort does not support a longer inter-screen interval in women who have no conventional risk factors for breast cancer

ObjectivesTo determine screening outcomes in women who have no recorded risk factors for breast cancer.MethodsA retrospective population-based cohort study included all 1,026,137 mammography screening episodes in 323,082 women attending the BreastScreen Western Australia (part of national biennial screening) program between July 2007 and June 2017. Cancer detection rates (CDR) and interval cancer rates (ICR) were calculated in screening episodes with no recorded risk factors for breast cancer versus at least one risk factor stratified by age. CDR was further stratified by timeliness of screening (<27 versus ≥27 months); ICR was stratified by breast density.ResultsAmongst 566,948 screens (55.3%) that had no recorded risk factors, 2347 (40.9%) screen-detected cancers were observed. In screens with no risk factors, CDR was 50 (95%CI 48–52) per 10,000 screens and ICR was 7.9 (95%CI 7.4–8.4) per 10,000 women-years, estimates that were lower than screens with at least one risk factor (CDR 83 (95%CI 80–86) per 10,000 screens, ICR 12.2 (95%CI 11.5–13.0) per 10,000 women-years). Compared to timely screens with risk factors, delayed screens with no risk factors had similar CDR across all age groups and a higher proportion of node positive cancers (26.1% vs 20.7%). ICR was lowest in screens that had no risk factors nor dense breasts in all age groups.ConclusionsMajority of screens had no recorded breast cancer risk factors, hence a substantial proportion of screen-detected cancers occur in these screening episodes. Our findings may not justify less frequent screening in women with no risk factors.