In recent years, studies have shown that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a safe and effective way to screen high-risk adults for lung cancer. Despite this, uptake remains low, especially in limited-resource settings. The American Cancer Society (ACS) partnered with two federally qualified health centers and accredited screening facilities on a 2 year pilot project to implement an LDCT screening program. Both sites attempted to develop a referral program and care coordination practices to move patients through the screening continuum and identify critical facilitators and barriers to implementation. Evaluators conducted key informant interviews (N = 46) with clinical and administrative staff, as well as regional ACS staff during annual site visits. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided our analysis of factors associated with effective implementation and improved screening outcomes. One study site established a sustainable lung screening program, while the other struggled to overcome significant implementation barriers. Increased time spent with patients, disruption to normal workflows, and Medicaid reimbursement policies presented challenges at both sites. Supportive, engaged leaders and knowledgeable champions who provided clear implementation guidance improved staff engagement and were able to train, guide, and motivate staff throughout the intervention. A slow, stepwise implementation process allowed one site's project champions to pilot test new processes and resolve issues before scaling up. This pilot study provides critical insights into the necessary resources and steps for successful lung cancer screening program implementation in underserved settings. Future efforts can build upon these findings and identify and address possible facilitators and barriers to screening program implementation.

Background: Multiple studies have yielded important findings regarding the determinants of an advanced-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. We seek to advance this line of inquiry through a broadened conceptual framework and accompanying statistical modeling strategy that recognize the dual importance of access-tocare and biologic factors on stage. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study yielded a seven-state, cancer registry-derived population-based sample of 9,142 women diagnosed with a first primary in situ or invasive breast cancer in 2004. The likelihood of advanced-stage cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIB, IIIC, or IV) was investigated through multivariable regression modeling, with base-case analyses using the method of instrumental variables (IV) to detect and correct for possible selection bias. The robustness of base-case findings was examined through extensive sensitivity analyses. Results: Advanced-stage disease was negatively associated with detection by mammography (P < 0.001) and with age < 50 (P < 0.001), and positively related to black race (P = 0.07), not being privately insured [Medicaid (P = 0.01), Medicare (P = 0.04), uninsured (P = 0.07)], being single (P = 0.06), body mass index > 40 (P= 0.001), a HER2 type tumor (P < 0.001), and tumor grade not well differentiated (P < 0.001). This IV model detected and adjusted for significant selection effects associated with method of detection (P=0.02). Sensitivity analyses generally supported these base-case results. Conclusions: Through our comprehensive modeling strategy andsensitivity analyses,weprovide newestimates of themagnitude androbustness of the determinants ofadvanced-stage breast cancer. Impact: Statistical approaches frequently used to address observational data biases in treatment-outcome studies can be applied similarly in analyses of the determinants of stage at diagnosis.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE. The American Cancer Society (ACS) reviewed and updated its guideline on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination based on a methodologic and content review of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) HPV vaccination recommendations. A literature review was performed to supplement the evidence considered by the ACIP and to address new vaccine formulations and recommendations as well as new data on population outcomes since publication of the 2007 ACS guideline. The ACS Guideline Development Group determined that the evidence supports ACS endorsement of the ACIP recommendations, with one qualifying statement related to late vaccination. The ACS recommends vaccination of all children at ages 11 and 12 years to protect against HPV infections that lead to several cancers and precancers. Late vaccination for those not vaccinated at the recommended ages should be completed as soon as possible, and individuals should be informed that vaccination may not be effective at older ages.

Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively early age (≤45 years) or with bilateral disease at any age are at elevated risk for additional breast cancer, as are their female first-degree relatives (FDRs). We report on a randomized trial to increase adherence to mammography screening guidelines among survivors and FDRs. From the Georgia Cancer Registry, breast cancer survivors diagnosed during 2000–2009 at six Georgia cancer centers underwent phone interviews about their breast cancer screening behaviors and their FDRs. Nonadherent survivors and FDRs meeting all inclusion criteria were randomized to high-intensity (evidence-based brochure, phone counseling, mailed reminders, and communications with primary care providers) or low-intensity interventions (brochure only). Three and 12-month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Data analyses used standard statistical approaches. Among 1055 survivors and 287 FDRs who were located, contacted, and agreed to participate, 59.5% and 62.7%, respectively, reported breast cancer screening in the past 12 months and were thus ineligible. For survivors enrolled at baseline (N = 95), the proportion reporting adherence to guideline screening by 12 months post-enrollment was similar in the high and low-intensity arms (66.7% vs. 79.2%, p = 0.31). Among FDRs enrolled at baseline (N = 83), screening was significantly higher in the high-intensity arm at 12 months (60.9% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.03). Overall, about 72% of study-eligible survivors (all of whom were screening nonadherent at baseline) reported screening within 12 months of study enrollment. For enrolled FDRs receiving the high-intensity intervention, over 60% reported guideline screening by 12 months. A major conclusion is that using high-quality central cancer registries to identify high-risk breast cancer survivors and then working closely with these survivors to identify their FDRs represents a feasible and effective strategy to promote guideline cancer screening.