PurposeTo evaluate mammography uptake and subsequent breast cancer diagnoses, as well as the prospect of additive cancer detection via a liquid biopsy multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening test during a routine preventive care exam (PCE).MethodsPatients with incident breast cancer were identified from five years of longitudinal Blue Health Intelligence® (BHI®) claims data (2014-19) and their screening mammogram and PCE utilization were characterized. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association of a biennial screening mammogram with stage at diagnosis. Additional screening opportunities for breast cancer during a PCE within two years before diagnosis were identified, and the method extrapolated to all cancers, including those without recommended screening modalities.ResultsClaims for biennial screening mammograms and the time from screening to diagnosis were found to be predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis. When compared to women who received a screening mammogram proximal to their breast cancer diagnosis (0-4 months), women who were adherent to guidelines but had a longer time window from their screening mammogram to diagnosis (4-24 months) had a 87% increased odds of a later-stage (stages III or IV) breast cancer diagnosis (p-value <0.001), while women with no biennial screening mammogram had a 155% increased odds of a later-stage breast cancer diagnosis (p-value <0.001). This highlights the importance of screening in the earlier detection of breast cancer. Of incident breast cancer cases, 23% had no evidence of a screening mammogram in the two years before diagnosis. However, 49% of these women had a PCE within that time. Thus, an additional 11% of breast cancer cases could have been screened if a MCED test had been available during a PCE. Additionally, MCED tests have the potential to target up to 58% of the top 5 cancers that are the leading causes of cancer death currently without a USPSTF recommended screening modality (prostate, pancreatic, liver, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer).ConclusionThe study used claims data to demonstrate the association of cancer screening with cancer stage at diagnosis and demonstrates the unmet potential for a MCED screening test which could be ordered during a PCE.

10526 Background: Cancer screening provides a straightforward diagnostic path compared to non-screening, which often requires complex evaluation for patients with non-specific symptoms. The time to diagnosis (from clinical presentation or screening event to definitive diagnosis) captures the clinical efficiency of the journey. The study characterizes time to diagnosis for cancers with and without USPSTF Grade A/B screening recommendations. This could inform the value of screening in diagnostic management and care efficiency improvements. Methods: The Geisinger Health System Phenomics Initiative Database provides deidentified EHR and tumor registry data. Patients aged 50-74 with encounters at least biennially for six years prior to a cancer diagnosis were frequency-matched to a non-cancer control group by diagnosis year. From 18 months prior to diagnosis, equally-sized random samples were drawn (with replacement) from a time-bounded sliding window at monthly intervals. Aggregated procedure and diagnostic code counts for cancer and non-cancer samples were used to calculate the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity (BCd) statistic. The start of the diagnostic path was defined as the earliest date with a monotonically-increasing statistically-significant difference in BCd (95% CI), and was stratified into cancers with and without screening and by stage. Results: 8188 new cancer cases were identified between 2010-2019; 40% had an established screening modality (breast, lung, colorectal, cervical), 55% of which were screened prior to diagnosis. The time to diagnosis for non-screenable cancers was 6 months versus 3 months for screenable cancers. The BCd for procedures differed by 0.029 (95% CI: 0.021-0.037) between the two groups at 6 months prior to diagnosis. Stages I and IV had a time to diagnosis of 3 months across all cancers versus 7 and 6 months for stages II and III, respectively. Conclusions: We report the first known quantification of time to diagnosis across multiple cancers. Screenable cancers were associated with shorter time to diagnosis than non-screenable cancers. Stage II and III cancers took longer to diagnose than stage I and IV, likely related to early detection by screening in the former and severe symptom presentation in the latter. These novel data highlight improved time to diagnosis as another achievable benefit from expanded, multi-cancer screening.

No abstract