Center for Cancer Prevention and Control

Baltimore, MD, United States

Center for Cancer Prevention and Control

Baltimore, MD, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Fowler S.L.,U.S. National Institutes of Health | Platz E.A.,Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins | Hokenmaier S.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control | Truss M.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control | And 2 more authors.
Preventing Chronic Disease | Year: 2015

Introduction Since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2012, 11 million more Americans now have access to preventive services via health care coverage. Several prevention-related recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) are covered under the ACA. State cancer plans often provide prevention strategies, but whether these strategies correspond to federal evidence-based recommendations is unclear. The objective of this article is to assess whether federal evidence-based recommendations, including those covered under the ACA, are included in the Maryland Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan (MCCCP). Methods A total of 19 federal recommendations pertaining to cancer prevention and control were identified. Inclusion of federal cancer-related recommendations by USPSTF, CDC, and ACIP in the MCCCP's goals, objectives, and strategies was examined. Results Nine of the federal recommendations were issued after the MCCCP's publication. MCCCP recommendations corresponded completely with 4 federal recommendations and corresponded only partially with 3. Reasons for partial correspondence included specification of less restrictive at-risk populations or different intervention implementers. Three federal recommendations were not mentioned in the MCCCP's goals, objectives, and strategies. Conclusion Many cancer-related federal recommendations were released after the MCCCP's publication and therefore do not appear in the most current version. We recommend that the results of this analysis be considered in the update of the MCCCP. Our findings underscore the need for a periodic scan for changes to federal recommendations and for adjusting state policies and programs to correspond with federal recommendations, as appropriate for Marylanders.


Joshu C.E.,The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins | Kanarek N.,The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins | Richardson K.A.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control | Platz E.A.,The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins | Platz E.A.,Johns Hopkins University
Preventing Chronic Disease | Year: 2016

Introduction In the United States, prostate cancer mortality rates have declined in recent decades. Cigarette smoking, a risk factor for prostate cancer death, has also declined. It is unknown whether declines in smoking prevalence produced detectable declines in prostate cancer mortality. We examined state prostate cancer mortality rates in relation to changes in cigarette smoking. Methods We studied men aged 35 years or older from California, Kentucky, Maryland, and Utah. Data on state smoking prevalence were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Mortality rates for prostate cancer and external causes (control condition) were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. The average annual percentage change from 1999 through 2010 was estimated using joinpoint analysis. Results From 1999 through 2010, smoking in California declined by 3.5% per year (-4.4% to -2.5%), and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 2.5% per year (-2.9% to -2.2%). In Kentucky, smoking declined by 3.0% per year (-4.0% to -1.9%) and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 3.5% per year (-4.3% to -2.7%). In Maryland, smoking declined by 3.0% per year (-7.0% to 1.2%), and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 3.5% per year (-4.1% to -3.0%).In Utah, smoking declined by 3.5% per year (-5.6% to -1.3%) and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 2.1% per year (-3.8% to -0.4%). No corresponding patterns were observed for external causes of death. Conclusion Declines in prostate cancer mortality rates appear to parallel declines in smoking prevalence at the population level. This study suggests that declines in prostate cancer mortality rates may be a beneficial effect of reduced smoking in the population.


PubMed | The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University and Center for Cancer Prevention and Control
Type: | Journal: Preventing chronic disease | Year: 2016

In the United States, prostate cancer mortality rates have declined in recent decades. Cigarette smoking, a risk factor for prostate cancer death, has also declined. It is unknown whether declines in smoking prevalence produced detectable declines in prostate cancer mortality. We examined state prostate cancer mortality rates in relation to changes in cigarette smoking.We studied men aged 35 years or older from California, Kentucky, Maryland, and Utah. Data on state smoking prevalence were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Mortality rates for prostate cancer and external causes (control condition) were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. The average annual percentage change from 1999 through 2010 was estimated using joinpoint analysis.From 1999 through 2010, smoking in California declined by 3.5% per year (-4.4% to -2.5%), and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 2.5% per year (-2.9% to -2.2%). In Kentucky, smoking declined by 3.0% per year (-4.0% to -1.9%) and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 3.5% per year (-4.3% to -2.7%). In Maryland, smoking declined by 3.0% per year (-7.0% to 1.2%), and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 3.5% per year (-4.1% to -3.0%).In Utah, smoking declined by 3.5% per year (-5.6% to -1.3%) and prostate cancer mortality rates declined by 2.1% per year (-3.8% to -0.4%). No corresponding patterns were observed for external causes of death.Declines in prostate cancer mortality rates appear to parallel declines in smoking prevalence at the population level. This study suggests that declines in prostate cancer mortality rates may be a beneficial effect of reduced smoking in the population.


PubMed | U.S. National Institutes of Health and Center for Cancer Prevention and Control
Type: | Journal: Preventing chronic disease | Year: 2015

Since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2012, 11 million more Americans now have access to preventive services via health care coverage. Several prevention-related recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) are covered under the ACA. State cancer plans often provide prevention strategies, but whether these strategies correspond to federal evidence-based recommendations is unclear. The objective of this article is to assess whether federal evidence-based recommendations, including those covered under the ACA, are included in the Maryland Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan (MCCCP).A total of 19 federal recommendations pertaining to cancer prevention and control were identified. Inclusion of federal cancer-related recommendations by USPSTF, CDC, and ACIP in the MCCCPs goals, objectives, and strategies was examined.Nine of the federal recommendations were issued after the MCCCPs publication. MCCCP recommendations corresponded completely with 4 federal recommendations and corresponded only partially with 3. Reasons for partial correspondence included specification of less restrictive at-risk populations or different intervention implementers. Three federal recommendations were not mentioned in the MCCCPs goals, objectives, and strategies.Many cancer-related federal recommendations were released after the MCCCPs publication and therefore do not appear in the most current version. We recommend that the results of this analysis be considered in the update of the MCCCP. Our findings underscore the need for a periodic scan for changes to federal recommendations and for adjusting state policies and programs to correspond with federal recommendations, as appropriate for Marylanders.


Nadel M.R.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Royalty J.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Shapiro J.A.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Joseph D.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | And 3 more authors.
Cancer | Year: 2013

BACKGROUND Gaps in screening quality in community practice have been well documented. The authors examined recommended indicators of screening quality in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services between 2005 and 2009 for asymptomatic, low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals at 5 sites around the United States. METHODS For each client screened in the CRCSDP, a standardized set of colorectal cancer clinical data elements was collected. Data regarding client age, screening history, risk level, screening test indication, results, and recommendation for the next test were analyzed. For colonoscopies, data were analyzed regarding whether the cecum was reached, bowel preparation was adequate, and identified lesions were completely removed. RESULTS Overall, 53% of the fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (2295 tests) distributed were completed and returned. At the 2 sites with adequate numbers of FOBTs, 77% and 97%, respectively, of clients with positive results received follow-up colonoscopies. Site-specific cecal intubation rates ranged from 90% to 98%. Adenoma detection rates were 32% for men and 21% for women. For approximately one-third of colonoscopies, the recommended interval to the next test was shorter than recommended by national guidelines. At some sites, endoscopists failed to report on the adequacy of bowel preparation and completeness of polyp removal. CONCLUSIONS Cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection rates met recommended levels. The authors identified the need for improvements in the follow-up of positive FOBTs, documentation of important elements in colonoscopy reports, and recommendations for rescreening or surveillance intervals after colonoscopy. Monitoring quality indicators is important to improve screening quality. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2834-41. © 2013 American Cancer Society.


Villanueva R.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control | Villanueva R.,University of Maryland Baltimore County | Gugel D.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control | Gugel D.,Prevention and Health Promotion Administration | Dwyer D.M.,Center for Cancer Prevention and Control
Cancer | Year: 2013

BACKGROUND Maryland, excluding Baltimore City, began public health screening for colorectal cancer in 2000. Initiating colorectal cancer screening in Baltimore City was an objective in the Maryland Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) funding announcement for the "Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program" (CRCSDP) was seen as a potential opportunity for Maryland to begin screening in Baltimore City. METHODS The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), the American Cancer Society, and five Baltimore City Hospitals collaborated to develop the funding application and model for the Baltimore City CRCSDP. After receipt of funding, between 2005 and September 2009, screening sites collaborated with the DHMH to implement the multi-site colorectal cancer screening program in Baltimore City. RESULTS Close collaboration across organizational boundaries enabled the funding, formation, and implementation of the CRCSDP in Baltimore City. The Baltimore City CRCSDP illustrates the complexity of establishing a functional public health screening program. The program overcame expected and unexpected fiscal, programmatic, and clinical challenges to successfully perform 709 colonoscopies screening cycles among 696 people and detect three cancers during the 38 months of screening. CONCLUSIONS Partnerships among the state and local health department, the American Cancer Society, and hospitals in Baltimore City enabled the implementation of this successful program. Lessons learned from the collaborative planning process and the program implementation may facilitate similar collaborations in other geographic areas. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2905-13. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Loading Center for Cancer Prevention and Control collaborators
Loading Center for Cancer Prevention and Control collaborators