Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 24, 2026

Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
Published on: April 18, 2025
Cancer Screening Patterns Among Current, Former, and Never Smokers in the United States, 2010-2015
Nina N Sanford1, David J Sher1, Santino Butler2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Importance:
National guidelines recommend screening for several cancer types, yet screening rates remain below target. To date, cancer screening patterns by smoking status, a major cancer risk factor, are unknown.
Objective:
To assess cancer screening patterns among individuals who never smoked (never smokers), formerly smoked (former smokers), and currently smoke (current smokers) in the United States.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
This cross-sectional study assessed data from the National Health Interview Survey years 2010, 2013, and 2015. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) who had never reported a cancer diagnosis were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018, through February 1, 2019.
Exposures:
Receipt of cancer screening, including colonoscopy, mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and Papanicolaou test per the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing cancer screening by smoking status. Among participants who received a specific screening test, AORs and 95% CIs of receiving the test within guideline-recommended intervals were also assessed.
Results:
Among 83 176 participants (45 851 [55.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 47 [18] years), 51 014 (61.3%) were never smokers; 17 235 (20.7%), former smokers; and 14 927 (17.9%), current smokers. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to ever have received a colonoscopy (43.8% vs 57.7%; AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < .001), mammogram (88.8% vs 93.3%; AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001), or prostate-specific antigen test (46.1% vs 60.8%; AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P = .001). Among those who had ever received a specific screening test, current smokers were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (92.1% vs 95.1%; AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P = .02), mammography (62.4% vs 79.4%; AOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.60; P < .001), or Papanicolaou test (80.9% vs 90.8%; AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67; P < .001) within the recommended time frame compared with never smokers. Former smokers were more likely than never smokers to undergo any of the screening studies evaluated, with the exception of prostate-specific antigen screening (colonoscopy, 65.2% vs 57.7%; AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30; P < .001; mammography, 95.7% vs 93.3%; AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01; Papanicolaou test, 97.6% vs 91.4%; AOR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.93-3.26; P < .001).
Conclusions And Relevance:
This study found that current smokers appeared to be less likely to receive guideline-concordant screening studies for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer compared with never smokers. Further research is needed to identify barriers to screening among current smokers with the goal of increasing acceptance and uptake of cancer screening among this population at high risk of cancer.
More Related Videos
07:48Utilizing Functional Genomics Screening to Identify Potentially Novel Drug Targets in Cancer Cell Spheroid Cultures
Published on: December 26, 2016
08:14MicroRNA Based Liquid Biopsy: The Experience of the Plasma miRNA Signature Classifier MSC for Lung Cancer Screening
Published on: October 26, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Measurement: Derived Units
Measurement: Standard Units
Motor Units
Motor Units
Motor units come in different sizes, with smaller units...
Units of Measurement
There are various well-known historical measurement systems, such as the Babylonian system, the Roman system, the Egyptian system, the Olympian system, the British system, and the Indus...
International System of Units
Prefixes are used to define both larger and smaller quantities in the SI system. For example, milli, micro, and nano define smaller quantities, while kilo, mega, and giga are used to define...