About

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, is an Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. She is a full member of the Abramson Cancer Center, Cancer Control Program, and a Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute. Dr. Rendle serves as the Director of Cancer Implementation Research at the Penn Implementation Science Center (PISCE) and is the Director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation (PC3I) within the Abramson Cancer Center. Her research expertise encompasses cancer prevention and care, healthcare delivery research, implementation science, mixed-methods research, clinical epidemiology, pragmatic trials, and global health. She holds a diverse educational background with degrees from the University of California and the University of Michigan, including a PhD in Social Work & Anthropology and an MPH in Epidemiology. Her work focuses on improving cancer care and healthcare delivery through innovative research and implementation strategies.

Research topics

• Nursing
• Emergency medicine
• Medicine
• Family medicine

Selected publications

• Lung Cancer Yield by Baseline Screening Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) Assignment and Patient Factors

  CHEST Pulmonary · 2026-02-26

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• Clinicians’ cancer risk assessment among patients with pulmonary nodules: a qualitative study

  Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026-01-23

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Up-to-date prevalence at recommended ages for discontinuing routine colorectal, cervical and lung cancer screening

  JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026-02-13

  article

  Cancer screening guidelines specify ages at which routine screening should be discontinued and, except for cervical cancer screening, do not require specific screening history criteria be met for discontinuation. We estimated the prevalence of being up to date with average-risk screening guidelines for colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer as of the recommended ages for discontinuation of routine screening. We conducted a descriptive study among several U.S. healthcare systems during 2010-2019. Up-to-date screening prevalence, based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, was ascertained prior to 76th, 66th, and 81st birthdays among persons eligible for colorectal (N = 316,756 persons), cervical (N = 20,282 persons), and lung cancer (N = 1,151 persons) screening, respectively. Up-to-date screening prevalence was 84.4% for colorectal, 58.9% for cervical, and 6.3% for lung cancer screening. Up-to-date screening prevalence at the ages recommended for discontinuing routine colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer screening varied appreciably, and was particularly low for lung cancer screening.

  PublisherDOI

• Longitudinal Patterns of Survivorship Care in Cervical Cancer Patients Living with or without HIV in Botswana, 2015–2023

  International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2025-09-01

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Surgeon-Informed Clinical Decision Support Software for Surgical Risk Prediction and Outcomes Tracking

  Journal of Surgical Research · 2025-11-01

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• TRENDS IN STAGE AND SURVIVAL AFTER ESTABLISHING A MULTIDISCIPLINARY GYNECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY CLINIC IN BOTSWANA

  International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · 2025-11-01

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Supplementary Table from Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda

  2025-11-26

  articleOpen access

  Supplementary Table from Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda

  PublisherDOI

• Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium

  Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2025-10-07 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: Effective screening for colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer requires adherence over time, but little is known about repeat testing in real-world practice. OBJECTIVE: Describe patterns of longitudinal screening adherence and identify patient and system factors associated with repeat testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of colorectal, cervical, or lung cancer screening in 2010-2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults eligible for repeat colorectal (stool-based), cervical, or lung cancer screening following a negative index test in ten regional health systems comprising the US PROSPR consortium. MAIN MEASURES: Repeat screening based on guideline-recommended intervals. For the colorectal and lung cohorts with opportunities for multiple annual screening rounds, the main outcome was repeat screening categorized as none, inconsistent, or consistent. RESULTS: The sample size was: 1,566,346 for colorectal, 216,344 for cervical, and 6,209 for lung cancer screening. For colorectal, cervical, and lung screeners, mean age at index was 58.2, 39.4, and 64.6 years, respectively, and 49%, 55% and 30% were Hispanic and/or non-white. Completion of the next screening round was 62% for colorectal, 56% for cervical, and 56% for lung cancer. For colorectal, over the next two rounds of testing, 53% were consistent, 33% inconsistent, and 14% no repeat screeners. The comparable percentages over 3 + rounds for colorectal were 40% consistent, 50% inconsistent, and 11% no repeat screeners. For lung, over the next two rounds, 47% were consistent, 31% inconsistent, and 22% no repeat screeners. The proportions over 3 + rounds for lung were 44% consistent, 42% inconsistent, and 14% no repeat screening. The health system was the strongest predictor of repeat and consistent testing with three- to ten-fold variation. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to longitudinal screening for colorectal, cervical and lung cancer was suboptimal, particularly as the number of testing rounds increased. System-level strategies are needed to increase screening adherence given the strong relationship between health system and outcomes.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Evaluating the Nonmalignancy Rate in the National Lung Screening Trial

  CHEST Journal · 2025-05-09 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Data from Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda

  2025-11-26

  articleOpen access

  <div>AbstractBackground:<p>Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings.</p>Methods:<p>We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities.</p>Results:<p>Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, <i>in situ</i> cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; <i>in situ</i>: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal).</p>Conclusions:<p>PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators.</p>Impact:<p>PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.</p></div>

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• Admin_Core

  NIH · $9.0M · 2022–2027

Frequent coauthors

• Anil Vachani

  University of Pennsylvania

  101 shared

• Justin E. Bekelman

  University of Pennsylvania

  74 shared

• Jocelyn V. Wainwright

  University of Pennsylvania

  56 shared

• Peter Gabriel

  56 shared

• Lawrence N. Shulman

  eHealth Initiative

  55 shared

• Dominick L. Frosch

  Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

  40 shared

• Stacey Honda

  Hawaii Permanente Medical Group

  36 shared

• J. Steltz

  University of Pennsylvania

  36 shared

Education

• MPH, Epidemiology

  University of California Berkeley

  2015

• PhD, Anthropology and Social Work

  University of Michigan

  2014

Awards & honors

• Senior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute
• Director of Cancer Implementation Research, Penn Implementat…
• Director, Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation (PC3I), Abr…