Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Objectives: Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by clinician-collection is endorsed by U.S. guideline organizations for cervical cancer screening, but uptake remains low and insights into patients' understanding are limited. This study aims to primarily address patient awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection and acceptance of primary HPV screening by clinician- and self-collection, and secondarily assess factors associated with awareness and acceptance.

Setting: Primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey study of screening-eligible women aged 30-65 years was conducted to assess awareness and acceptability of primary HPV screening. We analyzed bivariate associations of respondent characteristics with awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection, willingness to have clinician- or self-collected primary HPV testing, and reasons for self-collection preference.

Results: Respondents (n = 351; response rate = 23.4%) reported cervical cancer screening adherence of 82.8% but awareness of clinician-collected primary HPV as an option was low (18.9%) and only associated with HPV testing with recent screening (p = 0.003). After reviewing a description of primary HPV screening, willingness for clinician-collected (81.8%) or home self-collected (76.1%) HPV testing was high, if recommended by a provider. Acceptability of clinician-collected HPV testing was associated with higher income (p = 0.009) and for self-collection was associated with higher income (p = 0.002) and higher education (p = 0.02). Higher education was associated with reporting self-collection as easier than clinic-collection (p = 0.02). Women expected self-collection to be more convenient (94%), less embarrassing (85%), easier (85%), and less painful (81%) than clinician-collection.

Conclusions: Educational interventions are needed to address low awareness about the current clinician-collected primary HPV screening option and to prepare for anticipated federal licensure of self-collection kits. Informing women about self-collection allows them to recognize benefits which could address screening barriers.

National screening programs for gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers are offered in Japan. The initial introduction of cancer screening programs was decided based on experts' opinions. Since 2003, the research groups funded by the National Cancer Center have published screening guidelines for gastric, colorectal, lung, prostate, cervical, and breast cancers. Although such guidelines have increasingly contributed to promoting evidence-based screening, it is still insufficient. Cancer screenings have mainly been provided in communities and workplaces. Compared with the average of OECD countries, participation rates in breast and cervical cancer screening are lower. Participation rates cannot be accurately calculated due to a lack of comprehensive cancer screening registries at the national level. Alternatively, estimates are derived from questionnaire surveys conducted on randomly selected samples from the national population. The quality assurance system has been limited to community-based screening and was not adapted to workplace screening until 2018. While there is a long history of cancer screening, the complex program delivery system might be a barrier to increasing the participation rate. Continued efforts are necessary to offer evidence-based cancer screening and establish an effective quality assurance system.

Objective: The incidence of melanoma has increased dramatically over the past four decades, while overall mortality has remained stable. This increase in incidence without a change in overall mortality may be due to overdiagnosis through skin cancer screening. Despite the USPSTF citing insufficient evidence for or against professional skin cancer screening in average-risk adults, U.S. skin cancer screening practices may be leading to overdiagnosis of skin cancers.

Methods: Two reviewers examined the online recommendations for skin cancer screening of 1113 U.S. cancer centers accredited by the Commission on Cancer, including 66 designated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Recommendations on skin cancer screening, such as age, frequency, and patient population (i.e. high-risk of developing skin cancer, "people of color") were documented.

Results: We found that 18% of centers (202) recommended professional screening in average-risk adults, 35.8% (399) advised regular self-examination, and only 3.4% (38) cited insufficient evidence for screening practices; 49% of NCI centers (32/66) recommended screening in high-risk adults compared to 13% of non-NCI centers (135/1047; p = 0.0004); 0.45% of centers (5) mentioned the potential harms of screening, while 3.5% (39) specifically recommended screening for people of color.

Conclusion: Our study reveals that many U.S. cancer centers advise some form of skin cancer screening despite a lack of evidence for or against these practices. Few centers mentioned the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis. This indicates a need for stronger evidence for specific screening guidelines and for greater public awareness of the potential benefits and harms of routine skin cancer screening.

Background: Late-stage cancer incidence has been proposed as an early surrogate for mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer screening; however, its validity has not been systematically evaluated across screening RCTs of different cancers.

Methods: We conducted a meta-regression analysis of cancer screening RCTs that reported both late-stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Based on a systematic literature review, we included 33 RCTs of screening programs targeting seven cancer types, including lung (n = 12), colorectal (n = 8), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 4), among others. We regressed the relative reduction of cancer mortality on the relative reduction of late-stage cancer incidence, inversely weighted for each RCT by the variance of estimated mortality reduction.

Results: Across cancer types, the relative reduction of late-stage cancer incidence was linearly associated with the relative reduction of cancer mortality. Specifically, we observed this association for lung (R² = 0.79 and 0.996 in three recent large trials), breast (R² = 0.94), prostate (R² = 0.98), and colorectal cancer (R² = 0.75 for stage III/IV cancers and 0.93 for stage IV cancers). Trials with a 20% or greater reduction in late-stage cancers were more likely to achieve a significant reduction in cancer mortality. Our results also showed that no reduction of late-stage cancer incidence was associated with no or minimal reduction in cancer mortality.

Conclusions: Meta-regression of historical screening RCTs showed a strong linear association between reductions in late-stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality.

This study aimed to estimate participation in private breast screening in Queensland, Australia, where public-funded screening is implemented, and to identify factors associated with the screening setting, using an online survey (999 female respondents aged 40-74). Screening-specific and socio-demographic factors were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with screening setting (public vs private) and screening recency (<2 vs ≥2 years). Participation estimates were 53.2% (95% confidence interval, CI: 50.0%-56.3%) and 10.9% (9.0%-13.0%) for national screening program and private screening, respectively. In the screening setting model, participation in private screening was significantly associated with longer time since last screening (>4 versus <2 years, odds ratio (OR) = 7.3, 95%CI: 4.1-12.9, p < 0.001), having symptoms (OR = 9.5, 5.8-15.5, p < 0.001), younger age (40-49 versus 50-74 years, OR = 1.8, 1.1-3.0, p = 0.018) and having children <18 years in household (OR = 2.4, 1.5-3.9, p < 0.001). In the screening recency model, only screening setting was statistically significant and private screening was associated with screening recency ≥2 years (OR = 4.0, 2.8-5.7, p < 0.001). Around one in nine women screen outside of the BreastScreen Queensland program. Clinical and socio-demographic factors associated with participation in private screening were identified, providing knowledge relevant to the program's endeavours to improve screening participation.

Objective: To analyze differences between screen-detected and non-screen-detected invasive breast cancers by tumour characteristics and age at diagnosis in the nationwide population-based mammography screening program in Sweden.

Methods: Data were retrieved from the National Quality Register for Breast Cancer for 2008-2017. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the likelihood for a tumour to be screen-detected by tumour characteristics and age group at diagnosis.

Results: In total there were 51,429 invasive breast cancers in the target age group for mammography screening of 40-74 years. Likelihood of screen detection decreased with larger tumour size, lymph node metastases, higher histological grade and distant metastasis. Odds ratios (ORs) for negative oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) were 0.41 and 0.57; for positive HER2, 0.62; for Ki-67 high versus low, 0.49. Molecular sub-types had OR of 0.56, 0.40 and 0.28, respectively, for luminal B-like, HER2-positive and triple negative versus luminal A-like. Adjusting for tumour size (T), lymph node status (N), age, year and county at diagnosis slightly elevated the ORs. Statistically significant interactions between tumour characteristics and age were found (p < 0.05) except for ER and PgR. The age group 40-49 deviated most from the other age groups.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that screen-detected invasive breast cancers had more favourable tumour characteristics than non-screen-detected after adjusting for age, year and county of diagnosis, and even after adjusting for T and N. The trend towards favourable tumour characteristics was less pronounced in the 40-49 age group compared to the other age groups, except for ER and PgR.

Objective: To quantify the associations between time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) and colorectal cancer (CRC)-related outcomes in the context of a provincial, population-based CRC screening program.

Setting: Population-based, retrospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada, including Albertans aged 50-74 with at least one FIT+ in 2014-2017.

Methods: Study outcomes were CRC diagnosis after a FIT+ and a diagnostic follow-up colonoscopy in 2014-2019 and CRC stage at diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relative risk of any CRC or advanced-stage CRC. Results were presented as crude odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Of the 787,967 participants who had a FIT, 63,232 (8%) had a FIT+ and met the study's eligibility criteria. The risk of any CRC or advanced-stage CRC stayed high and was relatively consistent for follow-up colonoscopies performed within 1-12 months of the FIT+. After 12 months, the risk of CRC was considerably higher, particularly for advanced-stage CRC. The OR and aOR for any CRC were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13-1.73; p < 0.05) and 1.20 (95% CI: 0.96-1.49), respectively, and the OR and aOR for advanced-stage CRC were 1.42 (95% CI: 0.98-2.08) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59-1.32), respectively, for colonoscopy follow-up within 12-18 months versus 1-2 months.

Conclusions: For Albertans who used FIT for CRC screening, a longer time interval between a FIT+ and follow-up colonoscopy, particularly over 12 months, increases the risk of having CRC and decreases the effectiveness of CRC screening programs.