Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Objective: Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

Results: We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

Conclusions: Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Objective: To describe the development and implementation of a population-based screening programme for sickle cell disease (SCD) implemented in 12 SCD-endemic and tribal-dominated primary/community health centres (PHCs/CHCs) across six districts of India.

Setting: India reports a huge burden of SCD, especially among indigenous (tribal) communities. However, there is no state-led SCD programme in many places, and systematic screening is absent. This situation necessitates developing a model of population screening.

Methods: This programme was meant to screen all people and was carried out in three tiers. The first tier was a symptomatic survey carried out by community health workers. Regular health workers then screened those referred by sickle cell solubility test at sub-health centres as the second tier. The third tier was confirmation by haemoglobin electrophoresis at PHCs/CHCs. Communities were mobilised and prepared to accept the screening. Capacity building of health facilities was ensured through training and supply of equipment and material.

Results: Initial observation based on six months' data revealed that out of the 110,754 tribal population of 12 PHCs/CHCs, 8418 (7.6%) were identified in the symptomatic survey. Subsequently, 9416 people, including the above 8418, underwent the solubility test, and 2607 (27.7%) were found to be positive. Of these, 1978 (78.9%) underwent electrophoresis. About 64.2% were found to be positive for sickle haemoglobin (233 (18.4%) SCD and 1036 (81.6%) SCD trait).

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the feasibility of establishing a population-based screening programme in the primary health care system. It is easy to implement in tribal habitations as part of the proposed national SCD/haemoglobinopathies programme.

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

Method: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3^rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

Conclusion: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Objective: Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results.

Setting / methods: We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics.

Results: 446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy).

Conclusion: Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.

Objective: Evidence of reduction in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality following CRC screening based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is insufficient. This study aimed to analyse if CRC mortality was reduced after implementing FIT-based screening.

Setting: The Danish national CRC screening programme.

Methods: This nationwide cohort study included residents aged 50-71 years invited to the prevalence round of the screening programme. Invitation order was decided by randomising on birth month; the first two birth months to be invited were classified as invited and the five last were classified as not-yet-invited and given a pseudo invitation data. Follow-up was from (pseudo)invitation date until 31 December 2017, emigration or death. Relative risk (RR) of CRC death was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 897,812 residents were included (29% invited and 71% not-yet-invited). The median follow-up was 3.3 years. The RR of CRC death at end of follow-up was 0.83 (95% CI 0.66; 1.03) among those invited to screening compared with those not yet invited. For men aged 60-71 years, this RR was 0.68 (95% CI 0.49; 0.94). For those participating in screening compared with a similar group of not-yet-invited residents, the RR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.08). For male participants aged 60-71 years, this RR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.89). For women and men aged 50-59 years, RRs were small and statistically non-significant.

Conclusion: This nationwide study showed that even within a median follow-up of only 3.3 years, implementing FIT-based CRC screening reduced CRC mortality among older men.

Objective: Roll-out of population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is limited by availability of further investigations, particularly colonoscopy and examination of excised lesions. Our objective was to assess whether variation in number of faecal samples and threshold adjustment can optimise resource utilisation and CRC detection rate.

Methods: Three different screening strategies were compared for the same FIT threshold using a quantitative FIT system: one FIT, positive when >20 µg Hb/g faeces; two FIT, positive when either was >20 µg Hb/g faeces; and two FIT, positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces. We calculated changes in the size of population the provider could invite to screening for an equal number of screening positive results, and CRC and adenoma detected.

Results: In our setting, Region of Murcia, south of Spain (not fully rolled out screening programme), changing the usual strategy of two FIT, positive when either to positive when the mean was >20 µg Hb/g faeces, would increase population invited by 37.81% with the same number of positive results (which would generate a CRC detection rate of 19.2%). In a fully rolled out programme, changing the strategy from one to two FIT (positive when the mean is >20 µg Hb/g faeces), would increase CRC detection rate by 4.64% with an increase of only 13.34% in positive FIT.

Conclusions: In a population-based CRC screening programme, smart use of number of FITs and positivity threshold can increase population invited and CRC detection without increasing the number of colonoscopies and pathological examinations needed.

Objective: To determine the rate of lymphoproliferative disease (LPD) in women undergoing routine breast cancer screening (BCS). BCS can reveal pathologies other than carcinoma that involve the breast and lymph tissue. The few studies that have described cases in which BCS led to the diagnosis of LPD were based on small series and focused on imaging rather than clinical characteristics.

Setting and methods: A multi-center retrospective study in Israel, investigating LPD rate and characteristics among women diagnosed with LPD via BCS.

Results: Thirty-four patients out of 14,400 consecutive women undergoing BCS at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center during the study period were diagnosed with LPD, suggesting a diagnosis rate of 0.24%. The enlarged cohort (n = 45), including 11 patients that were retrieved from the databases of three other centers, demonstrates a predominant histological diagnosis of non-aggressive LPD (n = 33). Thirty-four (76%) had a suspicious axillary lymph node, and 11 had a breast lesion. The median maximal lesion size was 1.95 cm (range 0.8-6.5). Disease was localized in 60% of patients (stage 1 and 1E). Univariate analysis revealed that lymphocyte count was inversely associated with aggressive histology. At median follow-up of 39 months, all but three patients were alive. These three had been diagnosed with non-aggressive LPD which had never been treated and died from unrelated causes.

Conclusions: The LPD detection rate via BCS was 2.36 per 1000 screens. The majority of LPDs were non-aggressive. Nearly a third were aggressive, most detected at an early stage, and the clinical outcome was generally favorable.

Objective: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused an indefinite delay to cancer screening programs worldwide. This study aims to explore the impact on breast cancer screening outcomes such as mammography and diagnosis rates.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, medRxiv and bioRxiv between January 2020 to October 2021 to identify studies that reported on the rates of screening mammography and breast cancer diagnosis before and during the pandemic. The effects of 'lockdown' measures, age and ethnicity on outcomes were also examined. All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Rate ratios were calculated for all outcomes and pooled using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis.

Results: We identified 994 articles, of which 7 registry-based and 24 non-registry-based retrospective cohort studies, including data on 4,860,786 and 629,823 patients respectively across 18 different countries, were identified. Overall, breast cancer screening and diagnosis rates dropped by an estimated 41-53% and 18-29% respectively between 2019 and 2020. No differences in mammogram screening rates depending on patient age or ethnicity were observed. However, countries that implemented lockdown measures were associated with a significantly greater reduction in mammogram and diagnosis rates between 2019 and 2020 in comparison to those that did not.

Conclusion: The pandemic has caused a substantial reduction in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer, with reductions more pronounced in countries under lockdown restrictions. It is early yet to know if delayed screening during the pandemic translates into higher breast cancer mortality.