Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

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.

Background: Although lung cancer screening (LCS) has been proven effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, it is associated with some potential harms, such as false positives and invasive follow-up procedures. Determining the time to next screen based on individual risk could reduce harms while maintaining health gains. Here, we evaluate the benefits and harms of LCS strategies with adaptive schedules, and compare these with those from non-adaptive strategies.

Methods: We extended the Lee and Zelen risk threshold method to select screening schedules based on individual's lung cancer risk and life expectancy (adaptive schedules). We compared the health benefits and harms of these adaptive schedules with regular (non-adaptive) schedules (annual, biennial and triennial) using a validated lung cancer microsimulation model. Outcomes include lung cancer deaths (LCD) averted, life years gained (LYG), discounted quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and false positives per LCD averted. We also explored the impact of varying screening-related disutilities.

Results: In comparison to standard regular screening recommendations, risk-dependent adaptive screening reduced screening harms while maintaining a similar level of health benefits. The net gains and the balance of benefits and harms from LCS with efficient adaptive schedules were improved compared to those from regular screening, especially when the screening-related disutilities are high.

Conclusions: Adaptive screening schedules can reduce the associated harms of screening while maintaining its associated lung cancer mortality reductions and years of life gained. Our study identifies individually tailored schedules that optimize the screening benefit/harm trade-offs.

Objective: To summarise and compare the key recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, and so highlight where more evidence is required to facilitate consistent recommendations.

Methods: The Medline database and websites of 18 national screening organisations and professional associations were searched between January 2010 and November 2020 to identify screening guidelines published in English, considering recent clinical trials.

Results: Population-based PSA testing of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Guidelines emphasize shared patient-clinician decision making. For 'average-risk' men choosing to be screened, the recommended age varies from 50-55 to 70 years, alongside consideration of life expectancy (ranging from 7-15 years). Screening intervals, when specified, are biennial (most common), annual, or determined from baseline PSA. The earliest age for screening high-risk men (frequently defined as of African descent or with a family history of prostate cancer) is 40 years, but recommendations often defer to clinical judgement.

Conclusions: Population screening of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Instead, balancing the potential harms and benefits of PSA testing is endorsed. Variation between guidelines stems from differing interpretations of key trials and could lead to clinician-dependent screening views. The development of clinical decision aids and international consensus on guidelines may help reduce national and international variation on how men are counselled.

Objective: How faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) vary from one round to the next in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, and relate to colonoscopy findings, are unknown. Our aim was to use data from the first two rounds of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) to explore these issues.

Methods: Faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) percentiles in the second round were compared with those in the first when the first round yielded a negative FIT result (<80 µg Hb/g faeces), a positive FIT but no colonoscopy, CRC, all adenoma, and a negative colonoscopy. In addition, the outcomes in the first and second rounds were compared.

Results: The profiles of f-Hb in the first and second rounds differed in (a) those who had had a negative FIT result in the first round and (b) those in whom neoplastic pathology had been found. In contrast, the pattern of difference between profiles in those who had had a negative colonoscopy was very similar to that in those in whom an adenoma had been found. In addition, the risk of CRC being diagnosed in the second round after a negative colonoscopy in the first was 3.0%, not very different to that after a negative test result (4.9%).

Conclusions: Adenomas may be rarely the cause of a positive FIT result. An alternative explanation as to why these are detected using FIT is required. In addition, a negative colonoscopy for a positive FIT result does not rule out the finding of significant neoplastic pathology in the next round.

Objectives: This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening.

Setting and methods: An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed.

Results: Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups.

Conclusions: If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.