Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been retrospectively evaluated as replacement for one radiologist in screening mammography double-reading; however, methods for resolving discordance between radiologists and AI in the absence of 'real-world' arbitration may underestimate cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. In 108,970 consecutive screens from a population screening program (BreastScreen WA, Western Australia), 20,120 were radiologist/AI discordant without real-world arbitration. Recall probabilities were randomly assigned for these screens in 1000 simulations. Recall thresholds for screen-detected and interval cancers (sensitivity) and no cancer (false-positive proportion, FPP) were varied to calculate mean CDR and recall rate for the entire cohort. Assuming 100% sensitivity, the maximum CDR was 7.30 per 1000 screens. To achieve >95% probability that the mean CDR exceeded the screening program CDR (6.97 per 1000), interval cancer sensitivities ≥63% (at 100% screen-detected sensitivity) and ≥91% (at 80% screen-detected sensitivity) were required. Mean recall rate was relatively constant across sensitivity assumptions, but varied by FPP. FPP > 6.5% resulted in recall rates that exceeded the program estimate (3.38%). CDR improvements depend on a majority of interval cancers being detected in radiologist/AI discordant screens. Such improvements are likely to increase recall, requiring careful monitoring where AI is deployed for screen-reading.

Objective: To quantify the resource use of revising breast cancer screening guidelines to include average-risk women aged 40-49 years across Canada from 2024 to 2043 using a validated microsimulation model.

Setting: OncoSim-Breast microsimulation platform was used to simulate the entire Canadian population in 2015-2051.

Methods: We compared resource use between current screening guidelines (biennial screening ages 50-74) and alternate screening scenarios, which included annual and biennial screening for ages 40-49 and ages 45-49, followed by biennial screening ages 50-74. We estimated absolute and relative differences in number of screens, abnormal screening recalls without cancer, total and negative biopsies, screen-detected cancers, stage of diagnosis, and breast cancer deaths averted.

Results: Compared with current guidelines in Canada, the most intensive screening scenario (annual screening ages 40-49) would result in 13.3% increases in the number of screens and abnormal screening recalls without cancer whereas the least intensive scenario (biennial screening ages 45-49) would result in a 3.4% increase in number of screens and 3.8% increase in number of abnormal screening recalls without cancer. More intensive screening would be associated with fewer stage II, III, and IV diagnoses, and more breast cancer deaths averted.

Conclusions: Revising breast cancer screening in Canada to include average-risk women aged 40-49 would detect cancers earlier leading to fewer breast cancer deaths. To realize this potential clinical benefit, a considerable increase in screening resources would be required in terms of number of screens and screen follow-ups. Further economic analyses are required to fully understand cost and budget implications.

Background: Cervical cancer incidence in Estonia ranks among the highest in Europe, but screening attendance has remained low. This randomized study aimed to evaluate the impact of opt-in and opt-out human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling options on participation in organized screening.

Methods: A random sample of 25,591 women were drawn from the cervical cancer screening target population who were due to receive a reminder in autumn 2021 and thereafter randomly allocated to two equally sized intervention arms (opt-out and opt-in) receiving a choice between HPV self-sampling or clinician sampling. In the opt-out arm, a self-sampler was sent to home address by regular mail; the opt-in arm received an e-mail containing a link to order a self-sampler online. The remaining 30,102 women in the control group received a standard reminder for conventional screening. Participation by intervention arm, age and region of residence was calculated; a questionnaire was used to assess self-sampling user experience.

Results: A significant difference in participation was seen between opt-out (41.7%) (19.8% chose self-sampling and 21.9% clinician sampling), opt-in (34.1%) (7.9% self-sampling, 26.2% clinician sampling) and control group (29.0%, clinician sampling only). All age groups and regions in the intervention arms showed higher participation compared to the control group, but the size of the effect varied. Among self-sampling users, 99% agreed that the device was easy to use and only 3.5% preferred future testing at the clinic.

Conclusion: Providing women with a choice between self-sampling and clinician sampling significantly increased participation in cervical cancer screening. Opt-in and opt-out options had a different effect across age groups, suggesting the need to adapt strategies.

Objective: To assess performance endpoints of a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM only in breast cancer screening.

Materials and methods: This was a prospective population-based screening study, including eligible (50-69 years) women attending the Capital Region Mammography Screening Program in Denmark. All attending women were offered FFDM. A subgroup was consecutively allocated to a screening room with DBT. All FFDM and DBT underwent independent double reading, and all women were followed up for 2 years after screening date or until next screening date, whichever came first.

Results: 6353 DBT + FFDM and 395 835 FFDM were included in the analysis and were undertaken in 196 267 women in the period from 1 November 2012 to 12 December 2018. Addition of DBT increased sensitivity: 89.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81.0-95.5) for DBT + FFDM and 70.1% (95% CI: 68.6-71.6) for FFDM only, p < 0.001. Specificity remained similar: 98.2% (95% CI: 97.9-98.5) for DBT + FFDM and 98.3% (95% CI: 98.2-98.3) for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Screen-detected cancer rate increased statistically significantly: 11.18/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 6.49/1000 for FFDM only, p < 0.001. False-positive rate was unchanged: 1.75% for DBT + FFDM and 1.73% for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Positive predictive value for recall was 39.0% (95% CI: 31.9-46.5) for DBT + FFDM and 27.3% (95% CI: 26.4-28.2), for FFDM only, p < 0.0005. The interval cancer rate decreased: 1.26/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 2.76/1000 for FFDM only, p = 0.02.

Conclusion: DBT + FFDM yielded a statistically significant increase in cancer detection and program sensitivity.

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.

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.

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.