Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Objective: To compare the NHS Health Check Programme with the Polypill Prevention Programme in the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes.

Design: Use of published data and methodology to produce flow charts of the two programmes to determine screening performance and heart attacks and strokes prevented.

Setting: The UK population.

Intervention: The NHS Health Check Programme using a QRISK score on people aged 40-74 to select those eligible for a statin is compared with the Polypill Prevention Programme in people aged 50 or more to select people for a combination of a statin and three low-dose blood pressure lowering agents. In both programmes, people had no history of heart attack or stroke.

Main outcome measures: In 1000 people, the number of heart attacks and strokes prevented in the two programmes.

Results: In the hypothetical perfect situation with 100% uptake and adherence to the screening protocol, in every 1000 persons, the NHS Health Check would prevent 287 cases of a heart attack or stroke in individuals who would gain on average about 4 years of life without a heart attack or stroke amounting to 1148 years in total, the precise gain depending on the extent of treatment for those with raised blood pressure, and 136 would be prescribed statins with no benefit. The corresponding figures for the Polypill Prevention Programme are 316 individuals who would, on average, gain 8 years of life without a heart attack or stroke, amounting to 2528 years in total, and 260 prescribed the polypill with no benefit. Based on published estimates of uptake and adherence in the NHS Health Check Programme, in practice only 24 cases per 1000 are currently benefitting instead of 287, amounting to 96 years gained without a heart attack or stroke.

Conclusions: The Polypill Prevention Programme is by design simpler with the potential of preventing many more heart attacks and strokes than the NHS Health Check Programme.

Objectives: Human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing for cervical screening is being implemented around the world. We explored HPV awareness, and knowledge about primary screening in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), where it has been in place for several years, ahead of extended screening intervals being implemented in England.

Setting/methods: Women aged 18-70 (n = 1995) were recruited by YouGov from their online panel in August 2022. The weighted sample (n = 1930) was population-representative by age, region, education and social grade. We measured HPV awareness, knowledge (excluding those unaware of HPV) using eight true/false items, and understanding of the role of HPV testing in cervical screening.

Results: Overall, 77.6% (1499/1930) of women were aware of HPV. When asked to identify the statement describing how cervical screening works, only 12.2% (236/1930) correctly selected the statement reflecting HPV primary screening (13.5% (194/1436) in screening-eligible women). Excluding those unaware of HPV, most participants had heard about the virus in the context of cervical screening (981/1596; 61.5%) or HPV vaccination (1079/1596; 67.6%). Mean knowledge score was 3.7 out of 8 (SD = 2.2) in this group. Most knew that an HPV-positive result does not mean a woman will definitely develop cervical cancer (1091/1499; 72.8%) but far fewer were aware of the long timeline for HPV to develop into cervical cancer (280/1499; 18.7%).

Conclusions: Only three-quarters of women in Britain are aware of HPV, and knowledge of primary screening is very low, even among screening-age women. This points to continued need for awareness-raising campaigns to ensure informed choice about screening and mitigate public concern when screening intervals are extended.

Objective: To estimate the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use from recommending that patients with 1-2 low-risk adenomas (LRAs) return to routine fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening instead of surveillance colonoscopy, from a Canadian provincial healthcare system perspective.

Methods: The OncoSim-Colorectal microsimulation model simulated average-risk individuals eligible for FIT-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Alberta, Canada. We simulated two surveillance strategies that applied to individuals with 1-2 LRAs (<10 mm) removed as part of the average risk CRC screening program: (a) Surveillance colonoscopy (status quo) and (b) return to FIT screening (new strategy); both at 5 years after polypectomy. A 75 ng/mL FIT positivity threshold was used in the base case. The simulations projected average annual CRC outcomes and healthcare resource use from 2023 to 2042. We conducted alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses on key variables.

Results: Returning to FIT screening (versus surveillance colonoscopy) after polypectomy was projected to have minimal impact on long-term CRC incidence and deaths (not statistically significant). There was a projected decrease of one (4%) major bleeding event and seven (5%) perforation events per year. There was a projected increase of 4800 (1.5%) FIT screens, decrease of 3900 (5.1%) colonoscopies, and a decrease of $3.4 million (1.2%) in total healthcare costs per year, on average. The annual colonoscopies averted and healthcare cost savings increased over time. Results were similar in the alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Returning to FIT screening would have similar clinical outcomes as surveillance colonoscopy but could reduce colonoscopy demand and healthcare costs.

Objective: Irregular attendance in breast cancer screening has been associated with higher breast cancer mortality compared to regular attendance. Early performance measures of a screening program following regular versus irregular screening attendance have been less studied. We aimed to investigate early performance measures following regular versus irregular screening attendance.

Methods: We used information from 3,302,396 screening examinations from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Examinations were classified as regular or irregular. Regular was defined as an examination 2 years ± 6 months after the prior examination, and irregular examination >2 years and 6 months after prior examination. Performance measures included recall, biopsy, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive values, and histopathological tumor characteristics.

Results: Recall rate was 2.4% (72,429/3,070,068) for regular and 3.5% (8217/232,328) for irregular examinations. The biopsy rate was 1.0% (29,197/3,070,068) for regular and 1.7% (3825/232,328) for irregular examinations, while the rate of screen-detected cancers 0.51% (15,664/3,070,068) versus 0.86% (2003/232,328), respectively. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.49-1.56) for recall, 1.73 (95% CI: 1.68-1.80) for biopsy, and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.60-1.76) for screen-detected cancer after irregular examinations compared to regular examinations. The proportion of lymph node-positive tumors was 20.1% (2553/12,719) for regular and 25.6% (426/1662) for irregular examinations.

Conclusion: Irregular attendance was linked to higher rates of recall, needle biopsies, and cancer detection. Cancers detected after irregular examinations had less favorable histopathological tumor characteristics compared to cancers detected after regular examinations. Women should be encouraged to attend screening when invited to avoid delays in diagnosis.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a temporary change in policy was implemented in 2020. Breast screening services in England were advised to change from timed appointments to an open invitation for invitees to contact the service and arrange an appointment. This change to invitation methodology had potential benefits and risks including impacting inequalities in uptake. Qualitative data were collected by online questionnaire from 23 service providers and routinely collected quantitative uptake data were analysed to investigate the impact of open invitations on the National Programme in the South of England. Office for National Statistics and general practitioner (GP) practice profile data enabled the modelling of sociodemographic characteristics of breast screening invitees at each GP practice. Most services changed to open invitations (17/23), 82% of which altered administrative capacity and/or procedures to accommodate this change. Logistic benefits were reported including a more consistent flow of participants, fewer long gaps and fewer wasted slots. The change to open invitations was associated with a 7.2% reduction in the percentage of participants screened, accounting for participant sociodemographics and historical screening provider uptake. The inequality in screening uptake experienced by participants of minority ethnic background was exacerbated by the change to open invitations. Open invitations, whilst affording logistic benefits in an unprecedented pandemic era, were associated with reduced overall uptake and exacerbation of existing health inequality experienced by women of minority ethnic background. The broader impact on services highlighted the need for sustainability of measures taken to accommodate such operational changes.

This commentary, linked to our paper in the same issue of the Journal of Medical Screening, discusses the reluctance to consider and adopt the polypill in the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, access to the polypill as a public health service, the formulation of the polypill in current use, its prescription as an unlicensed medicine, and what can be done to facilitate the adoption of the polypill approach as a routine public health service.

Objectives: Israel is regarded as a country with a developed economy and a moderate income inequality index. In this population-based study, we aimed to measure the inequalities in colorectal cancer screening within Clalit Health, an organization with universal insurance, before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Setting: Retrospective analysis within Clalit Health Services, Israel.

Methods: We evaluated the rate of being up to date with screening (having a colonoscopy within 10 years or a fecal occult blood test within 1 year) and the colonoscopy completion rate (having a colonoscopy within 6 months of a positive fecal occult blood test) among subjects aged 50-75 in 2019-2021.

Results: In 2019, out of 918,135 subjects, 61.3% were up to date with screening; high socioeconomic status: 65.9% (referent), medium-socioeconomic status: 60.1% (odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.82), low-socioeconomic status: 59.0% (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.75); Jews: 61.9% (referent), Arabs: 59.7% (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.92), Ultraorthodox-Jews: 51.7% (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.78). Out of 21,308 with a positive fecal occult blood test, the colonoscopy completion rate was 51.8%; high-socioeconomic status: 59.8% (referent), medium-socioeconomic status: 54.1% (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.86), low-socioeconomic status: 45.5% (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.65); Jews: 54.7% (referent), Ultraorthodox-Jews: 51.4% (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.92), Arabs: 44.7% (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.78). In 2020-2021, there was a slight drop in the rate of being up to date with screening, while most of the discrepancies were kept or slightly increased with time.

Conclusions: We report significant inequalities in colorectal cancer screening before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Israel, despite a declared policy of equality and universal insurance.

Background: The lung cancer screening program at St Elizabeth Healthcare (Kentucky, USA) began in 2013. Over 33,000 low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screens have been performed. From 2015 through 2021, 2595 lung cancers were diagnosed systemwide. A Screening Program with Impactful Results from Early Detection, reviews that experience; 342 (13.2%) were diagnosed by screening and 2253 (86.8%) were non-screened. As a secondary objective, the non-screened cohort was queried to determine how many additional individuals could have been screened, identifying barriers and failures to meet eligibility.

Methods: Our QlikSense database extracted the lung cancer patients from the Cancer Patient Data and Management System, and identified and categorized them separately as screened or non-screened populations. Stage distribution was compared in screened and non-screened groups. Those meeting age criteria, with any smoking history, were further queried for screening eligibility, accessing the electronic medical record smoking history and audit trail, and determining if enough information was available to substantiate screening eligibility. The same methodology was applied to CMS 2015 and USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Results: The screened and non-screened patients were accounted for in a stage migration chart demonstrating clear shift to early stage among screened lung cancer patients. Additionally, analysis of non-screened individuals is presented.

Conclusion: Of the St Elizabeth Healthcare eligible patients attributed to primary care providers, 49.6% were screened in 2021. Despite this level of success, this study highlighted a sizeable pool of additional individuals that could have been screened. We are shifting focus to the non-screened pool of patients that meet eligibility, further enhancing the impact on our community.

Setting: Bowel and breast cancer testing outside of the national programs is not routinely recorded in Australia, limiting our ability to monitor and estimate true screening coverage. Objective: This study makes preliminary estimates of the proportion of eligible participants who test for bowel and breast cancer outside of national programs using a large convenience sample of 31,065 cancer risk calculator respondents. Methods: Logistic regression was applied to assess difference in cancer testing both within and outside respective programs between demographic groups. Results: Almost one-third (9456 respondents) were aged between 50 and 74 years and eligible to participate in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) with 8073 female respondents additionally qualifying for the national BreastScreen program. Out of 4166 respondents who reported not to participate in the NBCSP, over 2000 (48.4%) reported 'screening' outside the NBCSP. For breast cancer the rate of self-reported screening outside BreastScreen was even higher, with 2442 (73.8%) of 3308 respondents who did not participate in BreastScreen reporting undergoing testing elsewhere. Interestingly, outer regional or remote residence was associated with lower participation within the NBCSP (OR = 0.92; p = 0.05) and higher testing outside of BreastScreen (OR = 1.21; p < 0.05) screening programs. Conclusion: Findings provide preliminary support for the need to better understand the volume of cancer testing taking place outside the national programs and to address reporting gaps within the health system.