Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

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.

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.

Objectives: The aim of this research was to identify patient barriers and facilitators of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening in London.

Methods: A survey was distributed to 4211 adults, who had been invited for AAA screening in 2023. Barriers and facilitators were identified by comparing responses between attenders and non-attenders, using univariate logistic regression.

Results: 271 surveys were returned. Attendance was higher among respondents with a body mass index (BMI) > 25 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.72, 95% CIs [1.15, 6.46]; p < 0.05) and those with one or more comorbidities (OR: 3.82, 95% CIs [1.63, 8.98]; p < 0.01), but lower among those who had not visited a healthcare appointment within the past 6 months (OR: 0.41, 95% CIs [0.18, 0.94]). Attendance was also lower among those who believe screening is only useful for people with symptoms (OR: 0.37; 95% CIs [0.16, 0.89]; p < 0.05), find it difficult to make time for medical appointments (OR: 0.25, 95% CIs [0.10, 0.60]; p < 0.01), find it difficult to get to medical appointments (OR: 0.40, 95% CIs [0.17, 0.91]; p < 0.05), have more important medical problems to worry about (OR: 0.28, 95% CIs [0.12, 0.64]; p < 0.01), cannot afford to travel to medical appointments (OR: 0.16, 95% CIs [0.07, 0.38]; p < 0.001), need help getting to appointments (OR: 0.33, 95% CIs [0.13, 0.86]; p < 0.05), have caring responsibilities (OR: 0.15, 95% CIs [0.06, 0.34]; p < 0.001), and forget about appointments (OR: 0.21, 95% CIs [0.09, 0.49]; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: This study provides suggestive data on characteristics that might be associated with not attending AAA screening in London. The study design limitations mean that further work is required to evaluate these characteristics more reliably.

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.

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.

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.

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.