Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

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.

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.

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.