Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Objectives: Individuals from deprived areas are less likely to attend breast screening. Inequalities in the coverage of breast screening are associated with poorer cancer outcomes. Individuals who have a positive first experience are more likely to attend subsequent mammograms. This work evaluates the provision of an additional telephone call to individuals who have never attended breast screening, to establish whether this increases attendance.

Setting and methods: 1423 patients from four general practitioner practices within socially deprived areas of National Health Service Tayside (UK) comprised the study population. In addition to their standard appointment letter, individuals were to receive a call at least 24 h prior to their appointment. The call identified barriers to screening, and offered a supportive, problem-solving approach to overcoming these barriers. Data collected included: age, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, first-time invite or previous non-attender, if contactable, duration of call, number of days prior to appointment, and confirmation appointment letter was received. The primary outcome was attendance at the screening.

Results: Contact by phone was made with 678 (47.6%) of the study population. Of those, 483 (71.2%) attended their appointment, 122 (18%) cancelled and 73 (10.8%) did not attend (DNA), versus 344 (46.2%) attending, 34 (4.6%) cancelling and 367 (49.3%) not attending among those who were not able to be contacted. Those who received a call were more likely to attend their appointment and less likely to DNA compared to individuals not receiving the call.

Conclusion: The intervention is simple and low cost; results indicate that the additional call may increase attendance and reduce DNA appointments at breast screening.

Introduction: Screening trials and meta-analyses emphasize the ratio of cancer death rates in screening and control arms. However, this measure is diluted by the inclusion of deaths from cancers that only became detectable after the end of active screening.

Methods: We review traditional analysis of cancer screening trials and show that ratio estimates are inevitably biased to the null, because follow-up (FU) must continue beyond the end of the screening period and thus includes cases only becoming detectable after screening ends. But because such cases are expected to occur in equal numbers in the two arms, calculation of the difference between the number of cancer deaths in the screening and control arms avoids this dilutional bias. This difference can be set against the number of invitations to screening; we illustrate by reanalyzing data from all trials of tomography screening of lung cancer (LC) using this measure.

Results: In nine trials of LC screening from 2000 to 2013, a total of 94,441 high-risk patients were invited to be in screening or control groups, with high participation rates (average 95%). In the older trials comparing computed tomography to chest X-ray, 88,285 invitations averted 83 deaths (1068 per death averted (DA)). In the six more recent trials with no screening in the control group, 69,976 invitations averted 121 deaths (577 invitations per DA).

Discussion: Screens per DA is an undiluted measure of screening's effect and it is unperturbed by the arbitrary duration of FU. This estimate can be useful for program planning and informed consent.

Objective: Deep learning (DL) has shown promising results for improving mammographic breast cancer diagnosis. However, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the breast cancer screening process has not yet been fully elucidated in terms of potential workload reduction. We aim to assess if AI-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms could reduce the radiologist's workload with non-inferior sensitivity.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies that evaluated AI algorithms on computer-aided triage of breast cancer screening mammograms. We extracted data from homogenous studies and performed a proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model to examine the radiologist's workload reduction (proportion of low-risk mammograms that could be theoretically ruled out from human's assessment) and the software's sensitivity to breast cancer detection.

Results: Thirteen studies were selected for full review, and three studies that used the same commercially available DL algorithm were included in the meta-analysis. In the 156,852 examinations included, the threshold of 7 was identified as optimal. With these parameters, radiologist workload decreased by 68.3% (95%CI 0.655-0.711, I² = 98.76%, p < 0.001), while achieving a sensitivity of 93.1% (95%CI 0.882-0.979, I² = 83.86%, p = 0.002) and a specificity of 68.7% (95% CI 0.684-0.723, I² = 97.5%, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The deployment of DL computer-aided triage of breast cancer screening mammograms reduces the radiology workload while maintaining high sensitivity. Although the implementation of AI remains complex and heterogeneous, it is a promising tool to optimize healthcare resources.

Though widespread adoption of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the US has been associated with a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, screening also carries with it potential risks. Newer national guidelines recommend decreased screening frequency to optimize the benefit/risk balance and to prevent over-screening. Here, we examined the alignment of US cancer center websites' public recommendations on CCS with national guidelines. We reviewed the websites of 1024 cancer centers accredited by the US Commission on Cancer during January-August 2022. We recorded the recommended frequency and type of CCS and any screening risks mentioned, comparing against national US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Of 1024 US cancer centers, 60% (610) provided CCS recommendations. Most centers are in alignment with the screening starting age (96%, 544/565) and stopping age (94%, 440/470) recommended by national guidelines. Of 508 centers specifying the frequency of standalone cervical cytology, 83% (419) recommended a screening interval of three years; however, 14% (73) recommended cervical cytology more frequently than the three-year interval recommended by the ACS/USPSTF. Screening risks were mentioned by 20% (124/610) of centers. Our findings highlight the importance of education on screening benefits and risks for physicians and patients to enable shared decision making based on evidence-based guidelines.

Objectives: Designing cancer screening trials for multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests presents a significant methodology challenge, as natural histories of cell-free DNA-shedding cancers are not yet known. A microsimulation model was developed to project the performance and utility of an MCED test in cancer screening trials.

Methods: Individual natural history of preclinical progression through cancer stages for 23 cancer classes was simulated by a stage-transition model under a broad range of cancer latency parameters. Cancer incidences and stage distributions at clinical presentation in simulated trials were set to match the data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. One or multiple rounds of annual screening using a targeted methylation-based MCED test (Galleri^Ⓡ) was conducted to detect preclinical cancers. Mortality benefit of early detection was simulated by a stage-shift model.

Results: In simulated trials, accounting for healthy volunteer effect and varying test sensitivity, positive predictive value in the prevalence screening round reached 48% to 61% in 6 natural history scenarios. After 3 rounds of annual screening, the cumulative proportions of stage I/II cancers increased by approximately 9% to 14%, the incidence of stage IV cancers was reduced by 37% to 46%, the reduction of stages III and IV cancer incidences was 9% to 24%, and the reduction of mortality reached 13% to 16%. Greater reductions of late-stage cancers and cancer mortality were achieved by five rounds of MCED screening.

Conclusions: Simulation results guide trial design and suggest that adding this MCED test to routine screening in the United States may shift cancer detection to earlier stages, and potentially save lives.

Objectives: This study compares the follow-up rates of non-normal cervical screening samples between Denmark and Flanders (Belgium) to illuminate whether organizational differences between the health systems might affect the follow-up rates, e.g. sending of reminders in Denmark since 2012 compared to Flanders with no such system in place.

Methods: The study population included 48,082 Danish women and 22,271 Flemish women who received abnormal or inadequate primary screening results from 2014 to 2016. The participants were followed for 24 months, and the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommended follow-up, according to national guidelines, were evaluated.

Results: After 18 months over 90% of the Danish women had received some form of follow-up, while in Flanders, this level is achieved only for those who test positive for human papillomavirus. The analysis also revealed that 10-28% of follow-ups were performed too early, with Danish women showing the highest proportions. In both regions, general practitioners (GPs) exhibited better follow-up rates compared to gynaecologists, with gynaecologists displaying a tendency towards earlier re-testing than recommended.

Conclusions: An important factor influencing the follow-up rate may be the sending of reminders in Denmark since 2012, as the follow-up rates in general were higher in this period. It is noteworthy that a reminder system is currently being implemented in Flanders and further studies on the potential effects should be studied. Additionally, the organization of the health system might influence the follow-up rate, as engaging the GP for screening in Denmark may have had a positive effect.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care.

Methods: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants.

Results: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT.

Conclusions: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed.

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.

Objective: The first level of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process was systematically analysed using the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) approach by a multidisciplinary team aiming to improve the programme quality.

Setting: The study was conducted at the Local Health Authority of Bologna, Northern Italy.

Methods: Seven brainstorming sessions were conducted and all the activities performed were recorded on a FMEA worksheet consisting of individual records reporting the specific phases of the analysed process along with associated activities, possible failure modes, their causes and effects, the obtained risk priority numbers (RPNs) and the control measures to plan.

Results: Twenty-three failure modes, 14 effects and 12 possible causes were identified. Nine failure modes were prioritised according to the RPN obtained; most resulted in possible false-negative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results (66.7%), followed by sample loss (22.2%) and not reaching the entire target population (11.1%). This leads to 66.7% of corrective/preventive actions being applied to the phase of returning the stool sample by the citizen. For this phase reorganisation, the local pharmacies were involved not only as FIT kit delivery points but also as specimen collection and sending points to the laboratory. These organisational changes allowed the introduction of complete traceability of kits and specimens flow, as well as temperature control. A re-evaluation of the prioritised failure modes 6 months after launching the implemented screening process showed that HFMEA application decreased the risk of potential errors by 75.9%.

Conclusion: HFMEA application in CRC screening programme is a useful tool to reduce potential errors.

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.