Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Objectives: Unconjugated estriol (uE3) is used as a marker for fetal aneuploidy in maternal serum screening tests. The goal of this study was to examine the validity of a new immunoassay for uE3 that uses a monoclonal antibody (m-uE3) rather than the more commonly used polyclonal antibody (p-uE3).

Setting: Assays were performed in the Special Chemistry laboratory at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island.

Methods: Residual fresh (n = 100) and frozen (n = 533) second trimester serum samples from routine clinical care were tested using p-uE3 and/or m-uE3 assays. Assay results were compared between methods using Bland-Altman plots. A median equation was developed for m-uE3 results. Down syndrome risks were compared between the two assays in a case-control sample set (21 cases each matched with five controls for the completed week of gestation, duration of freezer storage and race).

Results: Log-transformed serum uE3 levels were highly correlated between the assays (r = 0.93, p < 0.001), with the m-uE3 assay levels yielding, on average, 23% higher (standard deviation of differences in log uE3 concentrations = 0.07) results. Assay and gestation-based median equations were calculated and used to convert m-uE3 concentrations to multiples of the median (MoM). The m-uE3 MoM values fit a log Gaussian distribution well with a log standard deviation of 0.11. Down syndrome risk results were not significantly different between assays.

Conclusions: The m-uE3 assay, with results expressed in MoMs, is suitable for screening and as a monoclonal-based assay offers the advantage of a predictable and indefinite supply of antibody to perform the assay.

Objective: To evaluate the association between human papillomavirus vaccination status and participation in cervical cancer screening (at age 25) by the first cohorts of girls who were offered vaccination at the age of 15 to 16 years in Italy.

Methods: Women born in 1993, 1994 and 1995 were invited to participate in cervical cancer screening between 2018 and 2020. We report participation in screening by vaccination status in three large areas, Florence province, Piedmont region and Savona province, where the Consensus Project was carried out. The relative risk of participation among vaccinated (≥2 doses) and unvaccinated women was estimated. Odds ratios (OR) of participation by vaccination status were estimated by logistic regression, adjusted by birthplace and birth cohort.

Results: Overall, 34,993 women were invited for screening: 13,006 (37.2%) participated and 10,062 of these agreed to participate in the Consensus intervention study. Among the invited women and screening participants, vaccinated women were 51.0% and 60.6%, respectively. Comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the adjusted OR of screening participation was 1.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.72-1.89), 2.17 (95% CI: 1.94-2.42), 1.59 (95% CI: 1.50-1.68) and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.86-1.54) for overall, Florence, Piedmont and Savona, respectively. About 33% of the invited women were unvaccinated and did not participate in screening: 25.8%, 59.5% and 64.2% of women born in Italy, in high migration pressure countries and in advanced development countries, respectively.

Conclusions: Screening participation was higher among vaccinated than unvaccinated women. Active policies are needed to reduce inequalities, targeting the unscreened and unvaccinated population, particularly non-native women, to accelerate cervical cancer elimination in Italy.

As cancer is overtaking cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death among diabetics, improved cancer prevention efforts are needed for individuals with diabetes. In this research letter, we used data from the US National Health Interview Survey to examine the use of screening for two major diabetes-related cancers, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, in individuals with and without diabetes. We found that individuals with diabetes had slightly higher use of colorectal cancer screening and similar use of breast cancer screening compared to those without diabetes in the US. Besides, despite the increasing use of colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening over the past 10 years, screening uptake remains suboptimal. We believe that these findings provide important data to inform policymaking and cancer prevention efforts.

Objective: The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use.

Methods: Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression.

Results: During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation).

Conclusions: This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.

Objective: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe.

Methods: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire.

Results: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively.

Conclusions: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the delivery of cancer screening. The resulting decrease in outpatient visits and cancellations of non-urgent procedures have negatively affected colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to determine the effect of the pandemic on CRC screening at a safety-net hospital and a private health system based in New York City.

Methods: We identified individuals eligible for CRC screening aged 50 to 75 years presenting for outpatient care at a safety-net public hospital and private health system in April through September of 2019 and 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of screening-eligible patients seen in primary care who underwent CRC screening.

Results: The safety-net hospital had 516 (6.1% of screening-eligible individuals) and 269 (4.3%) screening tests completed in 2019 and 2020, respectively (p < 0.01). Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) accounted for 69.6% of screening in 2019 and 88.1% in 2020. Colonoscopy accounted for 20.3% of screening in 2019 and 11.9% in 2020. The private health system had 39 (0.7%) and 21 (0.6%) screening tests completed in 2019 and 2020, respectively (p = 0.48). FIT accounted for 61.9% of screening in 2019 and 57.1% in 2020. Colonoscopy accounted for 38.1% of screening in 2019 and 42.9% in 2020.

Conclusion: Absolute numbers of screening tests decreased for both institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed a decrease in screening uptake and increase in proportional FIT use in the safety-net hospital but no change in the private health system.

Objectives: When evaluating potential new cancer screening modalities, estimating sensitivity, especially for early-stage cases, is critical. There are methods to approximate stage-specific sensitivity in asymptomatic populations, both in the prospective (active screening) and retrospective (stored specimens) scenarios. We explored their validity via a simulation study.

Methods: We fit natural history models to lung and ovarian cancer screening data that permitted estimation of stage-specific (early/late) true sensitivity, defined as the probability subjects screened in the given stage had positive tests. We then ran simulations, using the fitted models, of the prospective and retrospective scenarios. Prospective sensitivity by stage was estimated as screen-detected divided by screen-plus interval-detected cancers, where stage is defined as stage at detection. Retrospective sensitivity by stage was estimated based on cancers detected within specified windows before clinical diagnosis with stage defined as stage at clinical diagnosis.

Results: Stage-specific true sensitivities estimated by the lung cancer natural history model were 47% (early) and 63% (late). Simulation results for the prospective setting gave estimated sensitivities of 81% (early) versus 62% (late). In the retrospective scenario, early/late sensitivity estimates were 35%/57% (1-year window) and 27%/49% (2-year window). In the prospective scenario, most subjects with negative early-stage screens presented as other than early-stage interval cases. Results were similar for ovarian cancer, with estimated prospective sensitivity much greater than true sensitivity for early stage, 84% versus 25%.

Conclusions: Existing methods for approximating stage-specific sensitivity in both prospective and retrospective scenarios are unsatisfactory; improvements are needed before they can be considered to be reliable.

Couple screening aims to identify couples with an increased risk of having a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder, in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. Both expectant parents should be screened as a single entity, instead of individual testing. Carrier testing was typically performed for a few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life expectancy and often because of a considerably higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. However, new genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes and sequence variants. There are multiple reproductive options for screening couples at risk, particularly when genetic traits are detected in the preconception period.