Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

Controversy surrounding recommendations for supplemental screening (ultrasound and magnetic resonance screening) in women with dense breasts exists, as the long-term benefits from these additional modalities may not outweigh the harms. This study aimed to examine factors associated with supplemental screening intentions following a hypothetical breast density notification in a population of women who have not been routinely notified. Australian women of breast screening age participated in an online randomised experimental study where they were presented with one of two breast density notifications (with or without health literacy-sensitive information) and asked their screening intentions. After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analyses, women in both groups (n = 940) who indicated higher levels of breast cancer worry, had private health insurance, had a family history of breast cancer, and had a greater number of times previously attending mammography screening had higher intentions for supplemental screening. Understanding women's supplemental screening intentions following notification of dense breasts has important implications for health systems with breast screening considering the impacts of widespread notification. Personal, clinical and psychological factors should be considered when discussing both the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with women with dense breasts.

Objective and setting: Accurate monitoring of interval cancers is important both for quality improvement and education and is a key parameter of breast screening quality assurance. Issues in relation to communication regarding interval cervical cancer in the Irish cervical screening programme were found, prompting interval cancer process review in all cancer screening programmes. An international survey to examine international consensus on interval breast cancer audit processes was conducted to inform Irish processes.

Methods: A survey of 24 international population-based breast screening programmes was done to determine which undertook audit of interval breast cancer; if yes, they were asked (1) how they undertake audit, (2) if they obtain individual consent for audit and inform women of audit results, and (3) if disclosure of audit results occurs.

Results: Response was 71% (17/24). Of these, 71% (12/17) have a programmatic audit process to calculate the interval cancer rate (ICR). Of these, ten also carry out radiological reviews, three using a blinded review. Two inform patients that audit is taking place; two provide choice to be in the audit; nine state that routine screening consent covers audit. For two of the five that have an open disclosure policy for medical incidents, this policy applies to screening interval cancers. One other country/region has an open disclosure policy for category 3 interval cancers only. Five have legal protection for interval cancers arising in the screened population.

Conclusion: While consistency in providing aggregate programmatic audits exists, there is no consistent approach to individual interval cancer reviews or results disclosure.

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of breast cancer screening and early diagnosis during the pandemic, compared to the pre-pandemic period.Setting: The public referral centre for screening in Campinas, São Paulo State, Brazil.

Methods: This is an audit study of performance screening and diagnostic indicators. Two periods were analysed: 2019, the pre-COVID period, and 2020, the COVID period. All women who underwent mammography in these periods were included. Indicators were compared between periods, and the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium benchmarks were used as a reference.

Results: A comparison between the periods shows a reduction of 57.4% in screening and 4.4% in diagnosis using mammography. Cancer detection rate per 1000 screening mammograms dropped from 4.62 to 2.83 (p  =  0.031), while it increased from 84.43 to 89.36 in diagnosis mammograms (p  =  0.701), higher than the reference (34.4, p < 0.001). With regard to diagnosis, the proportion of minimal cancers was reduced (p  =  0.005) and was lower than the reference (40.0%, p < 0.001), along with the proportion of node-negative invasive cancers (p < 0.001). The mean size of invasive tumours was similar in the two periods (32.50 mm and 33.40 mm, p  =  0.808) but larger than the reference value (16.50 mm, p < 0.001). Recall rate was lower in the COVID period (22.55% vs. 27.37%, p  =  0.015).

Conclusion: The COVID pandemic caused an overall decrease in breast screening and detection of breast cancer cases, although the reduction in number of diagnosis mammograms performed was minimal. Tumour mean size was large in both periods, the pandemic highlighting a previous profile of detection at an advanced stage.

Objective: Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

Results: We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

Conclusions: Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Objective: To describe the development and implementation of a population-based screening programme for sickle cell disease (SCD) implemented in 12 SCD-endemic and tribal-dominated primary/community health centres (PHCs/CHCs) across six districts of India.

Setting: India reports a huge burden of SCD, especially among indigenous (tribal) communities. However, there is no state-led SCD programme in many places, and systematic screening is absent. This situation necessitates developing a model of population screening.

Methods: This programme was meant to screen all people and was carried out in three tiers. The first tier was a symptomatic survey carried out by community health workers. Regular health workers then screened those referred by sickle cell solubility test at sub-health centres as the second tier. The third tier was confirmation by haemoglobin electrophoresis at PHCs/CHCs. Communities were mobilised and prepared to accept the screening. Capacity building of health facilities was ensured through training and supply of equipment and material.

Results: Initial observation based on six months' data revealed that out of the 110,754 tribal population of 12 PHCs/CHCs, 8418 (7.6%) were identified in the symptomatic survey. Subsequently, 9416 people, including the above 8418, underwent the solubility test, and 2607 (27.7%) were found to be positive. Of these, 1978 (78.9%) underwent electrophoresis. About 64.2% were found to be positive for sickle haemoglobin (233 (18.4%) SCD and 1036 (81.6%) SCD trait).

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the feasibility of establishing a population-based screening programme in the primary health care system. It is easy to implement in tribal habitations as part of the proposed national SCD/haemoglobinopathies programme.

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

Method: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3^rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

Conclusion: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.