Precision in Setting Cancer Prevention Priorities: Synthesis of Data, Literature, and Expert Opinion

Evaluation of cancer awareness, cancer education, and prevention intervention techniques among university-level students in the United States and India

BACKGROUND

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. A considerable number of different cancer types may be preventable, using primary intervention techniques, such as health education, cancer awareness, behaviors and lifestyle modifications. The present study conducted a comparative assessment of cancer awareness among undergraduate students of the United States and India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Students from an Institution in India (KC) (55 females, 33 males), and an Institution in the United States of America (SHU) (226 female, 58 male) during 2019-2020 participated in this study. Participants (n = 372) across all majors and all years (first through fourth year) completed an online questionnaire and answered the questions on their demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, and location), academic status (e.g., year of study, major), multiple-choice questions about cancer knowledge, and opinion questions (e.g., "where would you find info," "should therapies be free"). Student responses were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Excel was used to analyze responses. We conducted statistical Χ² tests for independence to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the expected frequencies and the observed frequencies in one or more categories of a contingency table, with a significance of ɑ = 0.01. While small sizes due to the small institutions and the response pool, we note that we achieved the necessary "n" for all tests reported.

RESULTS

Our research shows a few important statistically significant differences, including knowledge of cancer and breast lumps is dependent on location, ranking of global cancer deaths is dependent on location, and that cancer knowledge is dependent on the information source. All for Χ² tests with P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Further encouragement of education for young people in various aspects of cancer and cancer prevention, as well as information facility and sources of reliable data, could be helpful for improving the overall health and primary prevention. A thorough assessment is needed to understand the responsible factors for the observed cancer knowledge variations among students of two different places.

Does minimum follow-up time post-diagnosis matter? An assessment of changing loss of life expectancy for people with cancer in Western Australia from 1982 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Cancer survival has improved in Western Australia (WA) over recent decades. Loss of life expectancy (LOLE) is a useful measure for assessing cancer survival at a population-level. Some previous studies estimating LOLE have required a minimum follow-up beyond diagnosis to reduce the impact of modelled extrapolation, while others have not. The first aim of this study was to assess the impact of minimum length of follow-up on LOLE estimates for people diagnosed in 2006 with female breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, cervical, combined oesophageal and stomach cancers, and melanoma. Based on these results, the second aim was to assess temporal changes in LOLE for these cancer types for diagnoses between 1982 and 2016.

METHODS

Person-level linked cancer registry and mortality data were used for invasive primary cancer diagnoses for WA residents aged 15-89 years. The analysis for aim one included cases diagnosed from 1982 to the end of 2006, followed to the end of 2006 (i.e. no minimum follow-up), 2011 (i.e. five years minimum follow-up, assuming survival) or 2016 (i.e. 10 years minimum follow-up). To achieve the second study aim, the diagnostic period was extended to the end of 2016. Life expectancy estimates were obtained after fitting flexible parametric relative survival models. Single-year age and sex-specific death rates were used as a reference to estimate LOLE and proportionate loss of life expectancy.

RESULTS

Temporal changes were not reported for prostate, cervical, oesophageal and stomach cancers or melanoma, due to differences in LOLE estimates by minimum follow-up time, or estimate imprecision. Marked reductions in LOLE were observed for female breast and colorectal cancer. There was minimal absolute reduction for lung cancer, where LOLE remained high.

CONCLUSION

This study considered the appropriateness of including recent cancer diagnoses when assessing temporal changes in LOLE, finding variation in estimates with differing minimum follow-up or high parameter uncertainty for most included cancer types. Temporal changes in LOLE in-turn reflected changes in the life expectancy of the general population, cancer detection and management. These factors must be considered when estimating and interpreting LOLE estimates.

Cancer prevention and screening: the next step in the era of precision medicine

A primary mode of cancer prevention and early detection in the United States is the widespread practice of screening. Although many strategies for early detection and prevention are available, adverse outcomes, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment, are prevalent among those utilizing these approaches. Broad use of mammography and prostate cancer screening are key examples illustrating the potential harms stemming from the detection of indolent lesions and the subsequent overtreatment. Furthermore, there are several cancers for which prevention strategies do not currently exist. Clinical and experimental evidence have expanded our understanding of cancer initiation and progression, and have instructed the development of improved, precise modes of cancer prevention and early detection. Recent cancer prevention and early detection innovations have begun moving towards the integration of molecular knowledge and risk stratification profiles to allow for a more accurate representation of at-risk individuals. The future of cancer prevention and early detection efforts should emphasize the incorporation of precision cancer prevention integration where screening and cancer prevention regimens can be matched to one's risk of cancer due to known genomic and environmental factors.

Association of Endometrial Cancer Risk With Postmenopausal Bleeding in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

As the worldwide burden of endometrial cancer continues to rise, interest is growing in the evaluation of early detection and prevention strategies among women at increased risk. Focusing efforts on women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB), a common symptom of endometrial cancer, may be a useful strategy; however, PMB is not specific for endometrial cancer and is often caused by benign conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a reference of the prevalence of PMB in endometrial cancers and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language studies published January 1, 1977, through January 31, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational studies reporting the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB in unselected populations were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality and risk of bias using items from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Studies that included highly selected populations, lacked detailed inclusion criteria, and/or included 25 or fewer women were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The pooled prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB.

RESULTS

A total of 129 unique studies, including 34 432 unique patients with PMB and 6358 with endometrial cancer (40 790 women), were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer was 91% (95% CI, 87%-93%), irrespective of tumor stage. The pooled risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB was 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%), with estimates varying by use of hormone therapy (range, 7% [95% CI, 6%-9%] to 12% [95% CI, 9%-15%]; P < .001 for heterogeneity) and geographic region (range, 5% [95% CI, 3%-11%] in North America to 13% [95% CI, 9%-19%] in Western Europe; P = .09 for heterogeneity).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Early detection strategies focused on women with PMB have the potential to capture as many as 90% of endometrial cancers; however, most women with PMB will not be diagnosed with endometrial cancer. These results can aid in the assessment of the potential clinical value of new early detection markers and clinical management strategies for endometrial cancer and will help to inform clinical and epidemiologic risk prediction models to support decision making.