Is It Time to Expand Our Definition of "Clinical Utility"?

Currently, genetic tests that predict cancer risk or risk of recurrence in patients who have had their cancer treated with curative intent must have proven "clinical utility" to be recommended by the organizations responsible for publishing the standard-of-care guidelines for cancer care.Based on the current definition of clinical utility, most patients are denied testing for cancer-predisposing genes or pathogenic germline variants even though germline testing has been proven as highly accurate in identifying pathogenic germline variant carriers, there are measures recommended to prevent and diagnose early cancers associated with particular PGVs, and disparities in patient access to genetic tests are well described.Similarly, despite dozens of studies demonstrating that detected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative intention therapy of different cancer types is a highly accurate biomarker that predicts recurrence, the major organizations that publish guidelines for cancer monitoring after curative intention therapy recommend against using ctDNA assays to detect minimal residual disease and thereby predict recurrence for all solid tumor malignancies.Here, the primary reasons that these genetic tests are considered to lack proven clinical utility and the primary evidence suggesting that a broader definition of clinical utility should be considered are discussed. By expanding the definition of clinical utility, many patients will benefit from the information gained from having these genetic tests.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric.

Objective

To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017.

Exposures

The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Results

Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

New genomic technologies for multi-cancer early detection: Rethinking the scope of cancer screening

Cancers other than breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung do not have guideline-recommended screening. New multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests-using a single blood sample-have been developed based on circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) or other analytes. In this commentary, we review the current evidence on these tests, provide several major considerations for new MCED tests, and outline how their evaluation will need to differ from that established for traditional single-cancer screening tests.

Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates in patients undergoing MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy with two different software-based systems

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is a routinely used diagnostic tool for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. However, a clear superiority of the optimal approach for software-based MRI processing during biopsy procedures is still unanswered. To investigate the impact of robotic approach and software-based image processing (rigid vs. elastic) during MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (FBx) on overall and clinically significant (cs) PCa detection.

METHODS

The study relied on the instructional retrospective biopsy data collected data between September 2013 and August 2017. Overall, 241 men with at least one suspicious lesion (PI-RADS ≥ 3) on multiparametric MRI underwent FBx. The study protocol contains a systematic 12-core sextant biopsy plus 2 cores per targeted lesion. One experienced urologist performed 1048 targeted biopsy cores; 467 (45%) cores were obtained using rigid processing, while the remaining 581 (55%) cores relied on elastic image processing. CsPCa was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2. The effect of rigid versus elastic FBx on overall and csPCa detection rates was determined. Propensity score weighting and multivariable regression models were used to account for potential biases inherent to the retrospective study design.

RESULTS

In multivariable regression analyses, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and PIRADS ≥ 3 lesion were related to higher odds of finding csPCa. Elastic software-based image processing was independently associated with a higher overall PCa (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6 [2.2-6.1], p < 0.001) and csPCa (OR = 4.8 [2.6-8.8], p < 0.001) detection, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to existing literature, our results suggest that the robotic-driven software registration with elastic fusion might have a substantial effect on PCa detection.

Racially Conscious Cancer Screening Guidelines: A Path Towards Culturally Competent Science

OBJECTIVE

To review the racial composition of the study populations that the current USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer are based on, and the effects of their application across non-white individuals.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

USPSTF guidelines commonly become the basis for establishing standards of care, yet providers are often unaware of the racial composition of the study populations they are based on.

METHODS

We accessed the USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer via their website, and reviewed all referenced publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on the racial composition of their study populations. We then used PubMed to identify publications addressing the generalizability of such guidelines across non-white individuals. Lastly, we reviewed all guidelines published by non-USPSTF organizations to identify the availability of race-specific recommendations.

RESULTS

Most RCTs used as basis for the current USPSTF guidelines either did not report race, or enrolled cohorts that were not representative of the U.S. population. Several studies were identified demonstrating the broad application of such guidelines across non-white individuals can lead to underdiagnosis and higher levels of advanced disease. Nearly all guideline-issuing bodies fail to provide race-specific recommendations, despite often acknowledging increased disease burden among non-whites.

CONCLUSION

Concerted efforts to overcome limitations in the generalizability of RCTs are required to provide screening guidelines that are truly applicable to non-white populations. Broader policy changes to improve the pipeline for minority populations into science and medicine are needed to address the ongoing lack of diversity in these fields.

Effects of the 2012 and 2018 US preventive services task force prostate cancer screening guidelines on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

In May 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer (PCa) screening for ages 55-69 be an individual decision. This changed from the USPSTF's May 2012 recommendation against screening for all ages. The effects of the 2012 and 2018 updates on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy are unclear.

METHODS

This study included 647 patients with PCa who underwent prostatectomy at our institution from 2005 to 2018. Patient groups were those diagnosed before the 2012 update (n = 179), between 2012 and 2018 updates (n = 417), and after the 2018 update (n = 51). We analyzed changes in the age of diagnosis, pathologic Gleason grade group (pGS), pathologic stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and favorable/unfavorable pathology. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for pre-biopsy covariables (age, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], African American race, family history) assessed impacts of 2012 and 2018 updates on pGS and pathologic stage. A p  < 0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS

Median age increased from 60 to 63 (p = 0.001) between 2012 and 2018 updates and to 64 after the 2018 update. A significant decrease in pGS1, pGS2, pT2, and favorable pathology (p < 0.001), and a significant increase in pGS3, pGS4, pGS5, pT3a, and unfavorable pathology (p < 0.001) was detected between 2012 and 2018 updates. There was no significant change in pT3b or LVI between 2012 and 2018 updates. On multivariable regression, diagnosis between 2012 and 2018 updates was significantly associated with pGS4 or pGS5 and pT3a (p < 0.001). Diagnosis after the 2018 update was significantly associated with pT3a (p = 0.005). Odds of pGS4 or pGS5 were 3.2× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates, and 2.3× higher (p = 0.051) if after the 2018 update. Odds of pT3a were 2.4× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates and 2.9× higher (p = 0.005) if after the 2018 update.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2012 USPSTF guidelines negatively impacted pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy. Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates had increased frequency of higher-risk PCa and lower frequency of favorable disease. In addition, data after the 2018 update demonstrate a continued negative impact on postprostatectomy pathology. Thus, further investigation of the long-term effects of the 2018 USPSTF update is warranted.

The First Lady Presses for Cancer Screening to Get Back On Track

The First Lady of the United States, Dr. Jill Biden, visited the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina on October 25, 2021. This Commentary remarks on the administration's goal of directing public attention to cancer screening and prevention as part of an overall effort to recover ground lost in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in underserved communities.

Assessment of US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline-Concordant Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Reasons for Underscreening by Age, Race and Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Rurality, and Insurance, 2005 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

Cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal in the US. Population-based assessment of reasons for not receiving screening is needed, particularly among women from historically underserved demographic groups.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate changes in US Preventive Service Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening over time and assess the reasons women do not receive up-to-date screening by sociodemographic factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This pooled population-based cross-sectional study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey from 2005 and 2019. A total of 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) aged 21 to 65 years without previous hysterectomy were included. Analyses were conducted from March 30 to August 19, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Sociodemographic factors, including age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality of residence, and health insurance type.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were US Preventive Services Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening rates and self-reported primary reasons for not receiving up-to-date screening. For 2005, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone for women aged 21 to 29 years and screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30 to 65 years. Population estimation included sampling weights.

RESULTS

Among 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the study, most were aged 30 to 65 years (16 219 women; weighted, 86.3 million women [76.3%]) and had private insurance (13 571 women; weighted, 75.8 million women [67.0%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 997 women (weighted, 6.9 million women [6.1%]) were Asian, 3821 women (weighted, 19.5 million women [17.2%]) were Hispanic, 2862 women (weighted, 14.8 million women [13.1%]) were non-Hispanic Black, 12 423 women (weighted, 69.0 million women [61.0%]) were non-Hispanic White, and 453 women (weighted, 3.0 million women [2.7%]) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including Alaska Native and American Indian [weighted, 955 000 women (0.8%)] and other single and multiple races or ethnicities [weighted, 2.0 million women (1.8%)]). In 2019, women aged 21 to 29 years had a significantly higher rate of overdue screening (29.1%) vs women aged 30 to 65 years (21.1%; P < .001). In both age groups, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001). Significantly higher rates of overdue screening were found among those of Asian vs non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity (31.4% vs 20.1%; P = .01), those identifying as LGBQ+ (gender identity was not assessed because of a small sample) vs heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P < .001), those living in rural vs urban areas (26.2% vs 22.6%; P = .04), and those without insurance vs those with private insurance (41.7% vs 18.1%; P < .001). The most common reason for not receiving timely screening across all groups was lack of knowledge, ranging from 47.2% of women identifying as LGBQ+ to 64.4% of women with Hispanic ethnicity. Previous receipt of a human papillomavirus vaccine was not a primary reason for not having up-to-date screening (<1% of responses). From 2005 to 2019, among women aged 30 to 65 years, lack of access decreased significantly as a primary reason for not receiving screening (from 21.8% to 9.7%), whereas lack of knowledge (from 45.2% to 54.8%) and not receiving recommendations from health care professionals (from 5.9% to 12.0%) increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that cervical cancer screening that was concordant with US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decreased in the US between 2005 and 2019, with lack of knowledge reported as the biggest barrier to receiving timely screening. Campaigns addressing patient knowledge and provider communication may help to improve screening rates, and cultural adaptation of interventions is needed to reduce existing disparities.

Rational HCC screening approaches for patients with NAFLD

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially among those who have cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, but 20-30% of cases of NAFLD-related HCC occur in the absence of advanced fibrosis. The prevalence of NAFLD-related HCC is increasing in most countries worldwide. There are few direct data to support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of HCC surveillance in NAFLD or to guide its application. We use evidence on surveillance in other conditions and studies on the clinical course of patients with NAFLD to arrive at recommendations for rational approaches to HCC surveillance in this growing cohort of patients. We also outline gaps in research and practice, including opportunities to advance the field.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Quality assured implementation of the Slovenian breast cancer screening programme

SETTING

The organised, population-based breast cancer screening programme in Slovenia began providing biennial mammography screening for women aged 50-69 in 2008. The programme has taken a comprehensive approach to quality assurance as recommended by the European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (4th edition), including centralized assessment, training and supervision, and proactive monitoring of performance indicators. This report describes the progress of implementation and rollout from 2003 through 2019.

METHODS

The screening protocol and key quality assurance procedures initiated during the planning from 2003 and rollout from 2008 of the screening programme, including training of the professional staff, are described. The organisational structure, gradual geographical rollout, and coverage by invitation and examination are presented.

RESULTS

The nationwide programme was up and running in all screening regions by the end of 2017, at which time the nationwide coverage by invitation and examination had reached 70% and 50%, respectively. Nationwide rollout of the population-based programme was complete by the end of 2019. By this time, coverage by invitation and examination had reached 98% and 76%, respectively. The participation rates consistently exceeded 70% from 2014 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful implementation of the screening programme can be attributed to an independent central management, external guidance, and strict adherence to quality assurance procedures, all of which contributed to increasing governmental and popular support. The benefits of quality assurance have influenced all aspects of breast care and have provided a successful model for multidisciplinary management of other diseases.

Adherence to guidance for prioritizing higher risk groups for breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Ontario Breast Screening Program: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, was deferred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a prioritization framework to resume services according to breast cancer risk was developed. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic within the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by comparing total volumes of screening mammographic examinations and volumes of screening mammographic examinations with abnormal results before and during the pandemic, and to assess backlogs on the basis of adherence to the prioritization framework.

METHODS

A descriptive study was conducted among women aged 50 to 74 years at average risk and women aged 30 to 69 years at high risk, who participated in the OBSP. Percentage change was calculated by comparing observed monthly volumes of mammographic examinations from March 2020 to March 2021 with 2019 volumes and proportions by risk group. We plotted estimates of backlog volumes of mammographic examinations by risk group, comparing pandemic with prepandemic screening practices. Volumes of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were plotted by risk group.

RESULTS

Volumes of mammographic examinations in the OBSP showed the largest declines in April and May 2020 (> 99% decrease) and returned to prepandemic levels as of March 2021, with an accumulated backlog of 340 876 examinations. As of March 2021, prioritization had reduced the backlog volumes of screens for participants at high risk for breast cancer by 96.5% (186 v. 5469 expected) and annual rescreens for participants at average risk for breast cancer by 13.5% (62 432 v. 72 202 expected); there was a minimal decline for initial screens. Conversely, the backlog increased by 7.6% for biennial rescreens (221 674 v. 206 079 expected). More than half (59.4%) of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were for participants in the higher risk groups.

INTERPRETATION

Prioritizing screening for those at higher risk for breast cancer may increase diagnostic yield and redirect resources to minimize potential long-term harms caused by the pandemic. This further supports the clinical utility of risk-stratified cancer screening.

Determination of thresholds of risk in women at average risk of breast cancer to personalize the organized screening program

In France, more than 10 million women at "average" risk of breast cancer (BC), are included in the organized BC screening. Existing predictive models of BC risk are not adapted to the French population. Thus, we set up a new score in the French Hérault region and looked for subgroups at a graded level of risk in women at "average" risk. We recruited a retrospective cohort of women, aged 50 to 60, who underwent the organized BC screening, and included 2241 non-cancer women and 527 who developed a BC during a 12-year follow-up period (2006-2018). The risk factors identified were high breast density (ACR BI-RADS grading)(B vs A: HR = 1.41, 95%CI [1.05; 1.9], p = 0.023; C vs A: HR = 1.65 [1.2; 2.27], p = 0.02 ; D vs A: HR = 2.11 [1.25;3.58], p = 0.006), a history of maternal breast cancer (HR = 1.61 [1.24; 2.09], p < 0.001), and socioeconomic difficulties (HR 1.23 [1.09; 1.55], p = 0.003). While early menopause (HR = 0.36 [0.13; 0.99], p = 0.003) and an age at menarche after 12 years (HR = 0.77 [0.63; 0.95], p = 0.047) were protective factors. We identified 3 groups at risk: lower, average, and higher, respectively. A low threshold was characterized at 1.9% of 12-year risk and a high threshold at 4.5% 12-year risk. Mean 12-year risks in the 3 groups of risk were 1.37%, 2.68%, and 5.84%, respectively. Thus, 12% of women presented a level of risk different from the average risk group, corresponding to 600,000 women involved in the French organized BC screening, enabling to propose a new strategy to personalize the national BC screening. On one hand, for women at lower risk, we proposed to reduce the frequency of mammograms and on the other hand, for women at higher risk, we suggested intensifying surveillance.

Communication Among Southeast Asian Mothers and Daughters About Cervical Cancer Prevention

BACKGROUND

Southeast Asian women have high rates of cervical cancer and yet are among the least likely to be screened. There is sparse literature on communication patterns among Southeast Asian women, specifically related to cervical cancer and Pap test uptake. Little is known about the influence of Southeast Asian mothers and daughters on each other's cervical cancer beliefs and screening behaviors.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the perceptions of and barriers to cervical cancer screening among Cambodian and Lao mothers and daughters and explored how they converse about women's health issues, specifically cervical cancer and Pap testing.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with Cambodian and Lao mother-daughter dyads, aged 18 years and older, living in a large Midwestern city between February and September of 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the sample demographic characteristics. Bivariate tests (contingency table analyses, independent t-tests, and Pearson correlations) were conducted to test for differences between the mothers and daughters in demographic characteristics and measures of health status and beliefs. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

In-depth interviews were conducted with three Cambodian and eight Lao mother-daughter dyads. The daughters were significantly more acculturated to English, had greater education, and were mostly employed full time. The mothers and daughters evaluated their health status much the same, their medical mistrust equally, and all of the mothers and nine of the daughters were Buddhist. Themes in mother-daughter communication included what mothers and daughters do and do not talk about with regard to sexual health, refugee experiences, what hinders mother-daughter communication, and relationship dynamics. The mothers were embarrassed and uncomfortable discussing cervical cancer, Pap testing, and other women's health issues with their daughters. Although mothers did not influence women's health promotion or cervical cancer prevention with their daughters, daughters did influence their mothers' health and healthcare decisions. Daughters were critical in navigating healthcare systems, engaging with providers, and making medical decisions on behalf of their mothers.

DISCUSSION

By leveraging the unique and dynamic intergenerational bond that mothers and daughters who identify as Southeast Asian have, we can develop strategies to influence the cultural dialogue related to cervical cancer and early detection.

Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in breast cancer screening programmes: systematic review of test accuracy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review of test accuracy studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women's digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.

STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.

Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Colonoscopy Completion After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety Net System

IMPORTANCE

The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), relies on colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal results, but in safety net systems and federally qualified health centers, in which FIT is frequently used, colonoscopy completion within 1 year of an abnormal result rarely exceeds 50%. Clinician-identified factors in follow-up of abnormal FIT results are understudied and could lead to more effective interventions to address this issue.

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinician-identified barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal FIT results in a safety net health care system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted using semistructured key informant interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) and staff members in a large safety net health care system in Washington state. Eligible clinicians were recruited through all-staff meetings and clinic medical directors. Interviews were conducted from February to December 2020 through face-to-face interactions or digital meeting platforms. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively using a content analysis approach. Data were analyzed from September through December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result were identified by PCPs and staff members.

RESULTS

Among 21 participants, there were 10 PCPs and 11 staff members; 20 participants provided demographic information. The median (interquartile range) age was 38.5 (33.0-51.5) years, 17 (85.0%) were women, and 9 participants (45.0%) spent more than 75% of their working time engaging in patient care. All participants identified social determinants of health, organizational factors, and patient cognitive factors as barriers to colonoscopy completion. Participants suggested that existing resources that addressed these factors facilitated colonoscopy completion but were insufficient to meet national follow-up colonoscopy goals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, responses of interviewed PCPs and staff members suggested that the barriers to colonoscopy completion in a safety net health system may be modifiable. These findings suggest that interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal FIT results should be informed by clinician-identified factors to address multilevel challenges to colonoscopy completion.

Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Mammography has limited accuracy in breast cancer screening. Ultrasonography, when used in conjunction with mammography screening, is helpful to detect early-stage and invasive cancers for asymptomatic women with dense and nondense breasts.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of adjunctive ultrasonography with mammography for breast cancer screening, according to differences in breast density.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study is a secondary analysis of the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial. Between July 2007 and March 2011, asymptomatic women aged 40 to 49 years were enrolled in Japan. The present study used data from cases enrolled from the screening center in Miyagi prefecture during 2007 to 2020. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either mammography with ultrasonography (intervention group) or mammography alone (control group). Data analysis was performed from February to March 2020.

EXPOSURES

Ultrasonography adjunctive to mammography for breast cancer screening regardless of breast density.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, recall rates, biopsy rates, and characteristics of screen-detected cancers and interval breast cancers were evaluated between study groups and for each modality according to breast density.

RESULTS

A total of 76 119 women were enrolled, and data for 19 213 women (mean [SD] age, 44.5 [2.8] years) from the Miyagi prefecture were analyzed; 9705 were randomized to the intervention group and 9508 were randomized to the control group. A total of 11 390 women (59.3%) had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Among the overall group, 130 cancers were found. Sensitivity was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (93.2% [95% CI, 87.4%-99.0%] vs 66.7% [95% CI, 54.4%-78.9%]; P < .001). Similar trends were observed in women with dense breasts (sensitivity in intervention vs control groups, 93.2% [95% CI, 85.7%-100.0%] vs 70.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-85.9%]; P < .001) and nondense breasts (sensitivity in intervention vs control groups, 93.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-102.3%] vs 60.9% [95% CI, 40.9%-80.8%]; P < .001). The rate of interval cancers per 1000 screenings was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (0.5 cancers [95% CI, 0.1-1.0 cancers] vs 2.0 cancers [95% CI, 1.1-2.9 cancers]; P = .004). Within the intervention group, the rate of invasive cancers detected by ultrasonography alone was significantly higher than that for mammography alone in both dense (82.4% [95% CI, 56.6%-96.2%] vs 41.7% [95% CI, 15.2%-72.3%]; P = .02) and nondense (85.7% [95% CI, 42.1%-99.6%] vs 25.0% [95% CI, 5.5%-57.2%]; P = .02) breasts. However, sensitivity of mammography or ultrasonography alone did not exceed 80% across all breast densities in the 2 groups. Compared with the control group, specificity was significantly lower in the intervention group (91.8% [95% CI, 91.2%-92.3%] vs 86.8% [95% CI, 86.2%-87.5%]; P < .001). Recall rates (13.8% [95% CI, 13.1%-14.5%] vs 8.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-9.1%]; P < .001) and biopsy rates (5.5% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.0%] vs 2.1% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.4%]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, screening mammography alone demonstrated low sensitivity, whereas adjunctive ultrasonography was associated with increased sensitivity. These findings suggest that adjunctive ultrasonography has the potential to improve detection of early-stage and invasive cancers across both dense and nondense breasts. Supplemental ultrasonography should be considered as an appropriate imaging modality for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women aged 40 to 49 years regardless of breast density.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIPH Clinical Trial Identifier: UMIN000000757.

Should colorectal cancer screening start at different ages for men and women? Cost-effectiveness analysis for a resource-constrained service

BACKGROUND

Men have a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than women, but population screening currently starts at the same age for both sexes.

AIM

This analysis investigates whether, in a resource-constrained setting, it would be more effective and cost-effective for men and women to start screening for CRC at different ages.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An economic modeling analysis was carried out using the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel to compare sex-stratification against screening everyone from the same age, taking an English National Health Service perspective. Screening men from age 56 and women from age 60, rather than screening everyone from age 58 using a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) threshold of 120 μg/g is expected to produce an additional 0.0004 QALYs for a cost of £0.55 per person at model start (Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio = £1392), and to reduce CRC cases and mortality by 25 and 19 per 100 000 people respectively, while using a similar amount of screening resources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates a 61% probability that sex-stratification is more cost-effective than screening everyone at age 58. Similar benefits of sex-stratification are found at other FIT thresholds, but become negligible if mean screening start age is reduced to 50.

CONCLUSION

Where resources are constrained and it is not feasible to screen everyone from the age of 50, starting screening earlier in men than women is likely to be more cost-effective and gain more health benefits overall than strategies where men and women start screening at the same age.

Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration

INTRODUCTION

In cost-effectiveness analyses, the future costs, disutility and mortality from alternative causes of morbidity are often not completely taken into account. We explored the impact of different assumed values for each of these factors on the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

METHODS

Twenty different CRC screening strategies and two EAC screening strategies were evaluated using microsimulation. Average health-related expenses, disutility and mortality by age for the U.S. general population were estimated using surveys and lifetables. First, we evaluated strategies under default assumptions, with average mortality, and no accounting for health-related costs and disutility. Then, we varied costs, disutility and mortality between 100% and 150% of the estimated population averages, with 125% as the best estimate. Primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained among efficient strategies.

RESULTS

The set of efficient strategies was robust to assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality from other causes of morbidity. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased with higher assumed values. For example, for CRC, the ratio for the recommended strategy increased from $15,600 with default assumptions, to $32,600 with average assumption levels, $61,100 with 25% increased levels, and $111,100 with 50% increased levels. Similarly, for EAC, the incremental costs per QALY gained for the recommended EAC screening strategy increased from $106,300 with default assumptions to $198,300 with 50% increased assumptions. In sensitivity analyses without discounting or including only above-average expenses, the impact of assumptions was relatively smaller, but best estimates of the cost per QALY gained remained substantially higher than default estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Assumptions on future costs, utility and mortality from other causes of morbidity substantially impact cost-effectiveness outcomes of cancer screening. More empiric evidence and consensus are needed to guide assumptions in future analyses.

Negative impact of the COVID-19 state of emergency on breast cancer screening participation in Japan

Background

In response to the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Japanese government declared a state of emergency in Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka, Hyogo and Fukuoka prefectures on April 7, 2020; this was extended to the remaining prefectures on April 16, 2020. The state of emergency was lifted on May 25, 2020. Although it was known that breast cancer screening was postponed or canceled during this period, the actual extent of postponement or cancellation has not been clarified.

Methods

We investigated postponement or cancellation of breast cancer screening between April and May 2020 using a cross-sectional, web-based, self-reported questionnaire survey. In addition, we examined the association between socioeconomic and health-related factors and postponement or cancellation by multivariable log-binominal regression.

Results

Among 1874 women aged 30–79 years who had scheduled breast cancer screening during the study period, 493 women (26.3%) postponed or canceled screening. While women aged 30–39 years and 70–79 years postponed or canceled less frequently than women aged 40–49 years (prevalence ratio = 0.62 and 0.56, respectively), there was no significant difference between age groups in the women aged 40–69 years. Postponement or cancellation was more frequent in five prefectures, where the state of emergency was declared early (prevalence ratio = 1.25). Employment status, annual household income, family structure, academic background, smoking status, and fear of COVID-19 were not associated with postponement or cancellation.

Conclusion

Although care should be taken with the interpretation of these findings due to possible biases, they suggest that the postponement or cancellation of breast cancer screening might be due more to facility suspension than to individual factors. It is necessary to explore the ideal way of encouraging breast cancer screening uptake, in an environment of coexistence with COVID-19.

Fluorescence Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Detection Is Improved by Using Cationic Dendronized Hyperbranched Polymer

(1) Background: Biophysical techniques applied to serum samples characterization could promote the development of new diagnostic tools. Fluorescence spectroscopy has been previously applied to biological samples from cancer patients and differences from healthy individuals were observed. Dendronized hyperbranched polymers (DHP) based on bis(hydroxymethyl)propionic acid (bis-MPA) were developed in our group and their potential biomedical applications explored. (2) Methods: A total of 94 serum samples from diagnosed cancer patients and healthy individuals were studied (20 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 25 blood donor, 24 ovarian cancer, and 25 benign ovarian cyst samples). (3) Results: Fluorescence spectra of serum samples (fluorescence liquid biopsy, FLB) in the presence and the absence of DHP-bMPA were recorded and two parameters from the signal curves obtained. A secondary parameter, the fluorescence spectrum score (FSscore), was calculated, and the diagnostic model assessed. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and ovarian cancer, the classification performance was improved when including DHP-bMPA, achieving high values of statistical sensitivity and specificity (over 85% for both pathologies). (4) Conclusions: We have applied FLB as a quick, simple, and minimally invasive promising technique in cancer diagnosis. The classification performance of the diagnostic method was further improved by using DHP-bMPA, which interacted differentially with serum samples from healthy and diseased subjects. These preliminary results set the basis for a larger study and move FLB closer to its clinical application, providing useful information for the oncologist during patient diagnosis.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Gut instinct: a call to study the biology of early-onset colorectal cancer disparities

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence among individuals age younger than 50 years continues to rise with etiologies unknown. Synchronously, early-onset CRC disparities have grown more pronounced. As translational research across diverse populations has been limited, we advocate for mechanistic studies that address this challenge to mitigate CRC disparities among young adults.

Uncommon tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) type 1: Do they have a relationship with the prognosis of these patients?

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of MEN 1 patients is not only determined by pancreatic disease; it is also related to other uncommon tumors. The objective of this study is to analyze the tumors associated with MEN 1 outside the classic triad and to investigate their relationship with mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and five MEN 1 patients were studied in a tertiary referral hospital (1980-2019).

RESULTS

With a follow-up of 11 ± 4 years, seven patients died (8%), four as a consequence MEN syndrome. Thirty-three percent had adrenal gland tumors. One patient died of adrenal cancer. Eight percent presented with a neuroendocrine thoracic neoplasm, and one patient died. Another patient died due to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. A further patient died because of a gastrinoma with liver metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, 75% of MEN-related deaths were the result of an uncommon pathology, and we, therefore, recommend that these tumors should be taken into account in the screening and follow-up of these patients.

Optimal Intervals of Ultrasonography Screening for Early Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Taiwan

IMPORTANCE

There are different clinical practices regarding ultrasonography screening intervals for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) despite recommendations from international guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether ultrasonography screening using intervals suggested by international guidelines is associated with cancer stage shifting, reductions in mortality, and improved quality of life (QoL) for patients with HCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This nationwide comparative effectiveness research study estimated lifetime survival functions using interlinkages of 3 databases from Taiwan-the Taiwan National Health Insurance, Taiwan National Cancer Registry, and National Mortality Registry-combined with QoL measurements obtained from National Cheng Kung University Hospital. In total, 114 022 patients listed as having newly diagnosed HCC from 2002 through 2015 in the Taiwan National Cancer Registry were followed up until 2017. The QoL values of 1059 patients with HCC who visited National Cheng Kung University Hospital were prospectively measured with the European QoL-5 dimensions questionnaire from 2011 through 2019. Patients were categorized based on the time between their last ultrasonography screening and the index date (90 days prior to HCC diagnosis) as 1 of 5 subcohorts: 6 months (0-6 months), 12 months (7-12 months), 24 months (13-24 months), 36 months (25-36 months), and longer than 36 months (no screening in the previous 3 years). Data were analyzed from April 2020 to April 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and loss of life expectancy or loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with age-, sex-, and calendar year-matched cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 59 194 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging information, including 42 081 men (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [12.6] years) and 17 113 women (mean [SD] age, 69.0 [11.2] years). There was a consistent trend showing that the longer the interval between ultrasonography examinations, the higher the loss of life expectancy and loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy for both sexes. Loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy values for male subcohorts were 10.0 (95% CI, 9.1-10.9) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ultrasonography screening intervals of 6 months, 11.1 (95% CI, 10.4-11.8) QALYs for 12 months, 12.1 (95% CI, 11.5-12.7) QALYs for 24 months, 13.1 (95% CI, 12.6-13.6) QALYs for 36 months, and 14.6 (95% CI, 14.2-15.0) QALYs for longer than 36 months. Loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy values for female subcohorts were 9.0 (95% CI, 8.3-9.6) QALYs for 6 months, 9.7 (95% CI, 9.2-10.2) QALYs for 12 months, 10.3 (95% CI, 9.8-10.7) QALYs for 24 months, 10.7 (95% CI, 10.2-11.1) QALYs for 36 months, and 11.4 (95% CI, 11.0-11.8) QALYs for longer than 36 months. Patients with underlying hepatitis B virus infection or cirrhosis had the greatest improvement in life expectancy with shorter screening intervals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Regular ultrasonography screening with intervals less than 6 to 12 months may be associated with early detection of HCC, save lives, and improve the quality of life for patients with HCC from a lifetime perspective.

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK.

METHODS

We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC).

RESULTS

Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%).

CONCLUSION

In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

AI-based smartphone apps for risk assessment of skin cancer need more evaluation and better regulation

Smartphone applications ("apps") with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used in healthcare. Widespread adoption of these apps must be supported by a robust evidence-base and app manufacturers' claims appropriately regulated. Current CE marking assessment processes inadequately protect the public against the risks created by using smartphone diagnostic apps.

Official Information Act investigation of the Ministry of Health's process to assess the Southern District Health Board's readiness to join the National Bowel Screening Programme in 2018

We examined the documentation underlying the decision to permit the Southern District Health Board (SDHB) to join the National Bowel Screening Programme (NBSP) at a time when it was not providing an adequate colonoscopy service for symptomatic patients. A coordinated sequence of relevant Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests was lodged with the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MoH), which is responsible for determining the readiness of district health boards (DHBs) to join the NBSP. However, the MoH OIA process was obfuscating, unduly long and responded only after they anticipated imminent intervention by the Office of the Ombudsman. The amount of information provided was massive, partly irrelevant and presented in an inconvenient format. It revealed that the MoH readiness process was incomplete, and permission for the SDHB to join the NBSP was given prematurely without following due process and despite concerns expressed by some MoH staff. Subsequently, the MoH has failed to admit that they made errors in this case or have any weaknesses in their readiness assessment process. The MoH readiness process failed to determine that the SDHB was not ready to join the NBSP in 2018. Concerns have been expressed in the public media that such failures have occurred with the assessment of other DHBs. The process needs to be overhauled or replaced before further permissions are granted to DHBs. Requests for information under the OIA from the MoH, and similar public entities and agencies subject to the OIA, are too easily deferred, derailed or declined. The OIA is in need of revision.

It's time to re-evaluate cervical Cancer screening after age 65

Cervical cancer screening guidelines currently recommend cessation of cervical cancer screening after age 65, despite 20% of new cervical cancer cases occurring in this age group. The US population is aging, research methodology that examines cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates has changed, and sexual behaviors and the rates at which women have hysterectomies have changed over time. Current guidelines do not adequately address these changes, and may be missing significant opportunities to prevent cervical cancer cases and deaths in older women. Furthermore, racial disparities in cervical cancer outcomes may be exacerbated by not addressing the preventive health needs of older women through cervical cancer screening.

Model-Based Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

COVID-19 has decreased colorectal cancer screenings.

Objective

To estimate the degree to which expanding fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A previously developed simulation model was adopted to estimate how much COVID-19 may have contributed to colorectal cancer outcomes. The model included the US population estimated to have completed colorectal cancer screening pre-COVID-19 according the American Cancer Society. The model was designed to estimate colorectal cancer outcomes between 2020 and 2023. This analysis was completed between July and December 2020.

Exposures

Adults screened for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer cases detected by stage.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimates of colorectal cancer outcomes across 4 scenarios: (1) 9 months of 50% colorectal cancer screenings followed by 21 months of 75% colorectal cancer screenings; (2) 18 months of 50% screening followed by 12 months of 75% screening; (3) scenario 1 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests; and (4) scenario 2 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests.

Results

In our simulation model, COVID-19-related reductions in care utilization resulted in an estimated 1 176 942 to 2 014 164 fewer colorectal cancer screenings, 8346 to 12 894 fewer colorectal cancer diagnoses, and 6113 to 9301 fewer early-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses between 2020 and 2023. With an abbreviated period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 588 844 colorectal cancer screenings and 2836 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1953 (68.9%) were early stage. In the event of a prolonged period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 655 825 colorectal cancer screenings and 2715 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1944 (71.6%) were early stage.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that the increased use of fecal immunochemical tests during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening participation and more colorectal cancer diagnoses at earlier stages. If our estimates are borne out in real-world clinical practice, increasing fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic could mitigate the consequences of reduced screening rates during the pandemic for colorectal cancer outcomes.

Assessing Lung Cancer Absolute Risk Trajectory Based on a Polygenic Risk Model

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. An improved risk stratification strategy can increase efficiency of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening. Here we assessed whether individual's genetic background has clinical utility for risk stratification in the context of LDCT screening. On the basis of 13,119 patients with lung cancer and 10,008 controls with European ancestry in the International Lung Cancer Consortium, we constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) via 10-fold cross-validation with regularized penalized regression. The performance of risk model integrating PRS, including calibration and ability to discriminate, was assessed using UK Biobank data (N = 335,931). Absolute risk was estimated on the basis of age-specific lung cancer incidence and all-cause mortality as competing risk. To evaluate its potential clinical utility, the PRS distribution was simulated in the National Lung Screening Trial (N = 50,772 participants). The lung cancer ORs for individuals at the top decile of the PRS distribution versus those at bottom 10% was 2.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92-3.00; P = 1.80 × 10-14] in the validation set (P trend = 5.26 × 10-20). The OR per SD of PRS increase was 1.26 (95% CI = 1.20-1.32; P = 9.69 × 10-23) for overall lung cancer risk in the validation set. When considering absolute risks, individuals at different PRS deciles showed differential trajectories of 5-year and cumulative absolute risk. The age reaching the LDCT screening recommendation threshold can vary by 4 to 8 years, depending on the individual's genetic background, smoking status, and family history. Collectively, these results suggest that individual's genetic background may inform the optimal lung cancer LDCT screening strategy. SIGNIFICANCE: Three large-scale datasets reveal that, after accounting for risk factors, an individual's genetics can affect their lung cancer risk trajectory, thus may inform the optimal timing for LDCT screening.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

OBJECTIVE

To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years.

EXPOSURES

Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms).

RESULTS

Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.

POPULATION

This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

An Update on the Epidemiology, Molecular Characterization, Diagnosis, and Screening Strategies for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

Rising trends in the incidence and mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) in those who are younger than 50 years have been well established. These trends have spurred intense investigation focused on elucidating the epidemiology and characteristics of early-onset CRC, as well as on identifying strategies for early detection and prevention. In this review, we provide a contemporary update on early-onset CRC with a particular focus on epidemiology, molecular characterization, red flag signs and symptoms, and screening for early-onset CRC.

Screening for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Are We Asking the Impossible?

Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2020. Because of this, significant interest and research funding has been devoted to development of a screening test to identify individuals during a prolonged asymptomatic period; however, to date, no such test has been developed. We evaluated current NIH spending and clinical trials to determine the focus of research on pancreatic cancer screening as compared with other cancer subtypes. Using statistical methodology, we determined the effects of population-based pancreatic cancer screening on overall population morbidity and mortality. Population-based pancreatic cancer screening would result in significant harm to non-diseased individuals, even in cases where a near-perfect test was developed. Despite this mathematical improbability, NIH funding for pancreatic cancer demonstrates bias toward screening test development not seen in other cancer subtypes. Focusing research energy on development of pancreatic screening tests is unlikely to result in overall survival benefits. Efforts to increase the number of patients who are candidates for surgery and improving surgical outcomes would result in greater population benefit.Prevention Relevance: For patients with pancreatic cancer, early stage detection offers the greatest survival benefit. However, the incidence of pancreatic cancer and associated mortality of pancreatic resections make development of a screening test a difficult, if not impossible, challenge.

Health Maintenance for Women of Reproductive Age

Health maintenance for women of reproductive age includes counseling and screening tests that have been demonstrated to prevent disease and improve health. This article focuses mainly on conditions that are more common in women or have a unique impact on female patients. Family physicians should be familiar with evidence-based recommendations for contraception and preconception care and should consider screening patients for pregnancy intention. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends against screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women; the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against screening pelvic examinations. The USPSTF recommendations for women in this age group include screening for obesity and other cardiovascular risk factors, depression, intimate partner violence, cervical cancer, HIV, hepatitis C virus, tobacco use, and unhealthy alcohol and drug use as part of routine primary care. Breast cancer screening with mammography is recommended for women 50 years and older and should be individualized for women 40 to 49 years of age, although other organizations recommend earlier screening. Screening for sexually transmitted infections is based on age and risk factors; women younger than 25 years who are sexually active should be screened routinely for gonorrhea and chlamydia, whereas screening for syphilis and hepatitis B virus should be individualized. Immunizations should be recommended according to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; immunizations against influenza; tetanus; measles, mumps, and rubella; varicella; meningococcus; and human papillomavirus are of particular importance in women of reproductive age. To have the greatest impact on health, physicians should focus on USPSTF grade A and B recommendations with patients.

The International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research

Gaps in the translation of research findings to clinical management have been recognized for decades. They exist for the diagnosis as well as the management of cancer. The international standards for cancer diagnosis are contained within the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours, published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and known worldwide as the WHO Blue Books. In addition to their relevance to individual patients, these volumes provide a valuable contribution to cancer research and surveillance, fulfilling an important role in scientific evidence synthesis and international standard setting. However, the multidimensional nature of cancer classification, the way in which the WHO Classification of Tumours is constructed, and the scientific information overload in the field pose important challenges for the translation of research findings to tumour classification and hence cancer diagnosis. To help address these challenges, we have established the International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research (IC3 R) to provide a forum for the coordination of efforts in evidence generation, standard setting and best practice recommendations in the field of tumour classification. The first IC3 R meeting, held in Lyon, France, in February 2019, gathered representatives of major institutions involved in tumour classification and related fields to identify and discuss translational challenges in data comparability, standard setting, quality management, evidence evaluation and copyright, as well as to develop a collaborative plan for addressing these challenges.

[Histopathologic grading of breast cancer; large variation with major consequences?]

The pathologist's assessment of tumor tissue plays a critical role in therapeutic decision-making in early-stage invasive breast cancer. In daily practice, however, there appears to be considerable variation in grading between the different Dutch pathology laboratories and between individual pathologists within the same laboratory. This underlines the need to standardize grading by pathologists as much as possible in order to minimize the risk of a worse outcome for patients due to under-treatment and of unnecessary toxicity from over-treatment. Therefore, two initiatives were launched, i.e. laboratory-specific feedback reports and an e-learning module in which pathologists were trained in grading of invasive breast cancer. While these initiatives have yielded encouraging results, the overall variation in grading remains significant. Awareness of this variation, and of the inherent difficulties of subjective grading, among the various clinicians involved in breast cancer management, is therefore of utmost importance to improve clinical decision-making for patients.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed.

RESULTS

We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%).

CONCLUSION

Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Breast Cancer Screening: Common Questions and Answers

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in women and accounts for 30% of all new cancers in the United States. The highest incidence of breast cancer is in women 70 to 74 years of age. Numerous risk factors are associated with the development of breast cancer. A risk assessment tool can be used to determine individual risk and help guide screening decisions. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommend against teaching average-risk women to perform breast self-examinations. The USPSTF and AAFP recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women 50 to 74 years of age. However, there is no strong evidence supporting a net benefit of mammography screening in average-risk women 40 to 49 years of age; therefore, the USPSTF and AAFP recommend individualized decision-making in these women. For average-risk women 75 years and older, the USPSTF and AAFP conclude that there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Cancer Society state that screening may continue depending on the woman's health status and life expectancy. Women at high risk of breast cancer may benefit from mammography starting at 30 years of age or earlier, with supplemental screening such as magnetic resonance imaging. Supplemental ultrasonography in women with dense breasts increases cancer detection but also false-positive results.