Impact of postal correspondence letters on participation in cancer screening: a rapid review.

The purpose of this rapid review was to identify and synthesize evidence on the impact of postal correspondence letters on participation in cancer screening and to determine whether impact varied by cancer site or inclusion of the participant's physician's name within the letter (i.e., physician-linked). PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for English-language systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until October 2019. One reviewer completed citation screening and data extraction with 30% verification by a second reviewer. Systematic reviews and RCTs were appraised using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools, respectively, by one reviewer with complete verification by a second reviewer. Findings from systematic reviews and RCTs were examined separately and presented narratively. Six systematic reviews and 18 RCTs of generally low quality were included. Evidence generally demonstrated a positive impact of a letter as compared to no letter or usual practice on screening participation. This finding was consistent for breast cancer and cervical screening participation but inconsistent for colorectal cancer screening participation. Studies comparing physician-linked letters to no letters or usual practice reported similar effect estimates as those examining letters in general. Limited and inconsistent evidence was identified on the impact of physician-linked letters as compared to non-physician-linked letters on screening participation. Evidence identified in this rapid review, and other contextual and implementation considerations, may be useful for jurisdictions considering how to promote cancer screening participation.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. METHODS: We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Risk of Cervical Dysplasia After Colposcopy Care and Risk-Informed Return to Population-Based Screening: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review examined the risk of cervical dysplasia among women who have undergone a colposcopy episode of care to inform their return to population-based cervical screening. PubMed, Embase, and grey literature were searched between January 2000 and 2018. One reviewer screened citations against pre-defined eligibility criteria. A second reviewer verified 10% and 100% of exclusions at title and abstract and at full-text screening, respectively. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The primary outcome was incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) subsequent to initial colposcopy evaluation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of CIN2+ after negative follow-up test results and performance of follow-up strategies. Results were synthesized narratively. A total of 48 studies were included. The 1- to 5-year CIN2+ risks after colposcopy evaluation ranged from 2.4% to 16.5% among women treated for CIN2+ and from 0.7% to 16.8% among women untreated for CIN grade 1 or less (≤CIN1). Follow-up strategies included single or repeat cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or combined HPV/cytology co-testing at various intervals. After negative follow-up test results, risk varied by follow-up strategy for both groups and by referral cytology severity for untreated women. Performance of follow-up strategies varied among treated women. Among untreated women, co-testing demonstrated greater sensitivity than cytology alone. In conclusion, women treated during colposcopy for CIN2+ and women with ≤CIN1 who were referred to colposcopy for low-grade cytology and who did not receive treatment may be able to return to population-based screening after negative co-testing results. Current evidence does not suggest that women untreated for ≤CIN1 who are referred for high-grade cytology be returned to screening at an average risk interval. The optimal strategy for colposcopy discharge needs ongoing evaluation as implementation of HPV testing evolves.

Risk of Advanced Adenoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in People With Low-Risk Adenomas at Baseline Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of advanced adenomas (AAs), colorectal cancer (CRC), and/or CRC-related death among individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 2006 and July 2015. Quality and strength of the evidence were rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the GRADE framework, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies (n=64,317) were included. A meta-analysis of eight cohort studies (n=10,139, 3 to 10 years' follow-up) showed a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of AAs in individuals with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.24-1.94); P=0.0001; I2=0%). The pooled 5-year cumulative incidence of AA was 3.28% (95% CI: 1.85-5.10%), 4.9% (95% CI: 3.18-6.97%), and 17.13% (95% CI: 11.97-23.0%) for the no adenoma, LRA, and AA baseline groups, respectively. Two studies, which could not be pooled, showed a reduction in the risk of CRC in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.44-0.99) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years and OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.6) at 3-5 years). One large retrospective cohort study found a 25% reduction in CRC mortality in individuals with LRAs compared with the general population (SMR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88) at a median follow-up of 7.7 years). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a small but significant increase in the risk of AAs in people with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy, but compared with the general population, people with LRAs have significantly lower risks of CRC and of CRC-related mortality.

Breast cancer risk and breast screening for trans people: an integration of 3 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Trans people face uncertain risk for breast cancer and barriers to accessing breast screening. Our objectives were to identify and synthesize primary research evidence on the effect of cross-sex hormones (CSHs) on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality among trans people, the benefits and harms of breast screening in this population, and existing clinical practice recommendations on breast screening for trans people. METHODS: We conducted 2 systematic reviews of primary research, 1 on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality, and the other on the benefits and harms of breast screening, and a third systematic review of guidelines on existing screening recommendations for trans people. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for primary research, guidelines and position statements published in English between 1997 and 2017. Citations were screened by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Four observational studies, 6 guidelines and 5 position statements were included. Observational evidence of very low certainty did not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk in trans men or trans women. Among trans women, painfulness of mammography and ultrasonography was low. There was no evidence on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer prognosis and mortality, or on benefits and other harms of screening. Existing clinical practice documents recommended screening for distinct trans subpopulations; however, recommendations varied. INTERPRETATION: The limited evidence does not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits and harms of breast screening, existing clinical practice documents generally recommend screening for trans people; further large-scale prospective comparative research is needed.