Cancer screening in China: a steep road from evidence to implementation.

Cancer screening has the potential to decrease mortality from several common cancer types. The first cancer screening programme in China was initiated in 1958 and the Cancer High Incidence Fields established in the 1970s have provided an extensive source of information for national cancer screening programmes. From 2012 onwards, four ongoing national cancer screening programmes have targeted eight cancer types: cervical, breast, colorectal, lung, oesophageal, stomach, liver, and nasopharyngeal cancers. By synthesising evidence from pilot screening programmes and population-based studies for various screening tests, China has developed a series of cancer screening guidelines. Nevertheless, challenges remain for the implementation of a fully successful population-based programme. The aim of this Review is to highlight the key milestones and the current status of cancer screening in China, describe what has been achieved to date, and identify the barriers in transitioning from evidence to implementation. We also make a set of implementation recommendations on the basis of the Chinese experience, which might be useful in the establishment of cancer screening programmes in other countries.

Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.

"Screening" is a search for preclinical, asymptomatic disease, including cancer. Widespread cancer screening has led to large increases in early-stage cancers and pre-cancers. Ubiquitous public messages emphasize the potential benefits to screening for these lesions based on the underlying assumption that treating cancer at early stages before spread to other organs should make it easier to treat and cure, using more tolerable interventions. The intuition is so strong that public campaigns are sometimes launched without conducting definitive trials directly comparing screening to usual care. An effective cancer screening test should not only increase the incidence of early-stage preclinical disease but should also decrease the incidence of advanced and metastatic cancer, as well as a subsequent decrease in cancer-related mortality. Otherwise, screening efforts may be uncovering a reservoir of non-progressive and very slowly progressive lesions that were not destined to cause symptoms or suffering during the person's remaining natural lifespan: a phenomenon known as "overdiagnosis." We provide here a qualitative review of cancer overdiagnosis and discuss specific examples due to extensive population-based screening, including neuroblastoma, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, and breast cancer. The harms of unnecessary diagnosis and cancer therapy call for a balanced presentation to people considering undergoing screening, even with a test of accepted benefit, with a goal of informed decision-making. We also discuss proposed strategies to mitigate the adverse sequelae of overdiagnosis.

Delivery of Financial Navigation Services Within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Methods: Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%. Results: Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients. Conclusions: Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Patients, practitioners, and policy makers are increasingly concerned about the delivery of ineffective or low-value clinical practices in cancer care settings. Research is needed on how to effectively deimplement these types of practices from cancer care. In this commentary, we spotlight the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a national network of community oncology practices, and elaborate on how it is an ideal infrastructure for conducting rigorous, real-world research on deimplementation. We describe key multilevel issues that affect deimplementation and also serve as a guidepost for developing strategies to drive deimplementation. We describe optimal study designs for testing deimplementation strategies and elaborate on how and why the NCORP network is uniquely positioned to conduct rigorous and impactful deimplementation trials. The number and diversity of affiliated community oncology care sites, coupled with the overall objective of improving cancer care delivery, make the NCORP an opportune infrastructure for advancing deimplementation research while simultaneously improving the care of millions of cancer patients nationwide.

Simple Methods for Evaluating 4 Types of Biomarkers: Surrogate Endpoint, Prognostic, Predictive, and Cancer Screening.

We review simple methods for evaluating 4 types of biomarkers. First, we discuss the evaluation of surrogate endpoint biomarkers (to shorten a randomized trial) using 2 statistical and 3 biological criteria. Second, we discuss the evaluation of prognostic biomarkers (to predict the risk of disease) by comparing data collection costs with the anticipated net benefit of risk prediction. Third, we discuss the evaluation of predictive markers (to search for a promising subgroup in a randomized trial) using a multivariate subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot involving a risk difference or responders-only benefit function. Fourth, we discuss the evaluation of cancer screening biomarkers (to predict cancer in asymptomatic persons) using methodology to substantially reduce the sample size with stored specimens.

Thyroid Incidentalomas in Association With Low-Dose Computed Tomography in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Advances in cancer screening methods have opened avenues for incidental findings and cancer overdiagnosis. We performed a secondary analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial (enrollment from 2002-2004), a randomized controlled trial comparing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT; n = 26,722) with chest radiography (CXR; n = 26,732) for lung cancer detection, to examine incidental findings related to thyroid cancer (ThCa). Three screening rounds were included, and median follow-up was 6.6 years for LDCT and 6.5 years for CXR. Radiologists reported lung and non-lung-related abnormalities. In the LDCT arm, 5.7%, 4.7%, and 4.5% of participants had abnormalities above the diaphragm (AADs) detected at baseline, year 1, and year 2, respectively, compared with 2.3%, 1.5%, and 1.3% in the CXR arm. In the LDCT arm, 205 AADs (7.0%) were thyroid-related. Overall, 60 ThCas were reported, 35 in the LDCT arm and 25 in the CXR arm (P = 0.2). In the LDCT arm, participants with a prior AAD had a 7.8-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval: 4.0, 15.1) of ThCa compared with those who did not have an AAD. Early and persistent excess of ThCas diagnosed earlier in the LDCT arm suggests overdiagnosis. The use of sensitive screening modalities for early detection of lung cancer might result in the discovery of thyroid incidentalomas.

Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the lived experience of a possible prostate cancer overdiagnosis in men who resisted recommended treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: 11 men (aged 59-78 years) who resisted recommended prostate cancer treatment because of concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. OUTCOMES: Reported experience of screening, diagnosis and treatment decision making, and its impact on psychosocial well-being, life and personal circumstances. RESULTS: Men's accounts revealed profound consequences of both prostate cancer diagnosis and resisting medical advice for treatment, with effects on their psychological well-being, family, employment circumstances, identity and life choices. Some of these men were tested for prostate-specific antigen without their knowledge or informed consent. The men felt uninformed about their management options and unsupported through treatment decision making. This often led them to develop a sense of disillusionment and distrust towards the medical profession and conventional medicine. The findings show how some men who were told they would soon die without treatment (a prognosis which ultimately did not eventuate) reconciled issues of overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment with their own diagnosis and situation over the ensuing 1 to 20+ years. CONCLUSIONS: Men who choose not to have recommended treatment for prostate cancer may avoid treatment-associated harms like incontinence and impotence, however our findings showed that the impact of the diagnosis itself is immense and far-reaching. A high priority for improving clinical practice is to ensure men are adequately informed of these potential consequences before screening is considered.

Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma.

For cancer screening to be successful, it should primarily detect cancers with lethal potential or their precursors early, leading to therapy that reduces mortality and morbidity. Screening programmes have been successful for colon and cervical cancers, where subsequent surgical removal of precursor lesions has resulted in a reduction in cancer incidence and mortality. However, many types of cancer exhibit a range of heterogeneous behaviours and variable likelihoods of progression and death. Consequently, screening for some cancers may have minimal impact on mortality and may do more harm than good. Since the implementation of screening tests for certain cancers (for example, breast and prostate cancers), a spike in incidence of in situ and early-stage cancers has been observed, but a link to reduction in cancer-specific mortality has not been as clear. It is difficult to determine how many of these mortality reductions are due to screening and how many are due to improved treatments of tumours. In cancers with lower incidence but high mortality (for example, pancreatic cancer), screening has focused on high-risk populations, but challenges similar to those for general population screening remain, particularly with regard to finding lesions with difficult-to-characterize malignant potential (for example, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms). More sensitive screening methods are detecting smaller and smaller lesions, but this has not been accompanied by a comparable reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers. In this Opinion article, we focus on the contribution of screening in general and high-risk populations to overdiagnosis, the effects of overdiagnosis on patients and emerging strategies to reduce overdiagnosis of indolent cancers through an understanding of tumour heterogeneity, the biology of how cancers evolve and progress, the molecular and cellular features of early neoplasia and the dynamics of the interactions of early lesions with their surrounding tissue microenvironment.