RESUMO
In evidence-based medicine frameworks, the highest level of evidence is derived from quantitative synthesis of double-masked, high-quality, randomly assigned controlled trials. Meta-analyses of randomly assigned controlled trials have demonstrated that screening mammography reduces breast cancer deaths. In the United States, every major guideline-producing organization has recommended screening mammography in average-risk women; however, there are controversies about age and frequency. Carefully controlled observational research studies and statistical modeling studies can address evidence gaps and inform evidence-based, contemporary screening practices. As breast imaging radiologists develop and evaluate existing and new screening tests and technologies, they will need to understand the key methodological considerations and scientific criteria used by policy makers and health service researchers to support dissemination and implementation of evidence-based screening tests. The Wilson and Jungner principles and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force general analytic framework provide structured evaluations of the effectiveness of screening tests. Key considerations in both frameworks include public health significance, natural history of disease, cost-effectiveness, and characteristics of screening tests and treatments. Rigorous evaluation of screening tests using analytic frameworks can maximize the benefits of screening tests while reducing potential harms. The purpose of this article is to review key methodological considerations and analytic frameworks used to evaluate screening studies and develop evidence-based recommendations.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer survival is improving in the United States. We investigated whether there was a similar trend within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry were analyzed for temporal survival trends using Kaplan-Meier estimates and linear regression. RESULTS: A total number of 54,922 Veterans were identified with lung cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Histologies were classified as non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (64.2%), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (12.9%), and 'other' (22.9%). The proportion with stage I increased from 18.1% to 30.4%, while stage IV decreased from 38.9% to 34.6% (both P < .001). The 3-year overall survival (OS) improved for stage I (58.6% to 68.4%, P < .001), stage II (35.5% to 48.4%, P < .001), stage III (18.7% to 29.4%, P < .001), and stage IV (3.4% to 7.8%, P < .001). For NSCLC, the median OS increased from 12 to 21 months (P < .001), and the 3-year OS increased from 24.1% to 38.3% (P < .001). For SCLC, the median OS remained unchanged (8 to 9 months, P = .10), while the 3-year OS increased from 9.1% to 12.3% (P = .014). Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans with NSCLC had similar OS (P = .81), and those with SCLC had higher OS (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Lung cancer survival is improving within the VHA. Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans had similar or higher survival rates. The observed racial equity in outcomes within a geographically and socioeconomically diverse population warrants further investigation to better understand and replicate this achievement in other healthcare systems.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares , United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/mortalidade , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Saúde dos Veteranos , Taxa de Sobrevida , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Veteranos/estatística & dados numéricos , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/mortalidade , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/patologia , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/terapia , Sistema de Registros , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
Breast cancer screening guidelines vary for women at intermediate risk (15%-20% lifetime risk) for developing breast cancer across jurisdictions. Currently available risk assessment models have differing strengths and weaknesses, creating difficulty and ambiguity in selecting the most appropriate model to utilize. Clarifying which model to utilize in individual circumstances may help determine the best screening guidelines to use for each individual.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Mamografia , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Feminino , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Mamografia/métodos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
Diversity and inclusion in breast imaging can improve creativity and innovation, enrich the workplace environment, and enhance culturally appropriate care for an increasingly diverse patient population. Current estimates predict the racial and ethnic demographics of the United States population will change markedly by the year 2060, with increases in representation of the Black demographic projected to comprise 15% of the population (currently 13.3%) and the Hispanic/Latinx demographic projected to comprise 27.5% of the population (currently 17.8%). However, matriculation rates for those who are underrepresented in medicine (URM), defined as "racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population," have remained largely stagnant. Black students comprise only 7.1% of medical student matriculants, and Hispanic/Latinx students comprise only 6.2% of medical school matriculants compared to the general population. The matriculation rate of URM students into diagnostic radiology is even lower, with Black trainees comprising 3.1% of radiology residents and Hispanic/Latinx trainees comprising 4.8% of radiology residents. This lack of URM radiology resident representation leads to a lack of URM potential applicants to breast imaging fellowships due to the pipeline effect. Strategies to improve diversity and inclusion in breast imaging include recruiting a diverse breast imaging workforce, establishing robust mentorship and sponsorship programs, fostering an inclusive training and workplace environment, and retaining and promoting a diverse workforce.
RESUMO
As the population of the United States becomes increasingly diverse, radiologists must learn to both understand and mitigate the impact of health disparities. Significant health disparities persist in radiologic care, including breast imaging. Racial and ethnic minorities, women from lower socioeconomic status, those living in rural areas, and the uninsured bear a disproportionate burden of breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is no centralized radiology curriculum focusing on breast health disparities available to residents, breast imaging fellows, or practicing breast radiologists. While patient-, provider-, and system-level initiatives are necessary to overcome disparities, our purpose is to describe educational strategies targeted to breast imaging radiologists at all levels to provide equitable care to a diverse population. These strategies may include, but are not limited to, diversifying the breast imaging workforce, understanding the needs of a diverse population, cultural sensitivity and bias training, and fostering awareness of the existing issues in screening mammography access, follow-up imaging, and clinical care.
RESUMO
Selection of a localization method for nonpalpable breast lesions offers an opportunity for institutions to seek multidisciplinary input to promote value-based, patient-centered care. The diverse range of nonpalpable breast and axillary pathologies identified through increased utilization of screening mammography often necessitates image-guided preoperative localization for accurate lesion identification and excision. Preoperative localization techniques for breast and axillary lesions have evolved to include both wire and nonwire methods, the latter of which include radioactive seeds, radar reflectors, magnetic seeds, and radiofrequency identification tag localizers. There are no statistically significant differences in surgical outcomes when comparing wire and nonwire localization devices. Factors to consider during selection and adoption of image-guided localization systems include physician preference and ease of use, workflow efficiency, and patient satisfaction.