Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.

The American Cancer Society 2035 challenge goal on cancer mortality reduction.

A summary evaluation of the 2015 American Cancer Society (ACS) challenge goal showed that overall US mortality from all cancers combined declined 26% over the period from 1990 to 2015. Recent research suggests that US cancer mortality can still be lowered considerably by applying known interventions broadly and equitably. The ACS Board of Directors, therefore, commissioned ACS researchers to determine challenge goals for reductions in cancer mortality by 2035. A statistical model was used to estimate the average annual percent decline in overall cancer death rates among the US general population and among college-educated Americans during the most recent period. Then, the average annual percent decline in the overall cancer death rates of college graduates was applied to the death rates in the general population to project future rates in the United States beginning in 2020. If overall cancer death rates from 2020 through 2035 nationally decline at the pace of those of college graduates, then death rates in 2035 in the United States will drop by 38.3% from the 2015 level and by 54.4% from the 1990 level. On the basis of these results, the ACS 2035 challenge goal was set as a 40% reduction from the 2015 level. Achieving this goal could lead to approximately 1.3 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred from 2020 through 2035 and 122,500 fewer cancer deaths in 2035 alone. The results also show that reducing the prevalence of risk factors and achieving optimal adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines by 2025 could lead to a 33.5% reduction in the overall cancer death rate by 2035, attaining 85% of the challenge goal.

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening's contribution to cancer control.

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease, when treatment can be more successful1. Despite the existence of screening programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives and false negatives2. Here we present an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. To assess its performance in the clinical setting, we curated a large representative dataset from the UK and a large enriched dataset from the USA. We show an absolute reduction of 5.7% and 1.2% (USA and UK) in false positives and 9.4% and 2.7% in false negatives. We provide evidence of the ability of the system to generalize from the UK to the USA. In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. We ran a simulation in which the AI system participated in the double-reading process that is used in the UK, and found that the AI system maintained non-inferior performance and reduced the workload of the second reader by 88%. This robust assessment of the AI system paves the way for clinical trials to improve the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Assessing the efficiency of eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomography lung screening in China according to current guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies indicates that lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines with high rates of lung cancer (LC) underdiagnosis, and although current screening guidelines have been updated and eligibility criteria for screening have been expanded, there are no studies comparing the efficiency of LCS guidelines in Chinese population. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2022, 31,394 asymptomatic individuals were screened using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) at our institution. Demographic data and relevant LC risk factors were collected. The efficiency of the LCS for each guideline criteria was expressed as the efficiency ratio (ER). The inclusion rates, eligibility rates, LC detection rates, and ER based on the different eligibility criteria of the four guidelines were comparatively analyzed. The four guidelines were as follows: China guideline for the screening and early detection of lung cancer (CGSL), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP). RESULTS: Of 31,394 participants, 298 (155 women, 143 men) were diagnosed with LC. For CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines, the eligibility rates for guidelines were 13.92%, 6.97%, 6.81%, and 53.46%; ERe for eligibility criteria were 1.46%, 1.64%, 1.51%, and 1.13%, respectively; and for the inclusion rates, they were 19.0%, 9.5%, 9.3%, and 73.0%, respectively. LCs which met the screening criteria of CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines were 29.2%, 16.4%, 14.8%, and 86.6%, respectively. The age and smoking criteria for CGSL were stricter, hence resulting in lower rates of LC meeting the screening criteria. The CGSL, NCCN, and USPSTF guidelines showed the highest underdiagnosis in the 45-49 age group (17.4%), while the I-ELCAP guideline displayed the highest missed diagnosis rate (3.0%) in the 35-39 age group. Males and females significantly differed in eligibility based on the criteria of the four guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The I-ELCAP guideline has the highest eligibility rate for both males and females. But its actual efficiency ratio for those deemed eligible by the guideline was the lowest. Whereas the NCCN guideline has the highest ERe value for those deemed eligible by the guideline.

Intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility evaluation toward international validation status of the AmpFire assay.

To meet the screening goal of WHO's 90-70-90 strategy aimed at eliminating cervical cancer (CC) by 2030, clinical validation of human papillomavirus (HPV) assays is essential to provide accurate and valid results through fulfilling three criteria of the international validation guidelines (IVGs). Previously, the clinical accuracy of the AmpFire® HPV Screening 16/18/HR assay (AmpFire assay) was reported but reproducibility data are lacking. Here, we aim to evaluate the intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the AmpFire assay. The reproducibility of the isothermal AmpFire assay was assessed using 556 cervical cell samples collected from women attending CC screening and biobanked in a Belgian HPV national reference center. This assay detects HPV16, HPV18, and 12 other high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types (31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) in aggregate. Lower 95% confidence interval bound around the assay's reproducibility should exceed 87%, with κ ≥ 0.50. Additionally, a literature review of the assay's clinical performance was performed. The AmpFire assay showed an excellent intralaboratory (96.4%, 95% CI:94.5-97.8%, κ = 0.920) and interlaboratory (95.3%, 95% CI:93.2-96.9%, κ = 0.897) reproducibility. One study demonstrated noninferior sensitivity of a prototype AmpFire assay targeting 15 hrHPV types (including HPV53) to detect CIN2+. However, clinical specificity became similar to the comparator after removing HPV53 from analyses. The low-cost and easy-to-use AmpFire assay presents excellent reproducibility and-after removing HPV53 from the targeted types-fulfills also clinical accuracy requirements. Inclusion of HPV53, which is not recognized as carcinogenic, comprises clinical specificity of screening assays.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities. APPROACH: We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations. KEY RESULTS: PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 1.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities as well as recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing sporadic CRC. They are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making regarding CRC screening for patients without defined genetic syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on select recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including a section on primary and secondary CRC prevention, and provide context for the panel's recommendations regarding the age at which to initiate screening in average-risk individuals and those with increased risk based on personal history of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the authors summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines, describe an update of their guideline for using human papillomavirus vaccination for cancer prevention, describe updates in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening, discuss interim findings from the UK Collaborative Trial on Ovarian Cancer Screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:100-121. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Reproducibility of colposcopy quality indicators-A survey among members of the European Federation for Colposcopy.

INTRODUCTION: Colposcopy is an important part of the diagnostic work-up of women with an abnormal cervical screening test as it is used to guide the collection of biopsies. Although quality assurance has been used in the evaluation of screening programs, not much is known about quality indicators for the diagnostics and treatment of screen-positive women. Therefore, the European Federation for Colposcopy developed quality indicators aiming to support colposcopy practice across Europe. We performed a survey of colposcopy cases to determine if the quality indicators are understandable, relevant, and reproducible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a survey among all members of the European Federation for Colposcopy Quality and Standards Group from November 2022 to March 2023. Members were asked to collect information on a total of 17 quality indicators for 50 women who had been newly referred for colposcopy due to an abnormal screening test between January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Results were reported descriptively. RESULTS: We included data on 609 cases from 12 members across Europe. The majority of the quality indicators were either achieved or within reach of the agreed standard, often due to few countries with outlying data. One quality indicator had very low performance, although stratified results indicated that two countries had different clinical management of the patient type thereby skewing the results. In addition, discrepancies between the number of cases included in each quality indicator raised concerns regarding potential misunderstanding of the quality indicator and its objective. CONCLUSIONS: Quality indicators on colposcopy must be understandable to those collecting data, highlighting the importance of validating quality indicators before data collection.

Quality assurance using quality indicators for prevention and early detection of cervical cancer in certified gynaecological dysplasia units and consultancies.

PURPOSE: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. A successful screening concept for cervical cancer reduces the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. Quality indicators (QIs) derived from the screening guidelines for cervical cancer and used by the certified dysplasia units and dysplasia consultancies are evaluated in this paper. The aim of this paper is to present the current data from the annual reports of these units and consultancies. METHODS: The results of the basic data and indicators for the audit year 2022 in the gynaecological dysplasia consultancies and units are presented. In 2022, 84 dysplasia consultancies and 42 units were audited. 40 units and 84 consultancies are included in the annual report. QI outcomes for patients treated in certified dysplasia units and dysplasia consultancies are analysed. Median, overall proportion, and standard deviation were calculated for each QI. RESULTS: The indicator year 2021 was analysed, which was audited in 2022 and evaluated in 2023. A total of nine QIs were analysed. Most target goals were met by the 84 certified dysplasia consultancies and by the 40 dysplasia units. The QIs evaluated are implemented to a very high degree. The targets for the three QIs were achieved by both the dysplasia consultancies and the units in at least 95% of the certified centres (QI 1: 100%, QI 2: 95%, QI 3: 100%; QI 1: 100%, QI 2: 97%, QI 3: 100%, respectively). The presentation of patients to the tumour board by the consultancies/units is working; the units are attending the tumour board more regularly than in previous years. Where the target was not met, the auditors issued deviations or reduced the duration of the certificate. The cases are discussed intensively in the sense of an individual case analysis and with the determination of measures on-site. CONCLUSIONS: The targets for the various indicators were largely met by the dysplasia consultancies and units in the 2022 audit year. The certification of gynaecological dysplasia consultancies/units which have to cooperate with certified gynaecological cancer centres, has for the first time ensured the continuity of healthcare from prevention and early diagnosis to treatment of gynaecological cancers.

Strategic analysis and recommendations of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) regarding population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: population-based screening programs are effective to reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality and incidence. However, given their complex development, sound organization and design do not warrant success. This study provides a strategic analysis of the Spanish programs, as well as recommendations in an attempt to contribute to their optimization. METHODS: a multidisciplinary panel of researchers, supported by the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), has performed a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, from which a proposal of recommendations was developed; their adequacy was judged using an adapted version of the RAND/UCLA method. RESULTS: 5 weaknesses, 3 threats, 5 strengths and 5 opportunities were identified, and a total of 15 recommendations were developed emphasizing aspects with room for improvement in program orientation, particularly the need to increase participation, fight variability and inequities, improve information processes and systems quality, ensure specific, adequate funding, and evaluate health results. CONCLUSION: promoting an operational collaboration framework between all the public health and care levels involved should facilitate effective communication with society regarding the benefits of taking part in population screening programs while persuading decision and policy makers of the critical importance of taking an active, determined stance regarding its implementation.

Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.

Preventable differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality across racial/ethnic, economic, geographic, and other groups can be eliminated by assuring equitable access and quality across the care continuum, but few interventions have been demonstrated to do so. Multicomponent strategies designed with a health equity framework may be effective. A health equity framework takes into account social determinants of health, multilevel influences (policy, community, delivery, and individual levels), screening processes, and community engagement. Effective strategies for increasing screening uptake include patient navigation and other interventions for structural barriers, reminders and clinical decision support, and data to continuously track metrics and guide targets for improvement. Community resource gaps should be addressed to assure high-quality services irrespective of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status. One model combinespopulation-based proactive outreach screening with screening delivery at in-person or virtual points of contact, as well as community engagement. Patient- and provider-based behavioral interventions may be considered for increasing screening demand and delivery. Providing a choice of screening tests is recommended for CRC screening, and access to colonoscopy is required for completion of the CRC screening process.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

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.

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.