Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

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.

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.

Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

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.

Infectious and clinical tuberculosis trajectories: Bayesian modeling with case finding implications.

The importance of finding people with undiagnosed tuberculosis (TB) hinges on their future disease trajectories. Assays for systematic screening should be optimized to find those whose TB will contribute most to future transmission or morbidity. In this study, we constructed a mathematical model that tracks the future trajectories of individuals with TB at a cross-sectional timepoint ("baseline"), classifying them by bacterial burden (smear positive/negative) and symptom status (symptomatic/subclinical). We used Bayesian methods to calibrate this model to targets derived from historical survival data and notification, mortality, and prevalence data from five countries. We combined resulting disease trajectories with evidence on infectiousness to estimate each baseline TB state's contribution to future transmission. For a person with smear-negative subclinical TB at baseline, the expected future duration of disease was short (mean 4.8 [95% uncertainty interval 3.3 to 8.4] mo); nearly all disease courses ended in spontaneous resolution, not treatment. In contrast, people with baseline smear-positive subclinical TB had longer undiagnosed disease durations (15.9 [11.1 to 23.5] mo); nearly all eventually developed symptoms and ended in treatment or death. Despite accounting for only 11 to 19% of prevalent disease, smear-positive subclinical TB accounted for 35 to 51% of future transmission-a greater contribution than symptomatic or smear-negative TB. Subclinical TB with a high bacterial burden accounts for a disproportionate share of future transmission. Priority should be given to developing inexpensive, easy-to-use assays for screening both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals at scale-akin to rapid antigen tests for other diseases-even if these assays lack the sensitivity to detect paucibacillary disease.

Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Screening According to N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized LOOP Study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) to be a strong predictor of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. However, its utility in AF screening remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate NT-proBNP as a potential marker for screening efficacy with respect to AF yield and stroke prevention. METHODS: In the LOOP Study (Atrial Fibrillation Detected by Continuous ECG Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorder to Prevent Stroke in High-Risk Individuals), 6004 AF-naïve individuals at least 70 years old and with additional stroke risk factors were randomized 1:3 to either screening with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) and initiation of anticoagulation upon detection of AF episodes lasting ≥6 minutes or usual care (control). This post hoc analysis included study participants with available NT-proBNP measurement at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 5819 participants (96.9% of the trial population) were included. The mean age was 74.7 years (SD, 4.1 years) and 47.5% were female. The median NT-proBNP level was 15 pmol/L (interquartile range, 9-28 pmol/L) corresponding to 125 pg/mL (interquartile range, 76-233 pg/mL). NT-proBNP above median was associated with an increased risk of AF diagnosis both in the ILR group (hazard ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.51-2.25]) and the control group (hazard ratio, 2.79 [95% CI, 2.30-3.40]). Participants with NT-proBNP above the median were also at higher risk of clinical events compared with those having lower levels (hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54] for stroke or systemic embolism [SE], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.32-1.95] for stroke/SE/cardiovascular death, and 1.91 [95% CI, 1.61-2.26] for all-cause death). Compared with usual care, ILR screening was associated with significant reductions in stroke/SE and stroke/SE/cardiovascular death among participants with NT-proBNP above median (hazard ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.90] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.94], respectively) but not among those with lower levels (Pinteraction=0.029 for stroke/SE and 0.045 for stroke/SE/cardiovascular death). No risk reduction in all-cause death was observed in either NT-proBNP subgroup for ILR versus control (Pinteraction=0.68). Analyzing NT-proBNP as a continuous variable yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: In an older population with additional stroke risk factors, ILR screening for AF was associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk among individuals with higher NT-proBNP levels but not among those with lower levels. These findings should be considered hypothesis generating and warrant further study before clinical implementation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02036450.

Serial Mass Screening for Tuberculosis Among Incarcerated Persons in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: An active search for tuberculosis cases through mass screening is widely described as a tool to improve case detection in hyperendemic settings. However, its effectiveness in high-risk populations, such as incarcerated people, is debated. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 3 rounds of mass screening were carried out in 3 Brazilian prisons. Social and health questionnaires, chest X-rays, and Xpert MTB/RIF were performed. RESULTS: More than 80% of the prison population was screened. Overall, 684 cases of pulmonary tuberculosis were diagnosed. Prevalence across screening rounds was not statistically different. Among incarcerated persons with symptoms, the overall prevalence of tuberculosis per 100 000 persons was 8497 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7346-9811), 11 115 (95% CI, 9471-13 082), and 7957 (95% CI, 6380-9882) in screening rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Similar to our overall results, there were no statistical differences between screening rounds and within individual prisons. We found no statistical differences in Computer-Aided Detection for TB version 5 scores across screening rounds among people with tuberculosis-the median scores in rounds 1, 2, and 3 were 82 (interquartile range [IQR], 63-97), 77 (IQR, 60-94), and 81 (IQR, 67-92), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this environment with hyperendemic rates of tuberculosis, 3 rounds of mass screening did not reduce the overall tuberculosis burden. In prisons, where a substantial number of tuberculosis cases is undiagnosed annually, a range of complementary interventions and more frequent tuberculosis cases screening may be required.

Congenital Syphilis Prevention Challenges, Pacific Coast of Colombia, 2018-2022.

High incidences of congenital syphilis have been reported in areas along the Pacific coast of Colombia. In this retrospective study, conducted during 2018-2022 at a public hospital in Buenaventura, Colombia, we analyzed data from 3,378 pregnant women. The opportunity to prevent congenital syphilis was missed in 53.1% of mothers because of the lack of syphilis screening. Characteristics of higher maternal social vulnerability and late access to prenatal care decreased the probability of having >1 syphilis screening test, thereby increasing the probability of having newborns with congenital syphilis. In addition, the opportunity to prevent congenital syphilis was missed in 41.5% of patients with syphilis because of the lack of treatment, which also increased the probability of having newborns with congenital syphilis. We demonstrate the urgent need to improve screening and treatment capabilities for maternal syphilis, particularly among pregnant women who are more socially vulnerable.

Health utility values of breast cancer treatments and the impact of varying quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness.

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tools that can automatically predict incident esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using electronic health records to guide screening decisions are needed. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse was accessed to identify Veterans with 1 or more encounters between 2005 and 2018. Patients diagnosed with EAC (n = 8430) or GCA (n = 2965) were identified in the VHA Central Cancer Registry and compared with 10,256,887 controls. Predictors included demographic characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory results, and diagnoses between 1 and 5 years before the index date. The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma predictioN (K-ECAN) tool was developed and internally validated using simple random sampling imputation and extreme gradient boosting, a machine learning method. Training was performed in 50% of the data, preliminary validation in 25% of the data, and final testing in 25% of the data. RESULTS: K-ECAN was well-calibrated and had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.77) than previously validated models, such as the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (AuROC, 0.68) and Kunzmann model (AuROC, 0.64), or published guidelines. Using only data from between 3 and 5 years before index diminished its accuracy slightly (AuROC, 0.75). Undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population, AUCs of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and Kunzmann model improved, but K-ECAN was still the most accurate (AuROC, 0.85). Although gastroesophageal reflux disease was strongly associated with EAC, it contributed only a small proportion of gain in information for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: K-ECAN is a novel, internally validated tool predicting incident EAC and GCA using electronic health records data. Further work is needed to validate K-ECAN outside VHA and to assess how best to implement it within electronic health records.

Comparisons of assessment pathways after abnormal mammography screening in Denmark, Norway, and Spain.

PURPOSE: To ensure high-quality screening programmes and effective utilization of resources, it is important to monitor how cancer detection is affected by different strategies performed at recall assessment. This study aimed to describe procedures performed at recall assessment and compare and evaluate the performance of the assessment in Denmark, Norway, and Spain in terms of screen-detected cancer (SDC) and interval cancer (IC) rates. METHODS: We included women aged 50-69 years from Denmark, Norway, and Spain, who were recalled for assessment after screening mammography, and recorded all procedures performed during six months after diagnosis, and the timing of the procedures. Women were followed for two years and screen-detected and interval cancer, and sensitivity of recall was calculated and compared. RESULTS: In total, data from 24,645 Danish, 30,050 Norwegian, and 41,809 Spanish women were included in the study. Most of the women had some assessment within 2 months in all three countries. SDC rates were higher in Denmark (0.57) and Norway (0.60) compared to Spain (0.38), as were the IC rates, i.e. 0.25 and 0.18 vs. 0.12, respectively. The sensitivity of the diagnostic follow-up was somewhat higher in Denmark (98.3%) and Norway (98.2%), compared to Spain (95.4%), but when excluding non-invasive assessment pathways, the sensitivities were comparable. CONCLUSION: This comparison study showed variation in the assessment procedures used in the three countries as well as the SDC and IC rates and the sensitivity of recall.

How do AI markings on screening mammograms correspond to cancer location? An informed review of 270 breast cancer cases in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the location of AI markings on screening mammograms with cancer location on diagnostic mammograms, and to classify interval cancers with high AI score as false negative, minimal sign, or true negative. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 2022, we compared the performance of an AI system with independent double reading according to cancer detection. We found 93% (880/949) of the screen-detected cancers, and 40% (122/305) of the interval cancers to have the highest AI risk score (AI score of 10). In this study, four breast radiologists reviewed mammograms from 126 randomly selected screen-detected cancers and all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10. The location of the AI marking was stated as correct/not correct in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique view. Interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were classified as false negative, minimal sign significant/non-specific, or true negative. RESULTS: All screen-detected cancers and 78% (93/120) of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were correctly located by the AI system. The AI markings matched in both views for 79% (100/126) of the screen-detected cancers and 22% (26/120) of the interval cancers. For interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 11% (13/120) were correctly located and classified as false negative, 10% (12/120) as minimal sign significant, 26% (31/120) as minimal sign non-specific, and 31% (37/120) as true negative. CONCLUSION: AI markings corresponded to cancer location for all screen-detected cancers and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI score, indicating a potential for reducing the number of interval cancers. However, it is uncertain whether interval cancers with subtle findings in only one view are actionable for recall in a true screening setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this study, AI markings corresponded to the location of the cancer in a high percentage of cases, indicating that the AI system accurately identifies the cancer location in mammograms with a high AI score. KEY POINTS: • All screen-detected and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI risk score (AI score of 10) had AI markings in one or two views corresponding to the location of the cancer on diagnostic images. • Among all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 21% (25/120) were classified as a false negative or minimal sign significant and had AI markings matching the cancer location, suggesting they may be visible on prior screening. • Most of the correctly located interval cancers matched only in one view, and the majority were classified as either true negative or minimal sign non-specific, indicating low potential for being detected earlier in a real screening setting.

Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone.

PURPOSE: This work aims to compare the interval cancer rate and interval cancer characteristics between women screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) + digital mammography (DM) and those screened with DM alone. METHODS: The interval cancer rate and interval cancer characteristics of the study population included in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST) were compared to a contemporary control population screened with DM. The tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were also compared. Contingency tables were used to compare interval cancer rates. The chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the qualitative characteristics of the cancers whereas Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyse quantitative features. RESULTS: A total of 16,068 screening exams with DBT + DM were conducted within the CBTST (mean age 57.59 ± 5.9 [SD]) between January 2015 and December 2016 (study population). In parallel, 23,787 women (mean age 58.89 ± 5.9 standard deviation [SD]) were screened with DM (control population). The interval cancer rate was lower in the study population than in the control population (15 [0.93‰; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73, 1.14] vs 43 [1.8‰; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.04] respectively; p = 0.045). The difference in rate was more marked in women with dense breasts (0.95‰ in the study population vs 3.17‰ in the control population; p = 0.031). Interval cancers were smaller in the study population than in the control population (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The interval cancer rate was lower in women screened with DBT + DM compared to those screened with DM alone. These differences were more pronounced in women with dense breasts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Women screened using tomosynthesis and digital mammography had a lower rate of interval cancer than women screened with digital mammography, with the greatest difference in the interval cancer rate observed in women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The interval cancer rate was lower in the study population (digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT] + digital mammography [DM]) than in the control population (DM). • The difference in interval cancer rates was more pronounced in women with dense breasts. • Interval cancers were smaller in the study population (DBT + DM) than in the control population (DM).

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.

Economic Evaluations of Screening Programs for Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to appraise and assimilate evidence from studies that have reported on the cost-effectiveness of screening programs for chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: The study protocol was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The final search was conducted on 18 January 2023 using 7 databases. Screening of articles, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The ISPOR-AMCP-NPC checklist was used to assess the credibility of the included studies. RESULTS: From 4948 retrieved studies, a final total of 20 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies found that screening in diabetic populations was cost-effective (n = 8, 57%) or even cost-saving (n = 6, 43%). Four studies (67%) found that screening in hypertensive populations was also cost-effective. For the general population, findings were inconsistent across studies in which many found screening to be cost-effective (n = 11, 69%), some cost-saving (n = 2, 12%), and others not cost-effective (n = 3, 19%). The most influential parameters identified were prevalence of CKD and cost of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for CKD in patients with diabetes or hypertension is recommended from a cost-effectiveness point of view. For the general population, despite some inconsistent findings, the majority of studies demonstrated that screening in this population is cost-effective, depending mainly on the prevalence and the costs of screening. Healthcare decision makers need to consider the prevalence, stratification strategies, and advocate for lower screening costs to reduce the burden on healthcare budgets and to make screening even more favorable from the health-economic perspective.

A mathematical simulation model to determine the optimal endoscopic screening strategy for detection of H. pylori-naïve gastric neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening in cohorts with low Helicobacter pylori prevalence is unknown. This study aimed to develop an optimally efficient EGD screening strategy for detecting H. pylori-naïve gastric neoplasms (HpNGNs). METHODS: EGD data of 12 institutions from 2016 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Age-related HpNGN prevalence, tumor growth rate, missing rate, and detection threshold size were calculated from the databases. Subsequently, using clinical data, a novel mathematical model that simultaneously simulated demographic changes and HpNGN detection was developed. Screening strategies using different starting ages (40/45/50 years) and intervals (2/5/10 years) were also compared. The detection rates of all tumors occurring within the virtual cohort and number-needed-to-test (NNT) were measured as outcomes. RESULTS: Data of 519,368 EGDs and 97 HpNGNs (34 pure signet ring cell carcinomas, 26 gastric adenocarcinomas of the fundic gland type, 30 foveolar gastric adenoma-Raspberry type, and seven undifferentiated-type cancer cases) were analyzed. A virtual cohort with a 70-year time horizon was used to simulate the occurrence, growth, and detection of 346,5836 people. Among the strategies with detection rate > 50%, the screening strategy with a 5-year interval starting at 45 years of age had the lowest NNT. Adopting this strategy, most HpNGNs were detected at < 20 mm in size, and the deep submucosal invasion rate was less than 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A mathematical simulation model revealed that screening every 5 years starting at 45 years of age could efficiently assist in identifying HpNGNs at an early stage.

"We're the very bottom, so it's going to be hard for you to 'catch any fish' around here " understanding vulnerable Greenlanders' perspectives on cancer and barriers to screening in Denmark- A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major global health concern. Unfortunately, Indigenous populations such as Greenlanders living in Denmark, face significant disparities in cancer risk, incidence, diagnosis, care quality, and outcomes. In Denmark, vulnerable Greenlanders face challenges accessing cancer screening. The aim of this study was to explore their perceptions of cancer, barriers to participation in cancer screening, and potential for developing a tailored intervention. METHODS: This qualitative study was based on participant observations and qualitative interviews. The sample comprised 46 participants from four distinct drop-in centres. Of these, 28 were vulnerable Greenlanders (19 women and 9 men), 9 were staff members (6 women and 3 men), and 6 were relatives (4 women and 2 men). The data were analysed through inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Vulnerable Greenlanders in Denmark believed they were responsible for their own health and were generally satisfied with the healthcare system. However, they found it challenging to manage their own health and many depended on support from others. Fear of cancer and death shaped their attitudes towards screening. CONCLUSION: For vulnerable Greenlanders in Denmark participation in cancer screening programmes was positively viewed for most but could be challenging. Different intervention ideas raised by the vulnerable Greenlanders, relatives and staff members could guide the development of strategies to increase participation rates.