Skin Cancer Screening: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Skin cancer is the most common cancer type and is a major cause of morbidity. Objective: To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from June 1, 2015, through January 7, 2022; surveillance through December 16, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations 15 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant data from fair- or good-quality studies; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Morbidity; mortality; skin cancer stage, precursor lesions, or lesion thickness at detection; harms of screening. Results: Twenty studies in 29 articles were included (N = 6 053 411). Direct evidence on screening effectiveness was from 3 nonrandomized analyses of 2 population-based skin cancer screening programs in Germany (n = 1 791 615) and suggested no melanoma mortality benefit at the population level over 4 to 10 years' follow-up. Six studies (n = 2 935 513) provided inconsistent evidence on the association between clinician skin examination and lesion thickness or stage at diagnosis. Compared with usual care, routine clinician skin examination was not associated with increased detection of skin cancer or precursor lesions (5 studies) or stage at melanoma detection (3 studies). Evidence on the association between clinician skin examination and lesion thickness at detection was inconsistent (3 studies). Nine studies (n = 1 326 051) found a consistent positive association between more advanced stage at melanoma detection and increasing risk of melanoma-associated and all-cause mortality. Two studies (n = 232) found little to no persistent cosmetic or psychosocial harms associated with screening. Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial nonrandomized evidence base suggests a clear association between earlier stage at skin cancer detection and decreased mortality risk. However, nonrandomized studies suggest little to no melanoma mortality benefit associated with skin cancer screening with visual skin examination in adolescents or adults and no association between routine clinician skin examination and earlier stage at melanoma detection. Evidence is inconsistent regarding whether clinician skin examination is associated with thinner melanoma lesions at detection.

Feasibility of using an app-based coaching intervention to improve provider communication about HPV vaccination.

Provider communication training is effective for increasing HPV vaccination rates among U.S. adolescents. However, such trainings often rely on in-person meetings, which can be burdensome for providers and costly to implement. To evaluate the feasibility of Checkup Coach, an app-based coaching intervention, to improve provider communication about HPV vaccination. In 2021, we offered Checkup Coach to providers in 7 primary care clinics in a large integrated delivery system. Participating providers (n = 19) attended a 1-h interactive virtual workshop that taught 5 high-quality practices for recommending HPV vaccination. Providers then had 3 months of access to our mobile app, which offered ongoing communication assessments, tailored tips for addressing parents' concerns, and a dashboard of their clinic's HPV vaccination coverage. Online surveys assessed pre-/post-intervention changes in providers' perceptions and communication behaviors. Compared to baseline, more providers reported high-quality HPV vaccine recommendation practices at 3-month follow-up (47% vs. 74%, p < .05). Providers' knowledge, self-efficacy, and shared commitment to improving HPV vaccination also improved (all p < .05). Although we found improvements in several other cognitions after the workshop, these changes did not retain statistical significance at 3 months. About three-quarters (78%) of providers used the mobile app, logging 2.3 sessions on average. Most providers agreed the app was easy to use (mean = 4.7/5.0), a convenient way to get vaccination data (mean = 4.6/5.0), and a tool they would recommend (mean = 4.3/5.0). Our app-based coaching intervention demonstrated feasibility and warrants additional evaluation as a novel mode for training providers to improve their HPV vaccine communication.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of Checkup Coach, an app-based coaching intervention to improve provider communication about HPV vaccination, by offering the app to providers in 7 primary care clinics in a large integrated delivery system. Participating providers attended a 1-h interactive virtual workshop that taught high-quality HPV vaccine recommendation practices. For the following 3 months, providers used the app for ongoing communication assessments, tailored tips for addressing parents' concerns, and a dashboard of their clinic's HPV vaccination rates. Online surveys assessed pre- and post-intervention changes in providers' perceptions and communication practices. The percentage of providers reporting high-quality HPV vaccine recommendation practices increased from baseline to follow-up. Providers also reported higher HPV vaccine-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and shared commitment at 3 months. Providers agreed that the app was easy to use, a convenient way to get vaccination data, and a tool they would recommend. Our app-based coaching intervention demonstrated feasibility and warrants additional evaluation as a novel mode for training providers to improve their HPV vaccine communication.

Feasibility, acceptability, and limited efficacy of health system-led familial risk notification: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk can improve cancer outcomes through enhanced preventive care in both people with known variants and their biologic relatives. Cascade screening-the process of case-finding in relatives by notifying and inviting them to consider testing-currently relies on the patient to notify their own at-risk relatives. However, many of these relatives never learn they might be at risk. We developed and implemented a new health system-led familial genetic risk notification process where the care team offers to contact at-risk relatives directly. This protocol describes a study to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and limited efficacy of this intervention. METHODS: This feasibility study will use a single-arm, nonrandomized, mixed-methods prospective design. We will enroll two groups of participants: probands and relatives of probands. Eligible probands are currently enrolled Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) members with an upcoming appointment for pre-test genetic counseling for hereditary Lynch syndrome, breast, or ovarian cancer. Eligible relatives, who do not have to be KPWA members, are first-and second-degree relatives of probands. During the appointment with the proband, the genetic counselor will determine whether the proband is appropriate for genetic testing and if so, which relatives might benefit from cascade testing. The genetic counselor then will offer to contact any or all identified relatives directly to discuss genetic risk and testing. The primary outcome of this study is the feasibility of the implemented familial notification process, which we will measure using quantitative and qualitative data on intervention reach, intervention acceptability, and limited efficacy. Analyses will be primarily descriptive and exploratory, with the intent of preparing for a future, larger trial of direct contact interventions. DISCUSSION: Our findings will provide new, foundational evidence for the creation of US-based familial notification systems that directly address logistical and ethical challenges while prioritizing the preferences of patients and families.

Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Series Completion among Insured Individuals in an Integrated Healthcare Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Infection with certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) can lead to cervical cancer as well as other cancers in both men and women. However, the requirement for multiple doses may limit the vaccine's effectiveness for cancer prevention. We conducted a pilot study to investigate barriers to HPV vaccine series completion among members of an integrated healthcare system with clinical documentation of only 1 dose. METHODS: We surveyed parents or legal guardians of 11-17-year-old girls (n = 10) and boys (n = 18), as well as 18-31-year-old women (n = 20) and men (n = 9), about their reasons for not completing the HPV vaccine series. RESULTS: Most participants (70.2%) were non-Hispanic white. Among parents of children, commonly reported barriers to HPV vaccine series completion included not being aware or informed of the need for additional doses (28.6%), as well as the inconvenience of returning for additional doses (17.9%). Concerns about the HPV vaccine or vaccines in general were more common among parents of girls (30.0%) compared with parents of boys (16.7%). Among adults, barriers to HPV vaccine series completion included the inconvenience of returning for additional doses (31.0%), not being aware or informed of the need for additional doses (10.3%), and forgetting (10.3%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that clinicians and healthcare systems can play a greater role in promoting awareness of the multiple-dose requirement, addressing vaccine concerns, and increasing opportunistic vaccination in a variety of settings. Increasing these efforts may facilitate HPV vaccine completion and increase its effectiveness in cancer prevention.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021. Study Selection: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events. Results: The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm. Conclusions and Relevance: There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Social Risk Screening Tools: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Health systems increasingly are exploring implementation of standardized social risk assessments. Implementation requires screening tools both with evidence of validity and reliability (psychometric properties) and that are low cost, easy to administer, readable, and brief (pragmatic properties). These properties for social risk assessment tools are not well understood and could help guide selection of assessment tools and future research. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was conducted during 2018 and included literature from PubMed and CINAHL published between 2000 and May 18, 2018. Included studies were based in the U.S., included tools that addressed at least 2 social risk factors (economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, neighborhood and physical environment, or food), and were administered in a clinical setting. Manual literature searching was used to identify empirical uses of included screening tools. Data on psychometric and pragmatic properties of each tool were abstracted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Review of 6,838 unique citations yielded 21 unique screening tools and 60 articles demonstrating empirical uses of the included screening tools. Data on psychometric properties were sparse, and few tools reported use of gold standard measurement development methods. Review of pragmatic properties indicated that tools were generally low cost, written for low-literacy populations, and easy to administer. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple low-cost, low literacy tools are available for social risk screening in clinical settings, but psychometric data are very limited. More research is needed on clinic-based screening tool reliability and validity as these factors should influence both adoption and utility. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the third most common cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, from January 2002 through April 27, 2018; surveillance through March 22, 2019. Study Selection: Studies of adults with or without risk factors for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (eg, family history of pancreatic cancer, personal history of new-onset diabetes) undergoing imaging-based screening; studies of treatment for adults with screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Included study designs were randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized controlled intervention studies, diagnostic accuracy studies with a reference standard, cohort studies, and case-control studies (for evaluation of harms only). Studies consisting entirely of populations with known genetic syndromes associated with pancreatic cancer were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and rated included studies for quality; data were quantitatively analyzed to calculate a pooled diagnostic yield and narratively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, or quality of life; diagnostic accuracy of screening tests; any harm of screening or treatment. Results: Thirteen fair-quality prospective cohort screening studies (N = 1317) conducted predominantly in populations at high familial risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. No studies reported on the effect of screening on morbidity or mortality or on the effectiveness of treatment for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Although no studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests, all 13 studies reported the diagnostic yield. Yields ranged from 0 to 75 cases per 1000 persons in studies using endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography-based screening. In total, 18 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were detected in 1156 adults at increased familial risk and 0 cases were detected in 161 average-risk adults. In 8 studies (n = 675) assessing procedural harms of screening, no serious harms from initial screening were reported. Two studies (n = 271) found no evidence of psychosocial harms related to screening. Evidence of surgical harms was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: Imaging-based screening in groups at high familial risk can detect pancreatic adenocarcinoma with limited evidence of minimal harms. However, the effect of screening on morbidity and mortality in groups at high familial risk has not been studied, and no data are available in average-risk populations. There is limited evidence to assess benefits or harms of surgical intervention for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Factors associated with future dental care utilization among low-income smokers overdue for dental visits.

BACKGROUND: Smokers are at increased risk of oral disease. While routine dental care can help prevent and treat oral health problems, smokers have far lower rates of dental care utilization compared with non-smokers. We sought to better understand which factors may facilitate or hinder dental care utilization among low-income smokers participating in a randomized intervention trial in order to inform future intervention planning. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected between 2015 and 2017 as part of the OralHealth4Life trial. Participants were eligible callers to the Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oregon state tobacco quitlines who had no dental appointment in the prior or upcoming six months. We examined the association between participants' baseline characteristics and their receiving professional dental care between baseline and the 6-month follow-up survey. RESULTS: Participants were racially diverse (42% non-White) and two-thirds had an annual household income under $20,000. Most (86.7%) had not had a dental cleaning in more than one year. Commonly cited barriers to dental care included cost (83.7%) and no dental insurance (78.1%). Those with dental insurance were more likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 1.66). Similarly, those reporting a dental insurance barrier to care were less likely to see a dentist at follow-up (RR 0.69); however, there was no significant utilization difference between those reporting a cost barrier vs. those who did not. After controlling for these financial factors, the following baseline characteristics were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of dental care utilization at 6 months: higher motivation (RR 2.16) and self-efficacy (RR 1.80) to visit the dentist, having a disability (RR 1.63), having a higher education level (RR 1.52), and having perceived gum disease (RR 1.49). Factors significantly associated with a lower likelihood of dental care utilization included being married (RR 0.68) and not having a last dental cleaning within the past year (RR 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide important insight into factors that may facilitate or deter use of professional dental care among low-income smokers. This information could inform the development of future interventions to promote dental care utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02347124 ; registered 27 January 2015.

Behavioral Counseling for Skin Cancer Prevention: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Exposure to UV radiation, especially in childhood, increases skin cancer risk. Objective: To systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling for skin cancer prevention to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched for studies published from January 2009 to March 31, 2016, for skin cancer prevention and from August 2005 to March 31, 2016, for skin self-examination. Surveillance in targeted publications was conducted through February 14, 2018. Studies included in previous USPSTF reports were reevaluated for inclusion. Study Selection: Fair- and good-quality studies of primary care-relevant behavioral interventions focused on improving skin cancer outcomes, intermediate outcomes, or skin cancer prevention and self-examination behaviors. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data into evidence tables. Results were qualitatively summarized but not pooled because of heterogeneity of measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Skin cancer, sunburn, precursor skin lesions, sun protection behaviors, and any harms from interventions. Results: Twenty-one trials in 27 publications were included (N = 20 561). No studies assessed skin cancer outcomes in pediatric populations; 1 adult trial (n = 1356) promoting skin self-examination found no significant difference in participants diagnosed with melanoma in the intervention group vs the control group at 12-month follow-up (0 vs 1 diagnosis). There was no consistent improvement in prevention of sunburn for children (3 trials [n = 2508]) or adults (6 trials [n = 3959]). There were small to moderate increases in sun protection behavior in pediatric populations (6 trials [n = 4252]) and adults (12 trials [n = 13 099]) and small increases in skin self-examination in adults (11 trials [n = 7771]; odds ratios, 1.16-2.6). One of 3 trials of indoor tanning found an intervention effect; an appearance-focused intervention (n = 430) resulted in a smaller increase in mean indoor tanning sessions at 6 months in the intervention group vs the control group. Harms were rarely reported: 1 trial of skin self-examination (n = 1356) found an increase in skin procedures in the intervention group vs the control group at 6 months (8.0% vs 3.6%, P < .001) but not between 6 and 12 months (3.9% vs 3.3%, P = .50), and 1 trial (n = 217) found no between-group difference in skin cancer worry (28.9% vs 18.4%, P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Behavioral interventions can increase sun protection behavior, but there is no consistent evidence that interventions are associated with a reduction in the frequency of sunburn in children or adults and minimal evidence on skin cancer outcomes. Intervention can increase skin self-examination in adults but may lead to increased skin procedures without detecting additional atypical nevi or skin cancers.

Screening for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), a spinal curvature of 10° or more, is the most common form of scoliosis, with a prevalence of 1% to 3%. Curves progress in approximately two-thirds of patients with AIS before skeletal maturity, and large curves (>50°) may be associated with adverse health outcomes. Objective: To systematically review evidence on benefits and harms of AIS screening for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, and relevant systematic reviews were searched for studies published from January 1966 to October 20, 2016; studies included in a previous USPSTF report were also reviewed. Surveillance was conducted through July 24, 2017. Study Selection: Fair- and good-quality studies that evaluated the accuracy of screening children and adolescents aged 10 to 18 years for AIS, the benefits of AIS treatment, the harms of AIS screening or treatment, or long-term health outcomes. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data into evidence tables. Results were qualitatively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes and spinal curvature in adolescence and adulthood, accuracy of screening for AIS, any harm of AIS screening or treatment. Results: Fourteen studies (N = 448 276) in 26 articles were included. Accuracy of AIS screening was highest (93.8% sensitivity; 99.2% specificity) in a cohort study of a clinic-based program using forward bend test, scoliometer, and Moiré topography screening (n = 306 082); accuracy was lower in cohort studies of 6 programs using fewer modalities (n = 141 161). Four controlled studies (n = 587) found evidence for benefit of bracing on curve progression compared with controls. A randomized clinical trial and a nonrandomized trial of exercise treatment (N = 184) found favorable reductions in Cobb angle of 0.67° to 4.9° in the intervention group compared with increases of 1.38° to 2.8° in the control group. Two cohort studies (n = 339) on long-term outcomes found that braced participants reported more negative treatment experience and body appearance compared with surgically treated or untreated participants. A study that combined a randomized clinical trial and cohort design (n = 242) reported harms of bracing, which included skin problems on the trunk and nonback body pains. There was no evidence on the effect of AIS screening on adult health outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening can detect AIS. Bracing and possibly exercise treatment can interrupt or slow progression of curvature in adolescence. However, there is little or no evidence on long-term outcomes for AIS treated in adolescence, the association between curvature at skeletal maturity and adult health outcomes, the harms of AIS screening or treatment, or the effect of AIS screening on adult health outcomes.

Oral health 4 life: Design and methods of a semi-pragmatic randomized trial to promote oral health care and smoking abstinence among tobacco quitline callers.

Smokers are at high risk for oral disease. As a result, they represent an important target group for population-level, public oral health promotion efforts. While dental health professionals often address smoking with their patients, no systematic efforts have been made to offer smokers an intervention to improve their use of oral health care. This paper details the rationale, design, and methods of a large, semi-pragmatic, randomized clinical trial designed to address this gap. Participants are recruited via the Oregon, Nebraska and Louisiana state-sponsored tobacco quitlines and randomized to receive standard quitline care versus standard care plus a multi-modal oral health promotion program (Oral Health 4 Life) integrated within the quitline services. All participants are followed for 6months to assess the impact of the intervention on smoking abstinence and utilization of professional dental care. In addition, the study will assess the cost of the intervention and provide practical guidance to states on whether the intervention is financially feasible to implement, should the intervention be effective. This study protocol may be useful to others interested in promoting oral health among smokers, those interested in partnering with tobacco quitlines to extend standard services to address other high risk health behaviors among smokers, or those interested in semi-pragmatic trial design.

Taking action on overuse: Creating the culture for change.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary care contributes to high costs and places patients at risk of harm. While most providers support reducing low-value care, changing established practice patterns is difficult and requires active engagement in sustained behavioral, organizational, and cultural change. Here we describe an action-planning framework to engage providers in reducing overused services. METHODS: The framework is informed by a comprehensive review of social science theory and literature, published reports of successful and unsuccessful efforts to reduce low-value care, and interviews with innovators of value-based care initiatives in twenty-three health care organizations across the United States. A multi-stakeholder advisory committee provided feedback on the framework and guidance on optimizing it for use in practice. RESULTS: The framework describes four conditions necessary for change: prioritize addressing low-value care; build a culture of trust, innovation and improvement; establish shared language and purpose; and commit resources to measurements. These conditions foster productive sense-making conversations between providers, between providers and patients, and among members of the health care team about the potential for harm from overuse and reflection on current frequency of use. Through these conversations providers, patients and team members think together as a group, learn how to coordinate individual behaviors, and jointly develop possibilities for coordinated action around specific areas of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational efforts to engage providers in value-based care focused on creating conditions for productive sense-making conversations that lead to change. IMPLICATIONS: Organizations can use this framework to enhance and strengthen provider engagement efforts to do less of what potentially harms and more of what truly helps patients.

Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Multifactorial Dyslipidemia: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Multifactorial dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), is associated with dyslipidemia and markers of atherosclerosis in young adulthood. Screening for dyslipidemia in childhood could delay or reduce cardiovascular events in adulthood. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening adolescents and children for multifactorial dyslipidemia for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed were searched for studies published between January 1, 2005, and June 2, 2015; studies included in a previous USPSTF evidence report and reference lists of relevant studies and ongoing trials were also searched. Surveillance was conducted through April 9, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Fair- and good-quality studies in English with participants 0 to 20 years of age. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data into evidence tables. Results were qualitatively summarized. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included dyslipidemia (TC≥200 mg/dL or LDL-C≥130 mg/dL) and atherosclerosis in childhood; myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke in adulthood; diagnostic yield (number of confirmed cases per children screened); and harms of screening or treatment. Simulated diagnostic yield was calculated as initial screening yield × positive predictive value from a study with confirmatory testing. RESULTS: Screening of children for multifactorial dyslipidemia has not been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. Based on 1 observational study (n = 6500) and nationally representative prevalence estimates, the simulated diagnostic yield of screening for elevated TC varies between 4.8% and 12.3% (higher in obese children [12.3%] and at the ages when TC naturally peaks-7.2% at age 9-11 years and 7.2% at age 16-19 years). One good-quality randomized clinical trial (n = 663) found a modest effect of intensive dietary counseling for a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet on lipid levels at 1 year in children aged 8 to 10 years with mild to moderate dyslipidemia; mean between-group difference in TC change from baseline was -6.1 mg/dL (95% CI, -9.1 to -3.2 mg/dL; P < .001). Between-group differences dissipated by year 5. The intervention did not adversely affect nutritional status, growth, or development over the 18-year study period. One observational study (n = 9245) found that TC concentration at age 12 to 39 years was not associated with death before age 55 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The diagnostic yield of lipid screening varies by age and body mass index. No direct evidence was identified for benefits or harms of childhood screening or treatment on outcomes in adulthood. Intensive dietary interventions may be safe, with modest short-term benefit of uncertain clinical significance.

Lipid Screening in Childhood and Adolescence for Detection of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is characterized by elevated cholesterol concentrations early in life. Untreated FH is associated with premature cardiovascular disease in adulthood. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening adolescents and children for heterozygous FH for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed were searched for studies published between January 1, 2005, and June 2, 2015; studies included in a previous USPSTF report were also searched. Surveillance was conducted through April 8, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Fair- and good-quality studies in English with participants 0 to 20 years of age. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data into evidence tables. Results were qualitatively summarized. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke in adulthood; lipid concentrations and atherosclerosis in childhood; diagnostic yield of screening; any harm of screening or treatment. RESULTS: Based on 2 studies (n = 83,241), the diagnostic yield of universal screening for FH in childhood is 1.3 to 4.8 cases per 1000 screened. There was no eligible evidence on the benefits or harms of FH screening in childhood. Eight placebo trials of statin drugs (n = 1071, 6-104 weeks) found low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) decreases of 20% to 40%; 1 trial (n = 214) showed a 2.01% decrease in carotid intima-media thickness with statins, compared with 1.02% with placebo (P = .02). Three placebo trials of bile acid-sequestering agents (n = 332, 8-52 weeks) showed LDL-C reductions of 10% to 20%. In 1 trial (n = 248), ezetimibe with simvastatin resulted in greater LDL-C reductions compared with simvastatin alone at 33 weeks (mean, -54.0% [SD, 1.4%] vs -38.1% [SD, 1.4%]). One trial of ezetimibe monotherapy (n = 138) showed mean LDL-C decreases of 28% (95% CI, -31% to -25%) from baseline and negligible change with placebo at 12 weeks. Eighteen studies found statins generally well tolerated. One observational study found lower, but still normal, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate concentrations in statin-treated males with FH at 10-year follow-up. Bile acid-sequestering agents were commonly associated with adverse gastrointestinal symptoms and poor palatability. There was no eligible evidence on the effect of FH treatment on myocardial infarction or stroke in adulthood. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening can detect FH in children, and lipid-lowering treatment in childhood can reduce lipid concentrations in the short term, with little evidence of harm. There is no evidence for the effect of screening for FH in childhood on lipid concentrations or cardiovascular outcomes in adulthood, or on the long-term benefits or harms of beginning lipid-lowering treatment in childhood.

Screening for Skin Cancer in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Skin cancer, primarily melanoma, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force regarding clinical skin cancer screening among adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies published from January 1, 1995, through June 1, 2015, with surveillance through February 16, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations 15 years and older at general risk for skin cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Melanoma incidence and mortality, harms from cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy, and stage distribution. RESULTS: No randomized clinical trials were identified. There was limited evidence on the association between skin cancer screening and mortality. A German ecologic study (n = 360,288) found a decrease of 0.8 per 100,000 melanoma deaths in a region with population-based skin cancer screening compared with no change or slight increases in comparison regions. The number of excisions needed to detect 1 skin cancer from clinical visual skin examinations varied by age and sex; for example, 22 for women 65 years or older compared with 41 for women aged 20 to 34 years. In 2 studies of performing visual skin examination, sensitivity to detect melanoma was 40.2% and specificity was 86.1% when conducted by primary care physicians (n = 16,383). Sensitivity was 49.0% and specificity was 97.6% when skin examinations were performed by dermatologists (n = 7436). In a case-control study of melanoma (n = 7586), cases diagnosed with thicker lesions (>0.75 mm) had an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98) for receipt of a physician skin examination in the prior 3 years compared with controls. Eight cohort studies (n = 236,485) demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the degree of disease involvement at diagnosis and melanoma mortality, regardless of the characterization of the stage or lesion thickness. Tumor thickness greater than 4.0 mm was associated with increased melanoma mortality compared with thinner lesions, and late stage at diagnosis was associated with increased all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Only limited evidence was identified for skin cancer screening, particularly regarding potential benefit of skin cancer screening on melanoma mortality. Future research on skin cancer screening should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of targeted screening in those considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

HPV Vaccine Public Awareness Campaigns: An Environmental Scan.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates are significantly lower than recommended targets. Public awareness campaigns can raise awareness of the severity and prevalence of HPV infection and the cancer prevention benefits of the vaccine. We conducted an environmental scan of HPV vaccine public awareness campaigns during the summer of 2014. We used online search strategies and expert input to identify candidate campaigns. Multiple study investigators reviewed all data abstraction and analysis. After applying our inclusion criteria, we identified 14 campaigns with parents or teenagers as the target audience. We characterized campaign messages according to constructs of the Health Belief Model. Most messages focused on the cancer prevention benefits of HPV vaccine; few addressed psychological or practical barriers to getting or completing the vaccine. Four of 14 campaigns had pre- or postcampaign data readily available, only 2 used vaccine outcomes in their evaluations. We concluded there was a high prevalence of HPV vaccine public awareness campaigns but little available evidence on their impact on intermediate or vaccine outcomes.