Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. RESULTS: Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

The Ethics of Cancer Screening Based on Race and Ethnicity.

Racial and ethnic disparities in incidence and mortality are well documented for many types of cancer. As a result, there is understandable policy and clinical interest in race- and ethnicity-based clinical screening guidelines to address cancer health disparities. Despite the theoretical benefits, such proposals do not typically address associated ethical considerations. Using the examples of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, which have demonstrated disparities according to race and ethnicity, this article examines relevant ethical arguments in considering screening based on race and ethnicity.Race- and ethnicity-based clinical preventive care services have the potential to improve the balance of harms and benefits of screening. As a result, programs focused on high-risk racial or ethnic groups could offer a practical alternative to screening the general population, in which the screening yield may be too low to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness. However, designing screening according to socially based categorizations such as race or ethnicity is controversial and has the potential for intersectional stigma related to social identity or other structurally mediated environmental factors. Other ethical considerations include miscategorization, unintended negative effects on health disparities, disregard for underlying risk factors, and the psychological costs of being assigned higher risk.Given the ethical considerations, the practical application of race and ethnicity in cancer screening is most relevant in multicultural countries if and only if alternative proxies are not available. Even in those instances, policymakers and clinicians should carefully address the ethical considerations within the historical and cultural context of the intended population. Further research on alternative proxies, such as social determinants of health and culturally based characteristics, could provide more adequate factors for risk stratification.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.

Importance: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. Objective: To evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case's diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017. Exposures: Completing 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity. Results: From a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

Bias due to coarsening of time intervals in the inference for the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are frequently used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods due to the practical limitations and time needed to conduct large clinical trials. However, time-varying confounders, e.g. polyp detection in the last screening, can bias statistical results. Recently, generalized methods, or G-methods, have been used for the analysis of observational studies of CRC screening, given their ability to account for such time-varying confounders. Discretization, or the process of converting continuous functions into discrete counterparts, is required for G-methods when the treatment and outcomes are assessed at a continuous scale. DEVELOPMENT: This paper evaluates the interplay between time-varying confounding and discretization, which can induce bias in assessing screening effectiveness. We investigate this bias in evaluating the effect of different CRC screening methods that differ from each other in typical screening frequency. APPLICATION: First, using theory, we establish the direction of the bias. Then, we use simulations of hypothetical settings to study the bias magnitude for varying levels of discretization, frequency of screening and length of the study period. We develop a method to assess possible bias due to coarsening in simulated situations. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method can inform future studies of screening effectiveness, especially for CRC, by determining the choice of interval lengths where data are discretized to minimize bias due to coarsening while balancing computational costs.

Impact of racial disparities in follow-up and quality of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs rely on completing follow-up colonoscopy when a noncolonoscopy test is abnormal and on quality of colonoscopy screening as measured by the endoscopists' adenoma detection rate. Existing data demonstrate substantially lower follow-up colonoscopy rates and adenoma detection rate for Black Americans than White Americans. However, the contributions of racial differences in follow-up colonoscopy and adenoma detection rate on CRC outcomes have not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We used established and validated CRC-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model as our analysis platform, with inputs from published literature that report lower follow-up colonoscopy rates and adenoma detection rate in Black adults compared with White adults (15% and 10% lower, respectively). We simulated screening with annual fecal immunochemical test, triennial multitarget stool DNA, and colonoscopy every 10 years between ages 45 and 75 years using real-world utilization of the screening modalities vs no screening. We reported lifetime outcomes per 1000 Black adults. RESULTS: Elimination of Black-White disparities in follow-up colonoscopy rates would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 5.2% and 9.3%, respectively, and improve life-years gained with screening by 3.4%. Elimination of Black-White disparities in endoscopists' adenoma detection rate would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 9.4% and improve life-years gained by 3.7%. Elimination of both disparities would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 14.6% and 18.7%, respectively, and improve life-years gained by 7.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This modeling study predicts eliminating racial differences in follow-up colonoscopy rates, and quality of screening colonoscopy would substantially reduce Black-White disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Colorectal Cancer Screening After Sequential Outreach Components in a Demographically Diverse Cohort.

Importance: Organized screening outreach can reduce differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between demographic subgroups. Outcomes associated with additional outreach, beyond universal outreach, are not well known. Objective: To compare CRC screening completion by race and ethnicity, age, and sex after universal automated outreach and additional personalized outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included screening-eligible individuals aged 50 to 75 years assessed during 2019 in a community-based organized CRC screening program within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) integrated health care delivery setting. For KPNC members who are not up to date with screening by colonoscopy, each year the program first uses automated outreach (mailed prescreening notification postcards and fecal immunochemical test [FIT] kits, automated telephone calls, and postcard reminders), followed by personalized components for nonresponders (telephone calls, electronic messaging, and screening offers during office visits). Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and February 2023 and completed on February 5, 2023. Exposures: Completed CRC screening via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FIT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants completing an FIT or colonoscopy after each component of the screening process. Differences across subgroups were assessed using the χ2 test. Results: This study included 1 046 745 KPNC members. Their mean (SD) age was 61.1 (6.9) years, and more than half (53.2%) were women. A total of 0.4% of members were American Indian or Alaska Native, 18.5% were Asian, 7.2% were Black, 16.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 56.5% were White. Automated outreach significantly increased screening participation by 31.1%, 38.1%, 29.5%, 31.9%, 31.8%, and 34.5% among these groups, respectively; follow-up personalized outreach further significantly increased participation by absolute additional increases of 12.5%, 12.4%, 13.3%, 14.4%, 14.7%, and 11.2%, respectively (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Overall screening coverage at the end of the yearly program differed significantly among members who were American Indian or Alaska Native (74.1%), Asian (83.5%), Black (77.7%), Hispanic (76.4%), or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (74.4%) compared with White members (82.2%) (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Screening completion was similar by sex; older members were substantially more likely to be up to date with CRC screening both before and at the end of the screening process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a CRC screening program, sequential automated and personalized strategies each contributed to substantial increases in screening completion in all demographic groups. These findings suggest that such programs may potentially reduce differences in CRC screening completion across demographic groups.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Time to Endoscopy or Colonoscopy Among Adults Younger Than 50 Years With Iron-Deficiency Anemia and/or Hematochezia in the VHA.

Importance: To date, the diagnostic test completion rate and the time to diagnostic endoscopy or colonoscopy among adults with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and/or hematochezia have not been well characterized. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic test completion rate and the time to diagnostic testing among veterans younger than 50 years with IDA and/or hematochezia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted within the Veterans Health Administration between October 1, 1999, and December 31, 2019, among US veterans aged 18 to 49 years from 2 separate cohorts: those with a diagnosis of IDA (n = 59 169) and those with a diagnosis of hematochezia (n = 189 185). Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 to August 2023. Exposures: Diagnostic testing factors included age, sex, race and ethnicity, Veterans Health Administration geographic region, and hemoglobin test value (IDA cohort only). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of diagnostic testing were (1) bidirectional endoscopy after diagnosis of IDA and (2) colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy after diagnosis of hematochezia. The association between diagnostic testing factors and diagnostic test completion was examined using Poisson models. Results: There were 59 169 veterans with a diagnosis of IDA (mean [SD] age, 40.7 [7.1] years; 30 502 men [51.6%]), 189 185 veterans with a diagnosis of hematochezia (mean [SD] age, 39.4 [7.6] years; 163 690 men [86.5%]), and 2287 veterans with IDA and hematochezia (mean [SD] age, 41.6 [6.9] years; 1856 men [81.2%]). The cumulative 2-year diagnostic workup completion rate was 22% (95% CI, 22%-22%) among veterans with IDA and 40% (95% CI, 40%-40%) among veterans with hematochezia. Veterans with IDA were mostly aged 40 to 49 years (37 719 [63.7%]) and disproportionately Black (24 480 [41.4%]). Women with IDA (rate ratio [RR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43) had a lower likelihood of diagnostic test completion compared with men with IDA. Black (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68) and Hispanic (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) veterans with IDA were less likely to receive diagnostic testing compared with White veterans with IDA. Veterans with hematochezia were mostly White (105 341 [55.7%]). Among veterans with hematochezia, those aged 30 to 49 years were more likely to receive diagnostic testing than adults younger than 30 years of age (age 30-39 years: RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.18; age 40-49 years: RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.33-1.40). Hispanic veterans with hematochezia were less likely to receive diagnostic testing compared with White veterans with hematochezia (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In the cohorts of veterans younger than 50 years with IDA and/or hematochezia, the diagnostic test completion rate was low. Follow-up was less likely among female, Black, and Hispanic veterans with IDA and Hispanic veterans with hematochezia. Optimizing timely follow-up across social and demographic groups may contribute to improving colorectal cancer outcomes and mitigate disparities.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 52% of surveyed US adults reported using at least 1 dietary supplement in the prior 30 days and 31% reported using a multivitamin-mineral supplement. The most commonly cited reason for using supplements is for overall health and wellness and to fill nutrient gaps in the diet. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death and combined account for approximately half of all deaths in the US annually. Inflammation and oxidative stress have been shown to have a role in both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and dietary supplements may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the efficacy of supplementation with single nutrients, functionally related nutrient pairs, or multivitamins for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality in the general adult population, as well as the harms of supplementation. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of beta carotene supplementation outweigh the benefits for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF also concludes with moderate certainty that there is no net benefit of supplementation with vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with single or paired nutrients (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of multivitamin supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement).

Development and evaluation of safety and effectiveness of novel cancer screening tests for routine clinical use with applications to multicancer detection technologies.

Multicancer screening is a promising approach to improving the detection of preclinical disease, but current technologies have limited ability to identify precursor or early stage lesions, and approaches for developing the evidentiary chain are unclear. Frameworks to enable development and evaluation from discovery through evidence of clinical effectiveness are discussed.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence of AF increases with age, from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, with a higher prevalence in men than in women. It is uncertain whether the prevalence of AF differs by race and ethnicity. Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke and is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of stroke. Approximately 20% of patients who have a stroke associated with AF are first diagnosed with AF at the time of the stroke or shortly thereafter. Objective: To update its 2018 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for AF in older adults, the accuracy of screening tests, the effectiveness of screening tests to detect previously undiagnosed AF compared with usual care, and the benefits and harms of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of screen-detected AF in older adults. Population: Adults 50 years or older without a diagnosis or symptoms of AF and without a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF. (I statement).

Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy. METHODS: Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system. RESULTS: Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).

Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common sexually transmitted infections in the US. Infection rates are highest among adolescents and young adults of both sexes. Chlamydial and gonococcal infections in women are usually asymptomatic and may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and its associated complications. Newborns of pregnant persons with untreated infection may develop neonatal chlamydial pneumonia or gonococcal or chlamydial ophthalmia. Infection in men may lead to urethritis and epididymitis. Both types of infection can increase risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Population: Asymptomatic, sexually active adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for chlamydia in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for gonorrhea in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in men. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydia in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for gonorrhea in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in men. (I statement).

Screening for Gestational Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Gestational diabetes is diabetes that develops during pregnancy. Prevalence of gestational diabetes in the US has been estimated at 5.8% to 9.2%, based on traditional diagnostic criteria, although it may be higher if more inclusive criteria are used. Pregnant persons with gestational diabetes are at increased risk for maternal and fetal complications, including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia (which can cause shoulder dystocia and birth injury), and neonatal hypoglycemia. Gestational diabetes has also been associated with an increased risk of several long-term health outcomes in pregnant persons and intermediate outcomes in their offspring. Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening for gestational diabetes and the benefits and harms of treatment for the pregnant person and infant. Population: Pregnant persons who have not been previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit to screening for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks of gestation or after to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on screening for gestational diabetes before 24 weeks of gestation is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons at 24 weeks of gestation or after. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons before 24 weeks of gestation. (I statement).

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Objective: To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. Population: Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. (B recommendation).