Quantification of overdiagnosis in randomised trials of cancer screening: an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews.

The degree of overdiagnosis in common cancer screening trials is uncertain due to inadequate design of trials, varying definition and methods used to estimate overdiagnosis. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the risk of overdiagnosis for the most widely implemented cancer screening programmes and assess the implications of design limitations and biases in cancer screening trials on the estimates of overdiagnosis by conducting an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews of cancer screening. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library from their inception dates to November 29, 2021. Eligible studies included systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing cancer screening interventions to no screening, which reported cancer incidence for both trial arms. We extracted data on study characteristics, cancer incidence and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. We included 19 trials described in 30 articles for review, reporting results for the following types of screening: mammography for breast cancer, chest X-ray or low-dose CT for lung cancer, alpha-foetoprotein and ultrasound for liver cancer, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate cancer, and CA-125 test and/or ultrasound for ovarian cancer. No trials on screening for melanoma were eligible. Only one trial (5%) had low risk in all bias domains, leading to a post-hoc meta-analysis, excluding trials with high risk of bias in critical domains, finding the extent of overdiagnosis ranged from 17% to 38% across cancer screening programmes. We conclude that there is a significant risk of overdiagnosis in the included randomised trials on cancer screening. We found that trials were generally not designed to estimate overdiagnosis and many trials had high risk of biases that may draw the estimates of overdiagnosis towards the null. In effect, the true extent of overdiagnosis due to cancer screening is likely underestimated.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

EMA's mishandling of an investigation into suspected serious neurological harms of HPV vaccines.

Concern has been raised about whether HPV vaccines might cause serious neurological disorders including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) investigated the issue and declared in 2015 that there is no link between HPV vaccines and serious neurological adverse events. However, the certainty conveyed in EMA's official report is undermined by a leaked, confidential document that reveals important disagreements among the experts. Furthermore, in its assessments, EMA relied on the data the drug companies had provided to them even though it had been demonstrated that the companies had underreported possible neurological harms. Even though active comparators were used (aluminium adjuvants and other vaccines), our research group found significantly more serious neurological harms in the HPV vaccine groups than in the comparator groups in a systematic review based on clinical study reports in EMA's possession. We outline areas where we believe the basis for EMA's decision was flawed; highlight that the relationship between HPV vaccines and POTS remains uncertain; and suggest ways forward to resolve the uncertainty and debate.

Addressing harms of screening - A review of outcomes in Cochrane reviews and suggestions for next steps.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if Cochrane reviews that assess screening interventions address their major harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic search for Cochrane reviews that assess screening interventions was performed. Two authors independently screened abstracts, assessed full-texts, and extracted data from included reviews. For each review, two authors judged whether each predefined harm was relevant. When the harm was judged as of questionable relevance, the review was excluded from the denominator in our calculations. RESULTS: Forty-seven reviews were included. Overdiagnosis was addressed in 6 of 39 (15%), overtreatment in 7 of 43 (16%), and psychosocial consequences in 30 of 47 (64%) of reviews where this was judged relevant. When data on harms were included, they were generally not treated with the same methodological rigor as the benefits, with no assessment of the risk of bias or certainty of the evidence. About half of the Abstracts, Plain Language Summaries, and Summary of Findings tables did not include any harms. CONCLUSION: The underreporting of harms of screening in Cochrane reviews likely reflects primary research and is problematic. We call for broad collaboration to develop reporting guidelines and core outcome sets for studies of screening interventions.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest. OBJECTIVES: To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis). MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

Screening for reducing morbidity and mortality in malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Screening for malignant melanoma has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from the disease through earlier detection, as prognosis is closely associated with the thickness of the lesion at the time of diagnosis. However, there are also potential harms from screening people without skin lesion concerns, such as overdiagnosis of lesions that would never have caused symptoms if they had remained undetected. Overdiagnosis results in harm through unnecessary treatment and the psychosocial consequences of being labelled with a cancer diagnosis. For any type of screening, the benefits must outweigh the harms. Screening for malignant melanoma is currently practised in many countries, and the incidence of the disease is rising sharply, while mortality remains largely unchanged. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on morbidity and mortality of screening for malignant melanoma in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registries, checked the reference lists of included and other relevant studies for further references to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), used citation tracking (Web of Science) for key articles, and asked trialists about additional studies and study reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs, including cluster-randomised trials, of screening for malignant melanoma compared with no screening, regardless of screening modality or setting, in any type of population and in any age group where people were not suspected of having malignant melanoma. We excluded studies in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome) and studies performed exclusively in people with previous melanomas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes of this review were total mortality, overdiagnosis of malignant melanoma, and quality of life/psychosocial consequences. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 64,391 participants. The first study was a randomised trial of an intervention developed to increase the rate of performance of thorough skin self-examination. The intervention group received instructional materials, including cues and aids, a 14-minute instruction video, and a brief counselling session, and at three weeks a brief follow-up telephone call from a health educator, aimed at increasing performance of thorough skin self-examination. The control group received a diet intervention with similar follow-up. The trial included 1356 people, who were recruited from 11 primary care practices in the US between 2000 and 2001. Participant mean age was 53.2 years and 41.7% were men. This study did not report on any of our primary outcomes or the following secondary outcomes: mortality specific to malignant melanoma, false-positive rates (skin biopsies/excisions with benign outcome), or false-negative rates (malignant melanomas diagnosed between screening rounds and up to one year after the last round). All participants were asked to complete follow-up telephone interviews at 2, 6, and 12 months after randomisation.The second study was a pilot study for a cluster-RCT of population-based screening for malignant melanoma in Australia. This pilot trial included 63,035 adults aged over 30 years. The three-year programme involved community education, an education and support component for medical practitioners, and the provision of free skin screening services. The mean age of people attending the skin screening clinics (which were held by primary care physicians in workplaces, community venues, and local hospitals, and included day and evening sessions) was 46.5 years, and 51.5% were men. The study included whole communities, targeting participants over 30 years of age, but information on age and gender of the whole study population was not reported. Study duration was three years (1998 to 2001), and outcomes were measured at the screening clinics during these three years. There was no further follow-up for any outcomes. The control group received no programme. The ensuing, planned cluster randomised trial in 560,000 adults was never carried out due to lack of funding. At the time of this review, there are no published or unpublished data on our prespecified outcomes available, and no results for mortality outcomes from the pilot study are to be expected.The risk of bias in these studies was high for performance bias (blinding study personnel and participants) and high or unclear for detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). Risk of bias in the other domains was either unclear or low. We were unable to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes as planned due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adult general population screening for malignant melanoma is not supported or refuted by current evidence from RCTs. It therefore does not fulfil accepted criteria for implementation of population screening programmes. This review did not investigate the effects of screening people with a history of malignant melanoma or in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome). To determine the benefits and harms of screening for malignant melanoma, a rigorously conducted randomised trial is needed, which assesses overall mortality, overdiagnosis, psychosocial consequences, and resource use.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

BACKGROUND: General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I2 = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I2 = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I2 = 53%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Benefits and harms of screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden: a registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Large reductions in the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and AAA-related mortality mean that results from randomised trials of screening for the disorder might be out-dated. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of AAA screening in Sweden on disease-specific mortality, incidence, and surgery. METHODS: Individual data on the incidence of AAA, AAA mortality, and surgery for AAA in a cohort of men aged 65 years who were invited to screening between 2006 and 2009, were compared with data from an age-matched contemporaneous cohort of men who were not invited for AAA screening. We also analysed national data for all men aged 40-99 years between Jan 1, 1987, and Dec 31, 2015, to explore background trends. Adjustment for confounding was done by weighting the analyses with a propensity score obtained from a logistic regression model on cohort year, marital status, educational level, income, and whether the patient already had an AAA diagnosis at baseline. Adjustment for differential attrition was also done by weighting the analyses with the inverse probability of still being in the cohort 6 years after screening. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust the variance for repeated measurement and in response to the weighting. FINDINGS: AAA mortality in Swedish men has decreased from 36 to ten deaths per 100 000 men aged 65-74 years between the early 2000s and 2015. Mortality decreased at similar rates in all Swedish counties, irrespective of whether AAA screening was offered. After 6 years with screening, we found a non-significant reduction in AAA mortality associated with screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·38-1·51), which means that two men (95% CI -3 to 7) avoid death from AAA for every 10 000 men offered screening. Screening was associated with increased odds of AAA diagnosis (aOR 1·52, 95% CI 1·16-1·99; p=0·002) and an increased risk of elective surgery (aOR 1·59, 95% CI 1·20-2·10; p=0·001), such that for every 10 000 men offered screening, 49 men (95% CI 25-73) were likely to be overdiagnosed, 19 of whom (95% CI 1-37) had avoidable surgery that increased their risk of mortality and morbidity. INTERPRETATION: AAA screening in Sweden did not contribute substantially to the large observed reductions in AAA mortality. The reductions were mostly caused by other factors, probably reduced smoking. The small benefit and substantially less favourable benefit-to-harm balance call the continued justification of the intervention into question. FUNDING: Research Unit and Section for General Practice, FoUU-centrum Fyrbodal, Sweden, and the region of Västra Götaland, Sweden.

Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Effective breast cancer screening should detect early-stage cancer and prevent advanced disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between screening and the size of detected tumors and to estimate overdiagnosis (detection of tumors that would not become clinically relevant). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Denmark from 1980 to 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 35 to 84 years. INTERVENTION: Screening programs offering biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 years beginning in different regions at different times. MEASUREMENTS: Trends in the incidence of advanced (>20 mm) and nonadvanced (≤20 mm) breast cancer tumors in screened and nonscreened women were measured. Two approaches were used to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis: comparing the incidence of advanced and nonadvanced tumors among women aged 50 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas; and comparing the incidence for nonadvanced tumors among women aged 35 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas. RESULTS: Screening was not associated with lower incidence of advanced tumors. The incidence of nonadvanced tumors increased in the screening versus prescreening periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.43 to 1.54]). The first estimation approach found that 271 invasive breast cancer tumors and 179 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 24.4% [including DCIS] and 14.7% [excluding DCIS]). The second approach, which accounted for regional differences in women younger than the screening age, found that 711 invasive tumors and 180 cases of DCIS were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 48.3% [including DCIS] and 38.6% [excluding DCIS]). LIMITATION: Regional differences complicate interpretation. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer screening was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of advanced cancer. It is likely that 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS diagnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%). PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Overview of guidelines on breast screening: Why recommendations differ and what to do about it.

Updated guidelines on breast cancer screening have been published by several major organisations over the past five years. Recommendations vary regarding both age range, screening interval, and even on whether breast screening should be offered at all. The variation between recommendations reflects substantial differences in estimates of the major benefit (breast cancer mortality reduction) and the major harm (overdiagnosis). Estimates vary considerably among randomised trials, as well as observational studies: from no benefit to large reductions, and from no overdiagnosis to substantial levels. The estimates vary according to the methodology of the randomised trials, and the design of the observational studies. Guideline recommendations reflect the choice of evidence informing them. While there are well-developed tools to deal with randomised trials in guideline work, these are not always used, or they may not be followed as recommended. Further, results of trials performed decades ago may no longer be applicable. For observational studies, the framework for inclusion in guidelines is not similarly well-developed and there are methodological concerns specific to screening interventions, such as small effects in absolute terms. There is a need for agreement on a hierarchy of observational study designs to quantify the major benefit and harm of cancer screening. This review provides a summary of recent guidelines on breast cancer screening and their major strengths and weaknesses, as well as a short overview of the major strengths and limitations of observational study designs. There is a need for agreement on a hierarchy of observational study designs in this field.