Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.

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

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

Blueprint for cancer research: Critical gaps and opportunities.

We are experiencing a revolution in cancer. Advances in screening, targeted and immune therapies, big data, computational methodologies, and significant new knowledge of cancer biology are transforming the ways in which we prevent, detect, diagnose, treat, and survive cancer. These advances are enabling durable progress in the goal to achieve personalized cancer care. Despite these gains, more work is needed to develop better tools and strategies to limit cancer as a major health concern. One persistent gap is the inconsistent coordination among researchers and caregivers to implement evidence-based programs that rely on a fuller understanding of the molecular, cellular, and systems biology mechanisms underpinning different types of cancer. Here, the authors integrate conversations with over 90 leading cancer experts to highlight current challenges, encourage a robust and diverse national research portfolio, and capture timely opportunities to advance evidence-based approaches for all patients with cancer and for all communities.

Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work.

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization-inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization-outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.

A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in adults in the United States. Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. METHODS: We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions. RESULTS: The clinical validation cohort included 10,258 persons, 7861 of whom met eligibility criteria and were evaluable. A total of 83.1% of the participants with colorectal cancer detected by colonoscopy had a positive cfDNA test and 16.9% had a negative test, which indicates a sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detection of colorectal cancer of 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2 to 90.3). Sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer was 87.5% (95% CI, 75.3 to 94.1), and sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.3). A total of 89.6% of the participants without any advanced colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) identified on colonoscopy had a negative cfDNA blood-based test, whereas 10.4% had a positive cfDNA blood-based test, which indicates a specificity for any advanced neoplasia of 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8 to 90.3). Specificity for negative colonoscopy (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0 to 90.7). CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, this cfDNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for colorectal cancer, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. (Funded by Guardant Health; ECLIPSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04136002.).

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

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

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

Anti-Epstein-Barr Virus BNLF2b for Mass Screening for Nasopharyngeal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population screening of asymptomatic persons with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA or antibodies has improved the diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and survival among affected persons. However, the positive predictive value of current screening strategies is unsatisfactory even in areas where nasopharyngeal carcinoma is endemic. METHODS: We designed a peptide library representing highly ranked B-cell epitopes of EBV coding sequences to identify novel serologic biomarkers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. After a retrospective case-control study, the performance of the novel biomarker anti-BNLF2b total antibody (P85-Ab) was validated through a large-scale prospective screening program and compared with that of the standard two-antibody-based screening method (EBV nuclear antigen 1 [EBNA1]-IgA and EBV-specific viral capsid antigen [VCA]-IgA). RESULTS: P85-Ab was the most promising biomarker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening, with high sensitivity (94.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.4 to 97.8) and specificity (99.6%; 95% CI, 97.8 to 99.9) in the retrospective case-control study. Among the 24,852 eligible participants in the prospective cohort, 47 cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (38 at an early stage) were identified. P85-Ab showed higher sensitivity than the two-antibody method (97.9% vs. 72.3%; ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6]), higher specificity (98.3% vs. 97.0%; ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.02]), and a higher positive predictive value (10.0% vs. 4.3%; ratio, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.8 to 2.8]). The combination of P85-Ab and the two-antibody method markedly increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% (95% CI, 33.8 to 55.9), with sensitivity of 70.2% (95% CI, 56.0 to 81.4). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that P85-Ab is a promising novel biomarker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening, with higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value than the standard two-antibody method. (Funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04085900.).

Standardized indolent systemic mastocytosis evaluations across a health care system: implications for screening accuracy.

ABSTRACT: Timely diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis (SM) remains challenging because of care heterogeneity. We implemented a standardized approach for SM screening and diagnosis using a novel health care system-wide international screening registry. A retrospective analysis assessed rates of SM, cutaneous mastocytosis (CM), and molecular diagnoses before and 2 years after care standardization. The accuracy of individual and combined SM screening tests, basal serum tryptase (BST) ≥11.5 and ≥20.0 ng/mL, REMA ≥2, monomorphic maculopapular CM (MPCM), and elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype, was analyzed. Tryptase genotyping and high-sensitivity KIT p.D816V testing increased substantially 2 years after care standardization. SM diagnoses doubled from 47 to 94, and KIT p.D816V molecular diagnoses increased from 24 to 79. Mean BST and KIT p.D816V variant allele frequency values were significantly lower in patients diagnosed after standardization. Hereditary-alpha tryptasemia prevalence was increased in SM before care standardization (4/30 [13.3%]) but reflected the general population prevalence 2 years later at (5/76 [6.6%]). Elevated BST based upon genotype and BST ≥11.5 ng/mL had the highest sensitivities at 84.2% and 88.3%, respectively. The presence of monomorphic MPCM, elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype, and the combination of REMA ≥2 with elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype had specificities >90%. BST >20.0 ng/mL had low sensitivity and specificity and was not required to establish any indolent SM (ISM) diagnosis. Care standardization increased SM diagnosis rates, particularly in patients with low BSTs. Stratifying BST based upon genotype had the best overall sensitivity and specificity of any ISM screening test and improved the REMA score specificity.

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

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

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high-performing health care system.

Between 1991 and 2015, the cancer mortality rate declined dramatically in the United States, reflecting improvements in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship care. However, cancer outcomes in the United States vary substantially between populations defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and geographic area of residence. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths occur in individuals who did not receive effective cancer prevention, screening, treatment, or survivorship care. At the same time, cancer care spending is large and growing, straining national, state, health insurance plans, and family budgets. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues in American medicine is how to ensure that all populations, in every community, derive the benefit from scientific research that has already been completed. Addressing these questions from the perspective of health care delivery is necessary to accelerate the decline in cancer mortality that began in the early 1990s. This article, part of the Cancer Control Blueprint series, describes challenges with the provision of care across the cancer control continuum in the United States. It also identifies goals for a high-performing health system that could reduce disparities and the burden of cancer by promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles; access to a regular source of primary care; timely access to evidence-based care; patient-centeredness, including effective patient-provider communication; enhanced coordination and communication between providers, including primary care and specialty care providers; and affordability for patients, payers, and society.

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

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

Call to action for a life course approach.

Gestational diabetes remains the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, with short-term and long-term consequences for mothers and offspring. New insights into pathophysiology and management suggest that the current gestational diabetes treatment approach should expand from a focus on late gestational diabetes to a personalised, integrated life course approach from preconception to postpartum and beyond. Early pregnancy lifestyle intervention could prevent late gestational diabetes. Early gestational diabetes diagnosis and treatment has been shown to be beneficial, especially when identified before 14 weeks of gestation. Early gestational diabetes screening now requires strategies for integration into routine antenatal care, alongside efforts to reduce variation in gestational diabetes care, across settings that differ between, and within, countries. Following gestational diabetes, an oral glucose tolerance test should be performed 6-12 weeks postpartum to assess the glycaemic state. Subsequent regular screening for both dysglycaemia and cardiometabolic disease is recommended, which can be incorporated alongside other family health activities. Diabetes prevention programmes for women with previous gestational diabetes might be enhanced using shared decision making and precision medicine. At all stages in this life course approach, across both high-resource and low-resource settings, a more systematic process for identifying and overcoming barriers to preventative care and treatment is needed to reduce the current global burden of gestational diabetes.

Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Five-Year Outcomes of the Danish Cardiovascular Screening (DANCAVAS) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest a benefit of population-based screening for cardiovascular disease with respect to the risk of death. METHODS: We performed a population-based, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial involving men 65 to 74 years of age living in 15 Danish municipalities. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (the invited group) or not to undergo screening (the control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease. Randomization was based on computer-generated random numbers and stratified according to municipality. Only the control group was unaware of the trial-group assignments. Screening included noncontrast electrocardiography-gated computed tomography to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation, ankle-brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension, and a blood sample to detect diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 46,611 participants underwent randomization. After exclusion of 85 men who had died or emigrated before being invited to undergo screening, there were 16,736 men in the invited group and 29,790 men in the control group; 10,471 of the men in the invited group underwent screening (62.6%). In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 2106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3915 men (13.1%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.00; P = 0.06). The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, as compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99); for myocardial infarction, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: After more than 5 years, the invitation to undergo comprehensive cardiovascular screening did not significantly reduce the incidence of death from any cause among men 65 to 74 years of age. (Funded by the Southern Region of Denmark and others; DANCAVAS ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN12157806.).