Métodos de rastreo del cáncer de colon / Colon cancer screening methods

El cáncer colorrectal presenta un problema para la salud pública a nivel mundial. En Argentina, se diagnostican aproximadamente 13.500 casos cada año. El tamizaje como medida de prevención secundaria es una medida beneficiosa para lograr un abordaje temprano con mejores resultados. Los dos métodos más utilizados para el tamizaje son la videocolonoscopía y la prueba de sangre oculta en materia fecal, sobre todo la de tipo inmunoquímico que con el paso de los años fue reemplazando a la prueba de guayaco por su mayor practicidad. El primero es un método invasivo y que requiere anestesia, mientras que el segundo no tiene un efecto adverso directo pero debe realizarse con una cadencia mayor. El objetivo de los autores de este artículo fue evaluar la evidencia sobre la sensibilidad y especificidad de ambos métodos, como también sus beneficios y daños a partir de la consulta de un paciente a su médico de familia. Ninguna prueba parecería ser inferior para el tamizaje de cáncer colorrectal en una población de riesgo promedio, y ambas pueden usarse en programas de rastreo. Sin embargo, no existen estudios que comparen ambos métodos de manera directa, y toda prueba inmunoquímica fecal positiva debe ser seguida de una colonoscopía. La elección de la prueba puede depender de los valores y preferencias de los pacientes. (AU)

Colorectal cancer presents a public health problem worldwide. In Argentina, approximately 13,500 cases appear each year. Screening as a secondary prevention measure is a beneficial measure to achieve an early approach with better results. The two most used methods for screening are video colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test, the former being invasiveand requiring anaesthesia, while the latter does not have a direct adverse effect but must be performed at a higher rate. The objective of this article was to evaluate the evidence for the sensitivity and specificity of both methods, as well as their benefits and harms. No test would appear to be inferior for colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population, and both can be used in screening programs. However, there are no studies comparing both methods directly, and any positive faecal immunochemical test should be evaluated with a colonoscopy. The choice of the test may depend on the values and preferences of the patients. (AU)

The Korean guideline for cervical cancer screening / 부인종양

The incidence rate of cervical cancer in Korea is still higher than in other developed countries, notwithstanding the national mass-screening program. Furthermore, a new method has been introduced in cervical cancer screening. Therefore, the committee for cervical cancer screening in Korea updated the recommendation statement established in 2002. The new version of the guideline was developed by the committee using evidence-based methods. The committee reviewed the evidence for the benefits and harms of the Papanicolaou test, liquid-based cytology, and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and reached conclusions after deliberation. The committee recommends screening for cervical cancer with cytology (Papanicolaou test or liquid-based cytology) every three years in women older than 20 years of age (recommendation A). The cervical cytology combined with HPV test is optionally recommended after taking into consideration individual risk or preference (recommendation C). The current evidence for primary HPV screening is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening (recommendation I). Cervical cancer screening can be terminated at the age of 74 years if more than three consecutive negative cytology reports have been confirmed within 10 years (recommendation D).

Current Status of Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses

Small renal masses (SRMs) are defined as radiologically enhancing renal masses of less than 4 cm in maximal diameter. The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased in recent years, which is mainly due to the rise in incidental detection of localized SRMs. However, the cancer-specific mortality rate is not increasing. This discrepancy may be dependent on the indolent nature of SRMs. About 20% of SRMs are benign, and smaller masses are likely to have pathologic characteristics of low Fuhrman grade and clear cell type. In addition, SRMs are increasingly detected in elderly patients who are likely to have comorbidities and are a high-risk group for active treatment like surgery. As the information about the nature of SRMs is improved and management options for SRMs are expanded, the current role of renal mass biopsy for SRMs is also expanding. Traditionally, renal mass biopsy has not been accepted as a standard diagnostic tool in the clinical scenario because of several issues about safety and accuracy. However, current series on SRM biopsy have reported high diagnostic accuracy with rare complications. Studies of modern SRM biopsy have reported diagnostic accuracy greater than 90% with very high specificity. Also, current series have shown very rare morbid cases caused by renal mass biopsy. Currently, renal biopsy of SRMs can be recommended in most cases except when patients have imaging or clinical characteristics indicative of pathology and in cases in which conservative management is not considered.

Current Status of Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses

Small renal masses (SRMs) are defined as radiologically enhancing renal masses of less than 4 cm in maximal diameter. The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased in recent years, which is mainly due to the rise in incidental detection of localized SRMs. However, the cancer-specific mortality rate is not increasing. This discrepancy may be dependent on the indolent nature of SRMs. About 20% of SRMs are benign, and smaller masses are likely to have pathologic characteristics of low Fuhrman grade and clear cell type. In addition, SRMs are increasingly detected in elderly patients who are likely to have comorbidities and are a high-risk group for active treatment like surgery. As the information about the nature of SRMs is improved and management options for SRMs are expanded, the current role of renal mass biopsy for SRMs is also expanding. Traditionally, renal mass biopsy has not been accepted as a standard diagnostic tool in the clinical scenario because of several issues about safety and accuracy. However, current series on SRM biopsy have reported high diagnostic accuracy with rare complications. Studies of modern SRM biopsy have reported diagnostic accuracy greater than 90% with very high specificity. Also, current series have shown very rare morbid cases caused by renal mass biopsy. Currently, renal biopsy of SRMs can be recommended in most cases except when patients have imaging or clinical characteristics indicative of pathology and in cases in which conservative management is not considered.