The World Trade Center Health Program: Cancer screening and cancer care best practices.

The events of September 11, 2001 (9/11) exposed nearly a half million persons to many carcinogenic chemicals and dusts, as well as psychological and physical stressors. Subsequent epidemiologic studies of 9/11-exposed persons have suggested elevated risks for some cancers, e.g., prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. To detect cancer at an early stage, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening certain asymptomatic persons for lung, colorectal, cervical and breast cancer, but not for other cancers. High quality cancer diagnosis and treatment guidelines are available from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the National Cancer Institute. For enrolled members, the WTC Health Program provides coverage for cancer screening and diagnosis, and covers medically necessary treatment costs for all types of cancer, assuming 9/11-exposure and minimum latency requirements are met, and a Program-affiliated physician attests that 9/11 exposures were substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the enrolled WTC member's cancer.

Commentary ACOG Practice Bulletin July 2017: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality in average-risk women. However, adverse consequences include false-positive findings possibly leading to benign breast biopsies and patient anxiety. There is also potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Differences in how to balance benefits and harms have led to varying recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging. These recommendations differ with respect to what age to start, what age to stop, and frequency of screening in average-risk women. Most recently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have issued updated clinical management guidelines for breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women that aim to maximize the benefits of screening while keeping in mind the potential harms of false-positive results. This commentary summarizes the clinical management guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin July 2017 for breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women. We review evidence of the benefits and adverse consequences of screening mammography and briefly discuss new advances in breast cancer screening with recent technologies such digital breast tomosynthesis and risk-adapted screening.

Faecal occult blood testing screening for colorectal cancer and 'missed' interval cancers: are we ignoring the elephant in the room? Results of a multicentre study.

AIM: Biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is used to screen for colorectal cancer throughout the UK. Interval cancers are tumours that develop in patients between screening rounds who have had a negative FOBT. Through a multicentre study, we compared the demographics of patients with interval cancers, FOBT screen detected cancers and cancers that developed in patients who chose not to participate in the screening programme. METHOD: Five hundred and sixteen colorectal cancers were detected in the screening age group (60-74 years) population in three UK National Health Service hospitals over 2 years. One hundred and twenty seven (25%) were interval cancers, 161 (31%) were screen detected and 228 (44%) were cancers that developed in patients who had declined FOBT. The interval cancer group had a higher incidence of right-sided cancers (38% vs 29% and 24%), a higher proportion of high tumour stages (Dukes C and D) (70% vs 53% and 33%) and a shorter time from diagnosis to death (10 months vs 13 months and 24 months) compared to patients who had declined the FOBT and the FOBT screen detected cancers. Of all the patients studied, those with right-sided interval cancers had the worst outcome. CONCLUSION: A quarter of the colorectal cancers diagnosed in our study were interval cancers. Patients with right-sided interval cancers had the highest proportion of Dukes C and D tumours coupled with the shortest survival time after diagnosis compared with the other groups.

Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.

Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions. METHODS: We included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions.

Patient-reported outcomes following flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in a demonstration screening programme in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer will be introduced into the National Cancer Screening Programmes in England in 2013. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from trial participants indicate high acceptability and no adverse physical or psychological consequences, but this may not generalize to routine screening in the community. This study examined PROMs in a community-based FS screening programme. METHODS: Eligible adults aged 58-59 (n = 2016) registered at 34 London general practices were mailed a National Health Service-endorsed invitation to attend FS screening. Pain and side-effects were assessed in a 'morning-after' questionnaire, and satisfaction was assessed in a three-month follow-up questionnaire. Anxiety, self-rated health and colorectal symptoms were assessed at prescreening and follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 1020 people attended screening and were included in the current analyses, of whom 913 (90%) returned the morning-after questionnaire, and 674 (66%) the follow-up questionnaire. The prescreening questionnaire had been completed by 751 (74%) of those who attended. The majority (87%) of respondents reported no pain or mild pain, and the most frequent side-effect (wind) was only experienced more than mildly by 16%. Satisfaction was extremely high, with 98% glad they had the test; 97% would encourage a friend to have it. From prescreening to follow-up there were no changes in anxiety or self-rated health, and the number of colorectal symptoms declined. Satisfaction and changes in wellbeing were not moderated by gender, deprivation, ethnicity or screening outcome. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs indicate high acceptability of FS screening in 58-59 year olds, with no adverse effects on colorectal symptoms, health status or psychological wellbeing.