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.

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.

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.

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening's contribution to cancer control.

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: 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 from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Infectious and clinical tuberculosis trajectories: Bayesian modeling with case finding implications.

The importance of finding people with undiagnosed tuberculosis (TB) hinges on their future disease trajectories. Assays for systematic screening should be optimized to find those whose TB will contribute most to future transmission or morbidity. In this study, we constructed a mathematical model that tracks the future trajectories of individuals with TB at a cross-sectional timepoint ("baseline"), classifying them by bacterial burden (smear positive/negative) and symptom status (symptomatic/subclinical). We used Bayesian methods to calibrate this model to targets derived from historical survival data and notification, mortality, and prevalence data from five countries. We combined resulting disease trajectories with evidence on infectiousness to estimate each baseline TB state's contribution to future transmission. For a person with smear-negative subclinical TB at baseline, the expected future duration of disease was short (mean 4.8 [95% uncertainty interval 3.3 to 8.4] mo); nearly all disease courses ended in spontaneous resolution, not treatment. In contrast, people with baseline smear-positive subclinical TB had longer undiagnosed disease durations (15.9 [11.1 to 23.5] mo); nearly all eventually developed symptoms and ended in treatment or death. Despite accounting for only 11 to 19% of prevalent disease, smear-positive subclinical TB accounted for 35 to 51% of future transmission-a greater contribution than symptomatic or smear-negative TB. Subclinical TB with a high bacterial burden accounts for a disproportionate share of future transmission. Priority should be given to developing inexpensive, easy-to-use assays for screening both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals at scale-akin to rapid antigen tests for other diseases-even if these assays lack the sensitivity to detect paucibacillary disease.

Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Screening According to N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized LOOP Study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) to be a strong predictor of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. However, its utility in AF screening remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate NT-proBNP as a potential marker for screening efficacy with respect to AF yield and stroke prevention. METHODS: In the LOOP Study (Atrial Fibrillation Detected by Continuous ECG Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorder to Prevent Stroke in High-Risk Individuals), 6004 AF-naïve individuals at least 70 years old and with additional stroke risk factors were randomized 1:3 to either screening with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) and initiation of anticoagulation upon detection of AF episodes lasting ≥6 minutes or usual care (control). This post hoc analysis included study participants with available NT-proBNP measurement at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 5819 participants (96.9% of the trial population) were included. The mean age was 74.7 years (SD, 4.1 years) and 47.5% were female. The median NT-proBNP level was 15 pmol/L (interquartile range, 9-28 pmol/L) corresponding to 125 pg/mL (interquartile range, 76-233 pg/mL). NT-proBNP above median was associated with an increased risk of AF diagnosis both in the ILR group (hazard ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.51-2.25]) and the control group (hazard ratio, 2.79 [95% CI, 2.30-3.40]). Participants with NT-proBNP above the median were also at higher risk of clinical events compared with those having lower levels (hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54] for stroke or systemic embolism [SE], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.32-1.95] for stroke/SE/cardiovascular death, and 1.91 [95% CI, 1.61-2.26] for all-cause death). Compared with usual care, ILR screening was associated with significant reductions in stroke/SE and stroke/SE/cardiovascular death among participants with NT-proBNP above median (hazard ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.90] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.94], respectively) but not among those with lower levels (Pinteraction=0.029 for stroke/SE and 0.045 for stroke/SE/cardiovascular death). No risk reduction in all-cause death was observed in either NT-proBNP subgroup for ILR versus control (Pinteraction=0.68). Analyzing NT-proBNP as a continuous variable yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: In an older population with additional stroke risk factors, ILR screening for AF was associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk among individuals with higher NT-proBNP levels but not among those with lower levels. These findings should be considered hypothesis generating and warrant further study before clinical implementation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02036450.

Serial Mass Screening for Tuberculosis Among Incarcerated Persons in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: An active search for tuberculosis cases through mass screening is widely described as a tool to improve case detection in hyperendemic settings. However, its effectiveness in high-risk populations, such as incarcerated people, is debated. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 3 rounds of mass screening were carried out in 3 Brazilian prisons. Social and health questionnaires, chest X-rays, and Xpert MTB/RIF were performed. RESULTS: More than 80% of the prison population was screened. Overall, 684 cases of pulmonary tuberculosis were diagnosed. Prevalence across screening rounds was not statistically different. Among incarcerated persons with symptoms, the overall prevalence of tuberculosis per 100 000 persons was 8497 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7346-9811), 11 115 (95% CI, 9471-13 082), and 7957 (95% CI, 6380-9882) in screening rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Similar to our overall results, there were no statistical differences between screening rounds and within individual prisons. We found no statistical differences in Computer-Aided Detection for TB version 5 scores across screening rounds among people with tuberculosis-the median scores in rounds 1, 2, and 3 were 82 (interquartile range [IQR], 63-97), 77 (IQR, 60-94), and 81 (IQR, 67-92), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this environment with hyperendemic rates of tuberculosis, 3 rounds of mass screening did not reduce the overall tuberculosis burden. In prisons, where a substantial number of tuberculosis cases is undiagnosed annually, a range of complementary interventions and more frequent tuberculosis cases screening may be required.

Prediction of Severe Baseline Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Subsequent Risk of Stroke and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Risk models to identify patients at high risk of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS) can help in selecting patients for screening, but long-term outcomes in these patients are unknown. We assessed the diagnostic and prognostic value of the previously published Prevalence of ACAS (PACAS) risk model to detect ACAS at baseline and to predict subsequent risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease (CVD) during follow-up. METHODS: We validated the discrimination and calibration of the PACAS risk model to detect severe (≥70% narrowing) ACAS with patients from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health registry. We subsequently calculated the incidence rates of stroke and CVD (fatal and nonfatal stroke or myocardial infarction or vascular death) during follow-up in 4 risk groups (low, medium, high, and very high, corresponding to sum scores of ≤9, 10-13, 14-17, and ≥18, respectively). RESULTS: Among 26 384 patients, aged between 45 and 80 years, without prior carotid procedures, 1662 (6.3%) had severe baseline ACAS. During ≈70 000 patient-years of follow-up, 1124 strokes and 2484 CVD events occurred. Discrimination of the PACAS model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.68), and calibration showed adequate concordance between predicted and observed risks of severe baseline ACAS after recalibration. Significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (Ptrend<0.011) and CVD (Ptrend<0.0001) during follow-up were found with increasing PACAS risk groups. Among patients with high PACAS sum score of ≥14 (corresponding to 27.7% of all patients), severe baseline ACAS prevalence was 11.4%. In addition, 56.6% of incident strokes and 64.9% of incident CVD events occurred in this group. CONCLUSIONS: The PACAS risk model can reliably identify patients at high risk of severe baseline ACAS. Incidence rates of stroke and CVD during follow-up were significantly higher in patients with high PACAS sum scores. Selective screening of patients with high PACAS sum scores may help to prevent future stroke or CVD.

Congenital Syphilis Prevention Challenges, Pacific Coast of Colombia, 2018-2022.

High incidences of congenital syphilis have been reported in areas along the Pacific coast of Colombia. In this retrospective study, conducted during 2018-2022 at a public hospital in Buenaventura, Colombia, we analyzed data from 3,378 pregnant women. The opportunity to prevent congenital syphilis was missed in 53.1% of mothers because of the lack of syphilis screening. Characteristics of higher maternal social vulnerability and late access to prenatal care decreased the probability of having >1 syphilis screening test, thereby increasing the probability of having newborns with congenital syphilis. In addition, the opportunity to prevent congenital syphilis was missed in 41.5% of patients with syphilis because of the lack of treatment, which also increased the probability of having newborns with congenital syphilis. We demonstrate the urgent need to improve screening and treatment capabilities for maternal syphilis, particularly among pregnant women who are more socially vulnerable.

Health utility values of breast cancer treatments and the impact of varying quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness.

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Introduction.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and across the world. The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) was established in 2017 as a consortium of public, private, and voluntary organizations with a mission to lower the impact of lung cancer via prevention, early detection, and optimal therapy. The ACS NLCRT supports a comprehensive scope of work that covers the lung cancer continuum, from risk reduction, tobacco prevention and control, and early detection (screening and incidental lung nodule management) to guideline-based staging, biomarker testing, treatment, and survivorship and overarching issues such as stigma and nihilism, health equity, and tactical approaches such as state coalition efforts and policy initiatives. Applying a multidimensional and multisector approach, over 220 public, private, and government agency member organizations and 250 volunteer experts, patients, and caregiver advocate representatives collaborate to address challenges across the lung cancer continuum by catalyzing action to conceive, build, and strengthen innovative solutions. The wide-ranging membership allows the ACS NLCRT to harness the collective power and expertise of the entire lung cancer community by connecting leaders, communities, and systems to improve equity and access. These national, state, and local relationships provide partnerships for the dissemination of ACS NLCRT-developed tools and resources. This article describes the ACS NLCRT and introduces the series of accompanying and future articles that together make up the ACS NLCRT strategic plan, which provides a roadmap for future research, investment, and collaboration to reduce lung cancer mortality and lung cancer-related stigma and enhance survivorship.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Implementation of high-quality lung cancer screening.

More than a decade has passed since researchers in the Early Lung Cancer Action Project and the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to save lives of high-risk individuals from lung cancer through regular screening by low dose computed tomography scan. The emergence of the most recent findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung-cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) further strengthens and expands on this evidence. These studies demonstrate the benefit of integrating lung cancer screening into clinical practice, yet lung cancer continues to lead cancer mortality rates in the United States. Fewer than 20% of screen eligible individuals are enrolled in lung cancer screening, leaving millions of qualified individuals without the standard of care and benefit they deserve. This article, part of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) strategic plan, examines the impediments to successful adoption, dissemination, and implementation of lung cancer screening. Proposed solutions identified by the ACS NLCRT Implementation Strategies Task Group and work currently underway to address these challenges to improve uptake of lung cancer screening are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The evidence supporting the benefit of lung cancer screening in adults who previously or currently smoke has led to widespread endorsement and coverage by health plans. Lung cancer screening programs should be designed to promote high uptake rates of screening among eligible adults, and to deliver high-quality screening and follow-up care.

Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tools that can automatically predict incident esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using electronic health records to guide screening decisions are needed. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse was accessed to identify Veterans with 1 or more encounters between 2005 and 2018. Patients diagnosed with EAC (n = 8430) or GCA (n = 2965) were identified in the VHA Central Cancer Registry and compared with 10,256,887 controls. Predictors included demographic characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory results, and diagnoses between 1 and 5 years before the index date. The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma predictioN (K-ECAN) tool was developed and internally validated using simple random sampling imputation and extreme gradient boosting, a machine learning method. Training was performed in 50% of the data, preliminary validation in 25% of the data, and final testing in 25% of the data. RESULTS: K-ECAN was well-calibrated and had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.77) than previously validated models, such as the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (AuROC, 0.68) and Kunzmann model (AuROC, 0.64), or published guidelines. Using only data from between 3 and 5 years before index diminished its accuracy slightly (AuROC, 0.75). Undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population, AUCs of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and Kunzmann model improved, but K-ECAN was still the most accurate (AuROC, 0.85). Although gastroesophageal reflux disease was strongly associated with EAC, it contributed only a small proportion of gain in information for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: K-ECAN is a novel, internally validated tool predicting incident EAC and GCA using electronic health records data. Further work is needed to validate K-ECAN outside VHA and to assess how best to implement it within electronic health records.

Comparisons of assessment pathways after abnormal mammography screening in Denmark, Norway, and Spain.

PURPOSE: To ensure high-quality screening programmes and effective utilization of resources, it is important to monitor how cancer detection is affected by different strategies performed at recall assessment. This study aimed to describe procedures performed at recall assessment and compare and evaluate the performance of the assessment in Denmark, Norway, and Spain in terms of screen-detected cancer (SDC) and interval cancer (IC) rates. METHODS: We included women aged 50-69 years from Denmark, Norway, and Spain, who were recalled for assessment after screening mammography, and recorded all procedures performed during six months after diagnosis, and the timing of the procedures. Women were followed for two years and screen-detected and interval cancer, and sensitivity of recall was calculated and compared. RESULTS: In total, data from 24,645 Danish, 30,050 Norwegian, and 41,809 Spanish women were included in the study. Most of the women had some assessment within 2 months in all three countries. SDC rates were higher in Denmark (0.57) and Norway (0.60) compared to Spain (0.38), as were the IC rates, i.e. 0.25 and 0.18 vs. 0.12, respectively. The sensitivity of the diagnostic follow-up was somewhat higher in Denmark (98.3%) and Norway (98.2%), compared to Spain (95.4%), but when excluding non-invasive assessment pathways, the sensitivities were comparable. CONCLUSION: This comparison study showed variation in the assessment procedures used in the three countries as well as the SDC and IC rates and the sensitivity of recall.

The impact of non-structured PSA testing on prostate cancer-specific mortality on New Zealand Maori men.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of differences in Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) testing rates on prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and PCa-specific mortality among Maori men in a New Zealand (NZ) population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Maori men aged 40 years or older, without a history of PCa, with a PSA test between 2006 and 2018 were included. The cohort was divided into two groups; the "screened group" (ScG) consisting of men who had at least one PSA test every four years or less, and the "non-screened group" (non-SG). We measured the rate of cancer diagnoses and used competing risk analysis to assess survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63,939 Maori men, with 37,048 (58%) in the ScG. PCa was more frequently diagnosed in the ScG (3.7% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of high-grade cancers were found in the non-SG (32.7% vs. 25.6%, P = 0.001). The 10-year cancer-specific survival was significantly higher in the ScG (99.4% vs. 98.5%, P < 0.001). In a multivariable risk model, PSA testing frequency was an independent predictor of PCa mortality. (HR 2.43, [95% CI 1.97-3.01], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of only Maori men, lower PSA testing rates were associated with a higher risk of PCa-related death. Therefore, regular PSA testing for Maori could improve cancer-specific survival among Maori men. Regular PSA testing should be considered a priority area for improving PCa survival in this population.

Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone.

PURPOSE: This work aims to compare the interval cancer rate and interval cancer characteristics between women screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) + digital mammography (DM) and those screened with DM alone. METHODS: The interval cancer rate and interval cancer characteristics of the study population included in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST) were compared to a contemporary control population screened with DM. The tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were also compared. Contingency tables were used to compare interval cancer rates. The chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the qualitative characteristics of the cancers whereas Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyse quantitative features. RESULTS: A total of 16,068 screening exams with DBT + DM were conducted within the CBTST (mean age 57.59 ± 5.9 [SD]) between January 2015 and December 2016 (study population). In parallel, 23,787 women (mean age 58.89 ± 5.9 standard deviation [SD]) were screened with DM (control population). The interval cancer rate was lower in the study population than in the control population (15 [0.93‰; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73, 1.14] vs 43 [1.8‰; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.04] respectively; p = 0.045). The difference in rate was more marked in women with dense breasts (0.95‰ in the study population vs 3.17‰ in the control population; p = 0.031). Interval cancers were smaller in the study population than in the control population (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The interval cancer rate was lower in women screened with DBT + DM compared to those screened with DM alone. These differences were more pronounced in women with dense breasts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Women screened using tomosynthesis and digital mammography had a lower rate of interval cancer than women screened with digital mammography, with the greatest difference in the interval cancer rate observed in women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The interval cancer rate was lower in the study population (digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT] + digital mammography [DM]) than in the control population (DM). • The difference in interval cancer rates was more pronounced in women with dense breasts. • Interval cancers were smaller in the study population (DBT + DM) than in the control population (DM).

How do AI markings on screening mammograms correspond to cancer location? An informed review of 270 breast cancer cases in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the location of AI markings on screening mammograms with cancer location on diagnostic mammograms, and to classify interval cancers with high AI score as false negative, minimal sign, or true negative. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 2022, we compared the performance of an AI system with independent double reading according to cancer detection. We found 93% (880/949) of the screen-detected cancers, and 40% (122/305) of the interval cancers to have the highest AI risk score (AI score of 10). In this study, four breast radiologists reviewed mammograms from 126 randomly selected screen-detected cancers and all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10. The location of the AI marking was stated as correct/not correct in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique view. Interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were classified as false negative, minimal sign significant/non-specific, or true negative. RESULTS: All screen-detected cancers and 78% (93/120) of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were correctly located by the AI system. The AI markings matched in both views for 79% (100/126) of the screen-detected cancers and 22% (26/120) of the interval cancers. For interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 11% (13/120) were correctly located and classified as false negative, 10% (12/120) as minimal sign significant, 26% (31/120) as minimal sign non-specific, and 31% (37/120) as true negative. CONCLUSION: AI markings corresponded to cancer location for all screen-detected cancers and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI score, indicating a potential for reducing the number of interval cancers. However, it is uncertain whether interval cancers with subtle findings in only one view are actionable for recall in a true screening setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this study, AI markings corresponded to the location of the cancer in a high percentage of cases, indicating that the AI system accurately identifies the cancer location in mammograms with a high AI score. KEY POINTS: • All screen-detected and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI risk score (AI score of 10) had AI markings in one or two views corresponding to the location of the cancer on diagnostic images. • Among all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 21% (25/120) were classified as a false negative or minimal sign significant and had AI markings matching the cancer location, suggesting they may be visible on prior screening. • Most of the correctly located interval cancers matched only in one view, and the majority were classified as either true negative or minimal sign non-specific, indicating low potential for being detected earlier in a real screening setting.