Risk factors and hearing outcomes in infants and young children in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  Targeted new-born hearing screening, based on high risk factors is recommended in the absence of universal new-born hearing screening in resource-constrained settings. The relevance of risk factors listed in the guidelines of high-income countries and used by low-middle income countries remains relatively unknown. Risk factors consistent with the epidemiological profile, evolution of risks and disease burden in these countries need to be considered. OBJECTIVES:  This study aimed to profile the frequency of risk factors and their manifestation in hearing outcomes of young children in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. METHOD:  A chart review of N = 1433 patients' archival audiology records was conducted, conveniently sampled from a single tertiary hospital (n = 351), a provincial assessment and therapy centre (n = 649), a university clinic (n = 291), and two schools for the deaf (n = 142). RESULTS:  Overall, 56% of the participants presented with either a conductive, sensorineural or a mixed hearing loss; 62% of the children had between 1 and 2 risk factors present (Mean [M] = 1.1; standard deviation [s.d.] = 0.98). Admission to neonatal intensive care unit, maternal infections, bacterial and viral infections and chemotherapy, from the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing list of high risk factors were significantly associated with hearing loss (p  0.05). Known non-JCIH risks, emerging risks and other statistically significant contextually relevant risk factors were also noted. CONCLUSION:  Understanding the profile of high risk factors in a given context has implications for prevention, early hearing identification and intervention services.Contribution: Targeted new-born hearing screening needs to be based on risk factors that are contextually relevant. This study is one of the first profiling high risk factors for hearing loss in children in KZN, the province with the second highest population in South Africa.

Perspectives of refugee parents and unaccompanied minors on initial health assessment and access to care.

To explore the needs, expectations, and experiences of asylum-seeking parents and unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years on the initial health assessment for children and adolescents and access to care upon entry in the Netherlands, We conducted five semi-structured focus group discussions with asylum-seeking parents and unaccompanied minors, from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, and other Middle-East and African countries, supported by professional interpreters. To triangulate findings, semi-structured interviews with health care professionals involved in care for refugee children were conducted. Transcripts of focus group discussions were inductively and deductively coded and content analyzed; transcripts of interviews were deductively coded and content analyzed. In total, 31 asylum-seeking participants: 23 parents of 101 children (between 0 and 18 years old), 8 unaccompanied minors (between 15 and 17 years), and 6 healthcare professionals participated. Parents and minors expressed that upon entry, their needs were met for vaccinations, but not for screening or care for physical and mental health problems. Parents, minors, and health professionals emphasized the necessity of appropriate information and education about health, diseases, and the health system. Cultural change was mentioned as stressful for the parent-child interaction and parental well-being.     Conclusion: The perspectives of refugee parents and unaccompanied minors revealed opportunities to improve the experience of and access to health care of refugees entering the Netherlands, especially risk-specific screening and more adequate education about health, diseases, and the Dutch health care system. What is Known: •  Refugees have specific health needs due to pre-flight, flight, and resettlement conditions. Health assessment upon entry was non-obligatory in the Netherlands, except for the tuberculosis screening. Health needs were not always met, and refugees experienced barriers in access to care. What is New: • The initial health assessment met the needs concerning vaccinations but mismatched the needs regarding physical and mental health assessment. Screening for specific risk-related diseases and mental health could enable refugee parents and minors to engage better with the health system.

Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.

BACKGROUND: Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective. METHODS: Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified. RESULTS: Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density. CONCLUSIONS: The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.

Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Annual screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers. However, it is questionable whether all individuals require annual screening given the potential harms of LDCT screening. This study examines the benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening in heavy smokers and determines the optimal risk threshold for screening and risk-stratified screening intervals. METHODS: We conducted a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis in China, using a cohort-based Markov model which simulated a lung cancer screening cohort of 19,146 heavy smokers aged 50 ~ 74 years old, who had a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and were either current smokers or had quit for < 15 years. A total of 34 risk-based screening strategies, varying by different risk groups for screening eligibility and screening intervals (1-year, 2-year, 3-year, one-off, non-screening), were evaluated and were compared with annual screening for all heavy smokers (the status quo strategy). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective with a 30-year time horizon. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was adopted as three times the gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 (CNY 242,928) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Compared with the status quo strategy, nine risk-based screening strategies were found to be cost-effective, with two of them even resulting in cost-saving. The most cost-effective strategy was the risk-based approach of annual screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of ≥ 1.70%, biennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of 1.03 ~ 1.69%, and triennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of < 1.03%. This strategy had the highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of CNY 1032. All risk-based screening strategies were more efficient than the status quo strategy, requiring 129 ~ 656 fewer screenings per lung cancer death avoided, and 0.5 ~ 28 fewer screenings per life-year gained. The cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening was further improved when individual adherence to screening improved and individuals quit smoking after being screened. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-based screening strategies are more efficient in reducing lung cancer deaths and gaining life years compared to the status quo strategy. Risk-stratified screening intervals can potentially balance long-term benefit-harm trade-offs and improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screenings.

Results of a pilot risk-based lung cancer screening study: outcomes and comparisons to a Medicare eligible cohort.

PURPOSE: Risk-based lung cancer screening holds potential to detect more cancers and avert more cancer deaths than screening based on age and smoking history alone, but has not been widely assessed or implemented in the United States. The purpose of this study was to prospectively identify patients for lung cancer screening based on lung cancer risk using the PLCOm2012 model and to compare characteristics, risk profiles, and screening outcomes to a traditionally eligible screening cohort. METHODS: Participants who had a 6 year lung cancer risk score ≥ 1.5% calculated by the PLCOm2012 model and were ineligible for screening under 2015 Medicare guidelines were recruited from a lung cancer screening clinic. After informed consent, participants completed shared decision-making counseling and underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT). Characteristics and screening outcomes of the study population were compared to the traditionally eligible Medicare cohort with Fisher's Exact, t-tests, or Brown Mood tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: From August 2016 to July 2019, the study completed 48 baseline LDCTs. 10% of LDCTs recommended further pulmonary nodule evaluation (Lung-RADs 3 or 4) with two early-stage lung cancers diagnosed in individuals that had quit smoking > 15 years prior. The study population was approximately 5 years older (p = 0.001) and had lower pack years (p = 0.002) than the Medicare cohort. CONCLUSION: Prospective application of risk-based screening identifies screening candidates who are similar to a traditionally eligible Medicare cohort and future research should focus on the impact of risk calculators on lung cancer outcomes and optimal usability in clinical environments. This study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03683940) on 09/25/2018.

Use of risk-based cervical screening programs in resource-limited settings.

Cervical cancer screening and management in the U.S. has adopted a risk-based approach. However, the majority of cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in resource-limited settings, where screening and management are not widely available. We describe a conceptual model that optimizes cervical cancer screening and management in resource-limited settings by utilizing a risk-based approach. The principles of risk-based screening and management in resource limited settings include (1) ensure that the screening method effectively separates low-risk from high-risk patients; (2) directing resources to populations at the highest cancer risk; (3) screen using HPV testing via self-sampling; (4) utilize HPV genotyping to improve risk stratification and better determine who will benefit from treatment, and (5) automated visual evaluation with artificial intelligence may further improve risk stratification. Risk-based screening and management in resource limited settings can optimize prevention by focusing triage and treatment resources on the highest risk patients while minimizing interventions in lower risk patients.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. METHODS: Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. RESULTS: Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments.

Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.

Healthcare professionals' views following implementation of risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to determine feasibility of risk-stratified screening to facilitate successful implementation. We introduced risk-stratification (BC-Predict) into the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) at three screening sites in north-west England from 2019 to 2021. The present study investigated the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of the BC-Predict intervention and on the wider implementation of risk-based screening after BC-Predict was implemented in their screening site. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs working across the breast screening pathway at three NHSBSP sites that implemented BC-Predict. Thematic analysis interpreted the data. RESULTS: Three pre-decided themes were produced. (1) Acceptability of risk-based screening: risk-stratification was perceived as a beneficial step for both services and women. HCPs across the pathway reported low burden of running the BC-Predict trial on routine tasks, but with some residual concerns; (2) Barriers to implementation: comprised capacity constraints of services including the inadequacy of current IT systems to manage women with different risk profiles and, (3) Facilitators to implementation: included the continuation of stakeholder consultation across the pathway to inform implementation and need for dedicated risk screening admin staff, a push for mammography staff recruitment and guidance for screening services. Telephone helplines, integrating primary care, and supporting access for all language needs was emphasised. CONCLUSION: Risk-stratified breast screening was viewed as a progressive step providing it does not worsen inequalities for women. Implementation of risk-stratified breast screening requires staff to be reassured that there will be systems in place to support implementation and that it will not further burden their workload. Next steps require a comprehensive assessment of the resource needed for risk-stratification versus current resource availability, upgrades to screening IT and building screening infrastructure. The role of primary care needs to be determined. Simplification and clarification of risk-based screening pathways is needed to support HCPs agency and facilitate implementation. Forthcoming evidence from ongoing randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer risk-stratification will also determine implementation.

Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.

Close to half (45.4%) of the 2.3 million breast cancers (BC) diagnosed in 2020 were from Asia. While the burden of breast cancer has been examined at the level of broad geographic regions, literature on more in-depth coverage of the individual countries and subregions of the Asian continent is lacking. This narrative review examines the breast cancer burden in 47 Asian countries. Breast cancer screening guidelines and risk-based screening initiatives are discussed.

[Other approaches in breast cancer screening]. / Autres approches en dépistage du cancer du sein.

French breast cancer screening is based on organized screening with a mammography every two years for women between 50 and 74, and individualized screening for women at high or very high risk of breast cancer (personal history of breast cancer or atypical breast lesion or thoracic radiotherapy before the age of 25, high family risk without genetic mutation, genetic mutation). A novel approach of risk-based breast cancer screening is currently under evaluation in many countries, including France. This personalized screening, based on individual risk of having breast cancer in the next years, uses algorithms which combine clinical parameters, mammographic density, familial history and genomic (using polygenic risk score), to estimate breast cancer risk and adapt screening's frequency.

Overlap of high-risk individuals predicted by family history, and genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction models: implications for risk stratification.

BACKGROUND: Family history, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors can stratify women according to their individual risk of developing breast cancer. The extent of overlap between these risk predictors is not clear. METHODS: In this case-only analysis involving 7600 Asian breast cancer patients diagnosed between age 30 and 75 years, we examined identification of high-risk patients based on positive family history, the Gail model 5-year absolute risk [5yAR] above 1.3%, breast cancer predisposition genes (protein-truncating variants [PTV] in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53), and polygenic risk score (PRS) 5yAR above 1.3%. RESULTS: Correlation between 5yAR (at age of diagnosis) predicted by PRS and the Gail model was low (r=0.27). Fifty-three percent of breast cancer patients (n=4041) were considered high risk by one or more classification criteria. Positive family history, PTV carriership, PRS, or the Gail model identified 1247 (16%), 385 (5%), 2774 (36%), and 1592 (21%) patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. In a subset of 3227 women aged below 50 years, the four models studied identified 470 (15%), 213 (7%), 769 (24%), and 325 (10%) unique patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. For younger women, PRS and PTVs together identified 745 (59% of 1276) high-risk individuals who were not identified by the Gail model or family history. CONCLUSIONS: Family history and genetic and non-genetic risk stratification tools have the potential to complement one another to identify women at high risk.

BreastScreen Australia national data by factors of interest for risk-based screening: routinely reported data and opportunities for enhancement.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in more risk-based approaches to breast cancer screening in Australia. This would require more detailed reporting of BreastScreen data for factors of interest in the assessment and monitoring of risk-based screening. This review assesses the current and potential availability and reporting of BreastScreen data for this purpose. METHODS: We systematically searched governmental BreastScreen reports and peer-reviewed literature to assess current and potential availability of outcomes for predetermined factors including breast cancer risk factors and factors important for implementing, monitoring or evaluating risk-based screening. Outcomes evaluated were BreastScreen Performance Indicators routinely included in BreastScreen Australia monitoring reports, and key tumour characteristics. RESULTS: All outcomes were reported annually by age group, except for tumour hormone receptor status, nodal involvement and grade. Screening participation was reported nationally for many factors important for risk-based screening; other reporting was ad hoc or unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential to build on BreastScreen's existing high-quality national data collection and reporting systems to inform and support risk-based breast screening. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Enhanced BreastScreen data collection and reporting would improve the evidence base and support evaluation of risk-based screening and improve the detail available for benchmarking any future changes to the program.

"It's personalized, but it's still bucket based": The promise of personalized medicine vs. the reality of genomic risk stratification in a breast cancer screening trial.

Adaptive pragmatic clinical trials offer an innovative approach that integrates clinical care and research. Yet, blurring the boundaries between research and clinical care raises questions about how clinicians and investigators balance their caregiving and research roles and what types of knowledge and risk assessment are most valued. This paper presents findings from an ethnographic ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Implications) study of an innovative clinical trial of risk-based breast cancer screening that utilizes genomics to stratify risk and recommend a breast cancer screening commensurate with the assessed risk. We argue that the trial demonstrates a fundamental tension between the promissory ideals of personalized medicine, and the reality of implementing risk stratified care on a population scale. We examine the development of a Screening Assignment Review Board in response to this tension which allows clinician-investigators to negotiate, but never fully resolve, the inherent contradiction of 'precision population screening'.

Management of Lung Cancer Screening Results Based on Individual Prediction of Current and Future Lung Cancer Risks.

OBJECTIVES: We propose a risk-tailored approach for management of lung cancer screening results. This approach incorporates individual risk factors and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) image features into calculations of immediate and next-screen (1-y) risks of lung cancer detection, which in turn can recommend short-interval imaging or 1-year or 2-year screening intervals. METHODS: We first extended the "LCRAT+CT" individualized risk calculator to predict lung cancer risk after either a negative or abnormal LDCT screen result. To develop the abnormal screen portion, we analyzed 18,129 abnormal LDCT results in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), including lung cancers detected immediately (n = 649) or at the next screen (n = 235). We estimated the potential impact of this approach among NLST participants with any screen result (negative or abnormal). RESULTS: Applying the draft National Health Service (NHS) England protocol for lung screening to NLST participants referred 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but delayed diagnosis for 40% of detectable cancers. The Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool+Computed Tomography (LCRAT+CT) risk model, with a threshold of less than 0.95% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also refer 76% of participants to a 2-year interval, but would delay diagnosis for only 30% of cancers, a 25% reduction versus the NHS protocol. Alternatively, LCRAT+CT, with a threshold of less than 1.7% cumulative lung cancer risk, would also delay diagnosis for 40% of cancers, but would refer 85% of participants for a 2-year interval, a 38% further reduction in the number of required 1-year screens beyond the NHS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Using individualized risk models to determine management in lung cancer screening could substantially reduce the number of screens or increase early detection.

A risk-based framework for assessing real-time lung cancer screening eligibility that incorporates life expectancy and past screening findings.

BACKGROUND: Current lung cancer risk-based screening approaches use a single risk-threshold, disregard life-expectancy, and ignore past screening findings. We address these limitations with a comprehensive analytical framework, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool that aims to optimize lung cancer screening for US ever-smokers under dynamic risk assessment by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings over time. METHODS: ENGAGE employs a partially observable Markov decision process framework that integrates published risk prediction and disease progression models, to dynamically assess the trade-off between the expected health benefits and harms associated with screening. ENGAGE evaluates lung cancer risk annually and provides real-time screening eligibility that maximizes the expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of ever-smokers. We compare ENGAGE against the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guideline and single-threshold risk-based screening paradigms. RESULTS: Compared with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, ENGAGE expands screening coverage among ever-smokers (ENGAGE: 78%, USPSTF: 61%), while reducing the number of screening examinations per person (ENGAGE:10.43, USPSTF:12.07, P < .001), yields higher effectiveness in terms of increased lung cancer-specific mortality reduction (ENGAGE: 19%, USPSTF: 15%, P < .001) and improves screening efficiency (ENGAGE: 696, USPSTF: 819 screens per death avoided, P < .001). When compared against a single-threshold risk-based screening strategy, ENGAGE increases QALY requiring 30% fewer screens per death avoided (ENGAGE: 696, single-threshold: 889, P < .001), and reduces false positives by 40%. CONCLUSIONS: ENGAGE provides a comprehensive framework for dynamic risk-based assessment of lung cancer screening eligibility by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings that can serve to guide future policies on the effectiveness and efficiency of screening. LAY SUMMARY: A novel decision-analytical screening framework was developed for lung cancer, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool to provide personalized screening schedules for ever-smokers. ENGAGE captures the dynamic nature of lung cancer risk and incorporates life expectancy into the screening decision-making process. ENGAGE integrates past screening findings and changes in smoking behavior of individuals and provides informed screening decisions that outperform existing screening guidelines and single-threshold risk-based screening approaches. A personalized lung cancer screening program facilitated by a tool such as ENGAGE could enhance the efficiency of lung cancer screening.

The STHLM3-model, Risk-based Prostate Cancer Testing Identifies Men at High Risk Without Inducing Negative Psychosocial Effects.

BACKGROUND: The new STHLM3 test, combining protein markers, genetic markers, and clinical data to assess a man's prostate cancer (PCa) risk, has been investigated in Sweden within the frame of the STHLM3 trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the STHLM3 test influences men's worry level, PCa knowledge, attitude, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Invitations with login to the web survey were mailed to 10 000 men, 50-69 yr of age, who were eligible for the STHLM3 trial. The survey was sent 3 mo before invitation to the STHLM3 trial (baseline) and 5 mo after STHLM3 (follow-up). At baseline, the men were unaware of the upcoming invitation to STHLM3. The survey covered the following: PCa-specific worry and perceived vulnerability, knowledge about PCa, attitude toward PCa testing and health behavior, and HRQoL. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Survey scores were compared between baseline and follow-up by using the nonparametric Wilcoxon-signed rank tests for paired samples. Analysis of covariance was performed for PCa risk group comparisons. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 994 men (10%) responded to our survey at baseline and follow-up, and were assessed as follows: low risk: 421 men; intermediate risk: 421 men; and high risk:152, of whom 59 were diagnosed with PCa after further investigation. In men assessed as having low and intermediate risk, level of worrying decreased at follow-up (p < 0.001), whereas no changes were observed in men at high risk. Moreover, no HRQoL changes were observed over time. The low response rate is the main limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the STHLM3 model, a risk-based PCa test, showed no negative impact on the well-being of men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Since our results suggest that the risk-based screening as used in STHLM3 did not induce negative psychological effects on the participants, we can recommend this risk-based approach for population-based prostate cancer screening.

Emerging and Ongoing Survivorship Challenges Among Childhood Cancer Survivors and Providing Risk-Based Focused Follow-Up Care.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a summary of the emerging and ongoing survivorship challenges facing childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors and their families. DATA SOURCES: Research and review articles, websites, and clinical guidelines specific to childhood cancer survivorship were used. CONCLUSION: Many challenges exist in assuring quality long-term follow-up and risk-based screening for childhood cancer survivors. Although many childhood cancer survivors survive well into adulthood, they are at risk for a vast number of later complications of their cancer treatment necessitating annual cancer surveillance. In addition, many childhood cancer survivors are not engaging in long-term follow-up recommendations for clinic attendance, risk-based surveillance, and screening for potentially life-ending events. Pediatric oncology nurses and advanced practice nurses have played an enormous role in the design of childhood cancer survivorship programs and are an integral member of the multidisciplinary health care team who care for this population. Nurses have an obligation to continue to advance the survivorship care of childhood cancer survivors and lead interventional opportunities to improve the lifelong health-related quality of life and overall physical health. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Pediatric oncology nurses and advanced practice registered nurses must have a working knowledge of the many late effects that childhood cancer treatment has on the long-term health of childhood cancer survivors. Nurses are well-placed in positions to continue the efforts begun more than 2 decades prior by pediatric oncology nurses who saw the value and necessity of designated survivorship programs.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review.

To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population-based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk-factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk-based. In fact, the selection of high-risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk-stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk-based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk-based approaches can negatively influence the trade-off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large-scale implementation of targeted, risk-based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high-risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk-based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk-stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.