Dépistage du cancer du poumon de routine dans la pratique clinique : que des bénéfices ?

Le dépistage annuel du cancer du poumon (lung cancer screening, LCS) par CT-scan à faible dose (LDCT) chez les adultes éligibles augmente la détection précoce de cancer pulmonaire dans la pratique communautaire et réduit la mortalité dans des études cliniques randomisées. Cependant, le LCS peut aussi présenter des inconvénients tels que des résultats faussement positifs, des imageries avec irradiation, la nécessité de procédures diagnostiques invasives et le risque de complications. Par conséquent, comprendre l'équilibre entre les avantages et les risques liés au LCS dans la pratique clinique est primordial afin d'optimiser les directives et les critères de qualité pour améliorer l'efficacité du dépistage à travers l'ensemble des systèmes de santé et des populations.

Race and Ethnicity-Adjusted Age Recommendation for Initiating Breast Cancer Screening.

Importance: Breast cancer (BC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, and there is a substantial disparity in BC mortality by race, especially for early-onset BC in Black women. Many guidelines recommend starting BC screening from age 50 years; however, the current one-size-fits-all policy to start screening all women from a certain age may not be fair, equitable, or optimal. Objective: To provide race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages of BC screening based on data on current racial and ethnic disparities in BC mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using data on BC mortality in female patients in the US who died of BC in 2011 to 2020. Exposures: Proxy-reported race and ethnicity information was used. The risk-adapted starting age of BC screening by race and ethnicity was measured based on 10-year cumulative risk of BC-specific death. Age-specific 10-year cumulative risk was calculated based on age group-specific mortality data without modeling or adjustment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease-specific mortality due to invasive BC in female patients. Results: There were BC-specific deaths among 415 277 female patients (1880 American Indian or Alaska Native [0.5%], 12 086 Asian or Pacific Islander [2.9%], 62 695 Black [15.1%], 28 747 Hispanic [6.9%], and 309 869 White [74.6%]; 115 214 patients died before age 60 years [27.7%]) of any age in the US in 2011 to 2020. BC mortality per 100 000 person-years for ages 40 to 49 years was 27 deaths in Black females, 15 deaths in White females, and 11 deaths in American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander females. When BC screening was recommended to start at age 50 years for all females with a 10-year cumulative risk of BC death of 0.329%, Black females reached this risk threshold level 8 years earlier, at age 42 years, whereas White females reached it at age 51 years, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic females at age 57 years, and Asian or Pacific Islander females 11 years later, at age 61 years. Race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages for Black females were 6 years earlier for mass screening at age 40 years and 7 years earlier for mass screening at age 45 years. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides evidence-based race-adapted starting ages for BC screening. These findings suggest that health policy makers may consider a risk-adapted approach to BC screening in which individuals who are at high risk are screened earlier to address mortality due to early-onset BC before the recommended age of mass screening.

Is It Time to Expand Our Definition of "Clinical Utility"?

Currently, genetic tests that predict cancer risk or risk of recurrence in patients who have had their cancer treated with curative intent must have proven "clinical utility" to be recommended by the organizations responsible for publishing the standard-of-care guidelines for cancer care.Based on the current definition of clinical utility, most patients are denied testing for cancer-predisposing genes or pathogenic germline variants even though germline testing has been proven as highly accurate in identifying pathogenic germline variant carriers, there are measures recommended to prevent and diagnose early cancers associated with particular PGVs, and disparities in patient access to genetic tests are well described.Similarly, despite dozens of studies demonstrating that detected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative intention therapy of different cancer types is a highly accurate biomarker that predicts recurrence, the major organizations that publish guidelines for cancer monitoring after curative intention therapy recommend against using ctDNA assays to detect minimal residual disease and thereby predict recurrence for all solid tumor malignancies.Here, the primary reasons that these genetic tests are considered to lack proven clinical utility and the primary evidence suggesting that a broader definition of clinical utility should be considered are discussed. By expanding the definition of clinical utility, many patients will benefit from the information gained from having these genetic tests.

Preliminary Testing of A Web-Based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Coaching Tool for Older Chinese American Smokers and Their Providers.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid developed for older Chinese Americans with a smoking history and primary care providers serving this patient population. METHODS: Study participants reviewed a web-based decision aid (DA) for lung cancer screening named "Lung Decisions Coaching Tool (LDC-T)." Participants completed a baseline survey and were invited to join an interview. During the interview, participants engaged with the Lung Decisions Coaching Tool and then completed standardized measures of acceptability, usability, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Chinese American smokers (N =22) and Chinese American physicians (N=10) rated the acceptability and usability of a patient version and provider versions of the LDC-T, respectively. Patient version demonstrated high levels of acceptability, usability and satisfaction. Most participants rated the information provided as good or excellent, the amount of tool information was just right, and they thought the tool would be useful for making a screening decision. The tool was well received by participants for ease of use and well-integrated functions. Furthermore, participants indicated they would like to use the tool to help prepare for lung cancer screening shared decision-making with their provider. Similar results were found for the provider version of the LDC-T. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer screening represents an evidence-based approach to reducing lung cancer morbidity and mortality among chronic high-frequency smokers. Study results suggest the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid for Chinese American smokers and providers. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the DA in increasing appropriate levels of screening in this underserved population.

At What Age Should We Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening? When Is Enough, Enough?

There is strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening can reduce both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Guidelines recommend screening for individuals age 45 to 75 years, but are less certain about the benefits after age 75 years. Dalmat and colleagues provide evidence that individuals with a prior negative colonoscopy 10 years or more prior to reaching age 76 to 85 years, had a low risk of colorectal cancer, and would be less likely to benefit from further screening. It is important to note that this study population did not include individuals with a family history of colon cancer or a personal history of having high-risk adenomas. These data suggest that a negative colonoscopy can be an effective risk-stratification tool when discussing further screening with elderly patients. See related article by Dalmat et al., p. 37.

PET-CT v diagnostice a kontrole lécby onkologických onemocnení / PET-CT in the diagnosis and control of the treatment of oncological diseases

Pozitronová emisní tomografie (PET) v kombinaci s výpocetní tomografií, popr. s magnetickou rezonancí je zobrazovací vysetrovací metoda nukleární medicíny. Vyuzívá cíleného funkcního zobrazení specifických vlastností bunek pomocí radiofarmak. Nejvetsí uplatnení má PET v soucasnosti v onkologické diagnostice. Zde prispívá ke zpresnení stagingu, tedy stanovení rozsahu nemoci, ci detekci rezidua nebo relapsu. Cílem tohoto doporuceného postupu je standardizace indikací PET a definice klinických situací, u kterých lze ocekávat její nejvyssí prínos.

Positron emission tomography (PET) in combination with computed tomography, or with magnetic resonance is an imaging examination method of nuclear medicine. It uses targeted functional imaging of specific cell properties using radiopharmaceuticals. PET is currently most widely used in oncology diagnostics. Here, it contributes to more accurate staging, i.e. determining the extent of the disease, or detecting residual or relapse. The aim of this recommended procedure is to standardize the indications for PET and define the clinical situations in which its greatest benefit can be expected.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric. Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017. Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

New genomic technologies for multi-cancer early detection: Rethinking the scope of cancer screening.

Cancers other than breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung do not have guideline-recommended screening. New multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests-using a single blood sample-have been developed based on circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) or other analytes. In this commentary, we review the current evidence on these tests, provide several major considerations for new MCED tests, and outline how their evaluation will need to differ from that established for traditional single-cancer screening tests.

Validation of Identifying Cancer Diagnosis Based on Self-Reported Information in the Japan Nurses' Health Study.

BACKGROUND: The Japan Nurses' Health Study (JNHS) is a large-scale, nationwide prospective cohort study of female nurses. This study aimed to examine the validity of self-reported diagnosis of cancer among the JNHS cohort members (N=15,019). METHODS: For women who reported any diagnosis of five cancers (stomach, colorectal, liver, lung and thyroid) in the biennial follow-up surveys, an additional outcome survey, medical facility survey, and confirmation of death certificate (DC) were conducted. The JNHS Validation Study Committee (referred to as "the committee") made a final decision on the reported outcomes. To examine the validity of self-reported diagnosis of cancer, the positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated using the committee's decision as the gold standard. To examine the validity of the committee's decision based on self-reports and DCs, PPV was calculated using physician-reported information as the gold standard. RESULTS: The PPV of self-reported diagnosis in the biennial follow-up surveys was 77.8% for stomach, 66.2% for colorectal, 41.7% for liver, 60.2% for lung, and 64.6% for thyroid cancer. The corresponding PPVs in the additional outcome survey were 96.2%, 80.7%, 62.5%, 82.5%, and 96.9%, respectively. The PPV of the committee's decision was 100% for stomach, 87.5% for colorectal, 94.7% for lung, and 100% for thyroid cancer (data not available for liver cancer). The proportion of DC-only cases among committee-defined cases was below 10% for all cancers except liver cancer (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The validity of identifying cancer diagnosis based on self-reported information in the JNHS was favorable for stomach, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancer.

Assessment of US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline-Concordant Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Reasons for Underscreening by Age, Race and Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Rurality, and Insurance, 2005 to 2019.

Importance: Cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal in the US. Population-based assessment of reasons for not receiving screening is needed, particularly among women from historically underserved demographic groups. Objective: To estimate changes in US Preventive Service Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening over time and assess the reasons women do not receive up-to-date screening by sociodemographic factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pooled population-based cross-sectional study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey from 2005 and 2019. A total of 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) aged 21 to 65 years without previous hysterectomy were included. Analyses were conducted from March 30 to August 19, 2021. Exposures: Sociodemographic factors, including age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality of residence, and health insurance type. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were US Preventive Services Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening rates and self-reported primary reasons for not receiving up-to-date screening. For 2005, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone for women aged 21 to 29 years and screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30 to 65 years. Population estimation included sampling weights. Results: Among 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the study, most were aged 30 to 65 years (16 219 women; weighted, 86.3 million women [76.3%]) and had private insurance (13 571 women; weighted, 75.8 million women [67.0%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 997 women (weighted, 6.9 million women [6.1%]) were Asian, 3821 women (weighted, 19.5 million women [17.2%]) were Hispanic, 2862 women (weighted, 14.8 million women [13.1%]) were non-Hispanic Black, 12 423 women (weighted, 69.0 million women [61.0%]) were non-Hispanic White, and 453 women (weighted, 3.0 million women [2.7%]) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including Alaska Native and American Indian [weighted, 955 000 women (0.8%)] and other single and multiple races or ethnicities [weighted, 2.0 million women (1.8%)]). In 2019, women aged 21 to 29 years had a significantly higher rate of overdue screening (29.1%) vs women aged 30 to 65 years (21.1%; P < .001). In both age groups, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001). Significantly higher rates of overdue screening were found among those of Asian vs non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity (31.4% vs 20.1%; P = .01), those identifying as LGBQ+ (gender identity was not assessed because of a small sample) vs heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P < .001), those living in rural vs urban areas (26.2% vs 22.6%; P = .04), and those without insurance vs those with private insurance (41.7% vs 18.1%; P < .001). The most common reason for not receiving timely screening across all groups was lack of knowledge, ranging from 47.2% of women identifying as LGBQ+ to 64.4% of women with Hispanic ethnicity. Previous receipt of a human papillomavirus vaccine was not a primary reason for not having up-to-date screening (<1% of responses). From 2005 to 2019, among women aged 30 to 65 years, lack of access decreased significantly as a primary reason for not receiving screening (from 21.8% to 9.7%), whereas lack of knowledge (from 45.2% to 54.8%) and not receiving recommendations from health care professionals (from 5.9% to 12.0%) increased significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that cervical cancer screening that was concordant with US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decreased in the US between 2005 and 2019, with lack of knowledge reported as the biggest barrier to receiving timely screening. Campaigns addressing patient knowledge and provider communication may help to improve screening rates, and cultural adaptation of interventions is needed to reduce existing disparities.

The First Lady Presses for Cancer Screening to Get Back On Track.

The First Lady of the United States, Dr. Jill Biden, visited the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina on October 25, 2021. This Commentary remarks on the administration's goal of directing public attention to cancer screening and prevention as part of an overall effort to recover ground lost in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in underserved communities.

Racially Conscious Cancer Screening Guidelines: A Path Towards Culturally Competent Science.

OBJECTIVE: To review the racial composition of the study populations that the current USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer are based on, and the effects of their application across non-white individuals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: USPSTF guidelines commonly become the basis for establishing standards of care, yet providers are often unaware of the racial composition of the study populations they are based on. METHODS: We accessed the USPSTF screening guidelines for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer via their website, and reviewed all referenced publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on the racial composition of their study populations. We then used PubMed to identify publications addressing the generalizability of such guidelines across non-white individuals. Lastly, we reviewed all guidelines published by non-USPSTF organizations to identify the availability of race-specific recommendations. RESULTS: Most RCTs used as basis for the current USPSTF guidelines either did not report race, or enrolled cohorts that were not representative of the U.S. population. Several studies were identified demonstrating the broad application of such guidelines across non-white individuals can lead to underdiagnosis and higher levels of advanced disease. Nearly all guideline-issuing bodies fail to provide race-specific recommendations, despite often acknowledging increased disease burden among non-whites. CONCLUSION: Concerted efforts to overcome limitations in the generalizability of RCTs are required to provide screening guidelines that are truly applicable to non-white populations. Broader policy changes to improve the pipeline for minority populations into science and medicine are needed to address the ongoing lack of diversity in these fields.