Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update.

PURPOSE: To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in a primary care setting for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. This protocol outlines the scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews and one overview of reviews. METHODS: To evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension, the Task Force will rely on the relevant key questions from the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. In addition, a series of reviews will be conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on (1) the association of blood pressure measurement methods and future cardiovascular (CVD)-related outcomes, (2) thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation, and (3) patient acceptability of hypertension screening methods. For the review of blood pressure measurement methods and future CVD-related outcomes, we will perform a de novo review and search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and within-arm analyses of intervention studies. For the thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation review, we will perform an overview of reviews and update results from a relevant 2019 UK NICE review. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews. For the acceptability review, we will perform a de novo systematic review and search MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies with comparison groups. Websites of relevant organizations, gray literature sources, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews will be hand-searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers. Full-text screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers. Results from included studies will be synthesized narratively and pooled via meta-analysis when appropriate. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of the evidence reviews will be used to inform Canadian recommendations on screening for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8w4tz).

Dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's knowledge translation efforts.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) develops evidence-based preventive health care guidelines and knowledge translation (KT) tools to facilitate guideline dissemination and implementation. We aimed to determine practitioners' awareness of task force guidelines and KT tools and explore barriers and facilitators to their use. METHODS: The task force's KT team completed annual evaluations using surveys and interviews with primary care providers in Canada from 2014 to 2020, to assess practitioners' awareness and determinants of use of task force guidelines and tools. We transcribed interviews verbatim and double-coded them using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 1284 primary care practitioners completed surveys and 183 participated in interviews. On average, 79.9% of participants were aware of the task force's 7 cancer screening guidelines, 36.2% were aware of the other 6 screening guidelines and 18.6% were aware of the 3 lifestyle or prevention guidelines. Participants identified 13 barriers and 7 facilitators to guideline and KT tool implementation; these were consistent over time. Participants identified strategies at the public and patient, provider and health systems levels to improve uptake of guidelines. INTERPRETATION: Canadian primary care practitioners were more aware of task force cancer screening guidelines than its other preventive health guidelines. Over the 6-year period, participants consistently reported barriers to guideline uptake, including misalignment with patient preferences and other provincial or specialty guideline organizations. Further evaluations will assess tailored strategies to address the barriers identified.

Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are a major health concern for older adults and can result in disability, admission to hospital and long-term care, and reduced quality of life. This Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on screening to prevent fragility fractures in community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years and older who are not currently on preventive pharmacotherapy. METHODS: We commissioned systematic reviews on benefits and harms of screening, predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools, patient acceptability and benefits of treatment. We analyzed treatment harms via a rapid overview of reviews. We further examined patient values and preferences via focus groups and engaged stakeholders at key points throughout the project. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome and strength of recommendations, and adhered to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), Guidelines International Network and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) reporting guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend "risk assessment-first" screening for prevention of fragility fractures in females aged 65 years and older, with initial application of the Canadian clinical Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD). The FRAX result should be used to facilitate shared decision-making about the possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy. After this discussion, if preventive pharmacotherapy is being considered, clinicians should request BMD measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femoral neck, and re-estimate fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into FRAX (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We recommend against screening females aged 40-64 years and males aged 40 years and older (strong recommendation, very low-certainty evidence). These recommendations apply to community-dwelling individuals who are not currently on pharmacotherapy to prevent fragility fractures. INTERPRETATION: Risk assessment-first screening for females aged 65 years and older facilitates shared decision-making and allows patients to consider preventive pharmacotherapy within their individual risk context (before BMD). Recommendations against screening males and younger females emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at higher risk of fragility fracture.

Recommandations sur le dépistage pour la prévention primaire des fractures de fragilisation.

CONTEXTE: Les fractures de fragilisation sont un important problème de santé chez les adultes âgés et peuvent entraîner des incapacités, des hospitalisations et le placement en établissement de soins de longue durée, en plus de nuire à la qualité de vie. La présente ligne directrice du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (le Groupe d'étude) formule des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes au sujet du dépistage pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les personnes âgées de 40 ans et plus vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous traitement pharmacologique préventif. MÉTHODES: Nous avons commandé des revues systématiques sur les bénéfices et les préjudices du dépistage, l'exactitude prédictive des outils d'évaluation du risque, les bénéfices du traitement, ainsi que l'acceptabilité de celui-ci par les patients. Nous avons analysé les préjudices des traitements au moyen d'un examen rapide de revues systématiques. Nous avons en outre analysé les valeurs et les préférences des patients par l'entremise de groupes de discussion et auprès d'intervenants mobilisés à certains moments clés, tout au long du projet. Nous avons utilisé l'approche méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) afin de déterminer la certitude des données probantes pour chacune des issues cliniques ainsi que la force des recommandations, et nous avons appliqué les lignes directrices de l'instrument AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation), du Guidelines International Network (GIN) et du guide de rédaction Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP 2). RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous recommandons un dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus. Le dépistage se fait d'abord au moyen de l'outil canadien FRAX, qui mesure le risque de fracture, sans densité minérale osseuse (DMO). Le score FRAX devrait guider la prise de décision partagée entourant les bénéfices et les préjudices potentiels de la pharmacothérapie préventive. Après cette discussion, si une pharmacothérapie préventive est envisagée, les médecins devraient demander une mesure de la DMO par absorptiométrie à rayons X biphotonique (DEXA) du col du fémur, puis réévaluer le risque de fracture en intégrant le score T de la DMO au score FRAX (recommandation conditionnelle, données de faible certitude). Nous ne recommandons pas le dépistage chez les femmes de 40­64 ans et les hommes de 40 ans et plus (recommandation forte, données de très faible certitude). Ces recommandations s'appliquent aux personnes vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous pharmacothérapie pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation. INTERPRÉTATION: Le dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus facilite la prise de décision partagée et permet aux patientes d'envisager la pharmacothérapie préventive en fonction de leur propre risque (avant DMO). Le fait de ne pas recommander le dépistage chez les hommes et les femmes plus jeunes rappelle l'importance des bonnes pratiques cliniques, en vertu desquelles les médecins doivent demeurer à l'affût de tout changement de l'état de santé des personnes qui pourrait indiquer qu'elles ont subi une fracture de fragilisation ou pourraient y être plus sujettes.

Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update.

PURPOSE: To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews. METHODS: Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. DISCUSSION: The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).