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.

Increasing Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care.

Screening for cancer has contributed to substantial reductions in death from several cancers and is one of the most cost-effective preventive interventions in all of health care. In the United States, primary care clinicians, their clinical teams, and the systems in which they work are primarily responsible for ensuring that screening occurs. In order to achieve the highest possible population-wide screening rates, primary care clinicians must embrace the responsibility to screen their entire enrolled patient population, institute several overarching general approaches to screening, and implement a combination of evidence-based interventions.

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.

A Novel Decision Aid to Encourage Smoking Cessation Among Patients at an Urban Safety Net Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Decision aids are not readily available to individualize the benefits of smoking cessation but could help health care providers engage in meaningful conversations with their patients to explore and encourage an attempt to quit smoking. We conducted a pilot study of a novel decision aid among an underserved population to assess its effectiveness in increasing readiness to quit and quit attempts. METHODS: We designed a decision aid that used images of birthday cakes to highlight the number of years of life that could be gained from smoking cessation and tested it in an urban safety net clinic. Active adult smokers were randomized to receive smoking cessation counseling, either with motivational interviewing techniques alone (control) or with motivational interviewing and the decision aid (intervention). The primary outcome assessed was readiness to quit, measured by using a previously validated contemplation ladder. The secondary outcome assessed was making a quit attempt. RESULTS: Immediately following the interview, 21.1% of patients rose on the readiness-to-quit ladder; at 1 month, 40.6%; and at 3 months, 46.6%. We saw no significant difference between the control and intervention groups immediately after the interview (P = .79), at 1 month (P = .92), or at 3 months (P = .79). Over the 3-month follow-up period, 25% of patients in the control group made a quit attempt, and 15.4% of patients in the intervention group made a quit attempt (P = .30). Patients found the decision aid useful and easy to understand. CONCLUSION: Patients from an underserved population were highly receptive to a visual and personalized decision aid that highlighted the positive impact of smoking cessation. However, we found no difference in readiness to quit between patients who received motivational interviewing with the decision aid or without it.

Colorectal cancer screening for average­risk 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 model­recommendable 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 high­sensitivity stool­based 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) average­risk 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; high­sensitivity, guaiac­based 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;000:000­000. © 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.

Screening mammography for average-risk women.

This Practice Pearl describes an approach to screening mammography for average-risk women that encourages the use of shared decision-making that addresses benefits (early diagnosis and decreased mortality) and potential harms (false positives and overdiagnosis/overtreatment) in determining screening mammography initiation, frequency, and duration for women at average risk of breast cancer.

Addressing Disparities in Stroke Prevention for Atrial Fibrillation: Educational Opportunities.

Disparities in atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke and mortality persist, especially racial disparities, within the US "Stroke Belt." This study identified barriers to optimal stroke prevention to develop a framework for clinician education. A comprehensive educational needs assessment was developed focusing on clinicians within the Stroke Belt. The mixed qualitative-quantitative approach included regional surveys and one-on-one clinician interviews. Identified contributors to disparities included implicit racial biases, lack of awareness of racial disparities in AF stroke risk, and lack of effective multicultural awareness and training. Additional barriers affecting disparities included patient medical mistrust and clinician-patient communication challenges. General barriers included lack of consistency in assessing stroke and anticoagulant-related bleeding risk, underuse of standardized risk assessment tools, discomfort with novel anticoagulants, and patient education deficiencies. Effective cultural competency training is one strategy to reduce disparities in AF-related stroke and mortality by improving implicit clinician bias, addressing medical mistrust, and improving clinician-patient communication.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.

IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer. PROCESS: The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases.

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.

Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation.

American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested.

Changing conversations: teaching safety and quality in residency training.

Improving patient safety and quality in health care is one of medicine's most pressing challenges. Residency training programs have a unique opportunity to meet this challenge by training physicians in the science and methods of patient safety and quality improvement (QI).With support from the Health Resources and Services Administration, the authors developed an innovative, longitudinal, experiential curriculum in patient safety and QI for internal medicine residents at the University of Virginia. This two-year curriculum teaches the critical concepts and skills of patient safety and QI: systems thinking and human factors analysis, root cause analysis (RCA), and process mapping. Residents apply these skills in a series of QI and patient safety projects. The constructivist educational model creates a learning environment that actively engages residents in improving the quality and safety of their medical practice.Between 2003 and 2005, 38 residents completed RCAs of adverse events. The RCAs identified causes and proposed useful interventions that have produced important care improvements. Qualitative analysis demonstrates that the curriculum shifted residents' thinking about patient safety to a systems-based approach. Residents completed 237 outcome assessments during three years. Results indicate that seminars met predefined learning objectives and were interactive and enjoyable. Residents strongly believe they gained important skills in all domains.The challenge to improve quality and safety in health care requires physicians to learn new knowledge and skills. Graduate medical education can equip new physicians with the skills necessary to lead the movement to safer and better quality of care for all patients.This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

Which hospitals have significantly better or worse than expected mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction patients? Improved risk adjustment with present-at-admission diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Public reports that compare hospital mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction are commonly used strategies for improving the quality of care delivered to these patients. Fair comparisons of hospital mortality rates require thorough adjustments for differences among patients in baseline mortality risk. This study examines the effect on hospital mortality rate comparisons of improved risk adjustment methods using diagnoses reported as present-at-admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: Logistic regression models and related methods originally used by California to compare hospital mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction are replicated. These results are contrasted with results obtained for the same hospitals by patient-level mortality risk adjustment models using present-at-admission diagnoses, using 3 statistical methods of identifying hospitals with higher or lower than expected mortality: indirect standardization, adjusted odds ratios, and hierarchical models. Models using present-at-admission diagnoses identified substantially fewer hospitals as outliers than did California model A for each of the 3 statistical methods considered. CONCLUSIONS: Large improvements in statistical performance can be achieved with the use of present-at-admission diagnoses to characterize baseline mortality risk. These improvements are important because models with better statistical performance identify different hospitals as having better or worse than expected mortality.

Present-at-admission diagnoses improved mortality risk adjustment among acute myocardial infarction patients.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital mortality outcomes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are a focus of quality improvement programs conducted by government agencies. AMI mortality risk-adjustment models using administrative data typically adjust for baseline differences in mortality risk with a limited set of common and definite comorbidities. In this study, we present an AMI mortality risk-adjustment model that adjusts for comorbid disease and for AMI severity using information from secondary diagnoses reported as present at admission for California hospital patients. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: AMI patients were selected from California hospital administrative data for 1996 through 1999 according to criteria used by the California Hospital Outcomes Project Report on Heart Attack Outcomes, a state-mandated public report that compares hospital mortality outcomes. We compared results for the new model to two mortality risk-adjustment models used to assess hospital AMI mortality outcomes by the state of California, and to two other models used in prior research. RESULTS: The model using present-at-admission diagnoses obtained substantially better discrimination between predicted survival and inpatient death than the other models we considered. CONCLUSION: AMI mortality risk-adjustment methods can be meaningfully improved using present-at-admission diagnoses to identify comorbid disease and conditions related closely to AMI.