Using aspirin to prevent and treat cancer.

This review will discuss evidence that aspirin possesses anticancer activity. Long-term observational retrospective studies on nurses and health professionals demonstrated that regular aspirin users had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer (RCT). Prospective studies on patients with a high risk of developing colorectal polyps/cancer confirmed that aspirin use significantly lowered colorectal dysplasia. Numerous observational studies focused on the use of aspirin in a broad range of cancers demonstrating a consistent 20-30% preventive effect on cancer incidence and mortality. Random Controlled Trials provided conflicting results on the benefit of aspirin in preventing CRC. Based on the age, weight/body size of the subjects for reasons still being explored. Studies on rats/mice further demonstrated that treatment of animals with aspirin where colon cancer was induced chemically or genetically (APCMin mice) reduced colonic dysplasia and polyp formation. Aspirin treatment was also effective at reducing the growth of cancer cells transplanted into normal/immunocompromised mice, suggesting that aspirin may be effective in treating different cancers. This possibility is also supported in clinical studies that aspirin use pre- and postcancer diagnosis significantly reduced the metastatic spread of cancer and increased patient survival. Lastly, the importance of the antiplatelet actions of aspirin in the drug's anticancer activity and specifically cancer metastatic spread is discussed and the current controversy related to the conflicting recommendations of the USPSTF over the past five years on the use of aspirin to prevent CRC.

Promoting lung cancer screening of high-risk patients by primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest of eligible patients remains low. Accordingly, augmentation of appropriate LCS referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) was sought. METHODS: The quality improvement (QI) project was performed between April 2021 and June 2022. It incorporated patient education, shared decision-making (SDM) with PCPs, and tracking of initial LDCT completion. In each case, lag time (LT) to LCS and pack-years (PYs) were calculated from initial LCS eligibility. The cohort's scores were compared to national scores. Patient zip codes were used to create a geographic map of our cohort for comparison with public health data. RESULTS: An immediate and sustained increase in weekly LCS referrals from PCPs was recorded. Of 337 initial referrals, 95% were men, consisting of 66.2% Black, 28.4% White, and 5.4% other. Mean PY was less for minorities (45.3 vs. 37.3 years; p = .0002) but mean LT was greater for Whites (7.9 vs. 6.2 years; p = .03). Twenty-five percent of veterans failed to report to their scheduled screening, and two declined referrals. Notably, most no-show patients lived in transit deserts. Furthermore, Lung-RADS scores 4B/4X were more than double the expected prevalence (p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The PCPs in this study successfully augmented LCS referrals. A substantial proportion of these patients were no-shows, and our data suggest complex racial and socioeconomic factors as contributing variables. In addition, a higher-than-expected number of initial Lung-RADS scores 4B/4X were reported. A large, multisite QI project is warranted to address overcoming potential transportation barriers in high-risk patient populations.

Sensitivity of US Preventive Services Task Force and PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota self-reporting as Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Screening individuals who are at elevated risk using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥20%. Individuals who have community-based factors that contribute to an increased risk of developing lung cancer have high lung cancer rates and are diagnosed at younger ages. In this study of lung cancer in South Dakota, the authors compared the sensitivity of screening eligibility criteria for self-reported Indigenous race and evaluated the need for screening at younger ages. METHODS: US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 and 2021 (USPSTF2013 and USPSTF2021) criteria and two versions of the PLCOm2012 risk-prediction model (based on the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial), one with a predictor for race and one without, were applied at USPSTF-equivalent thresholds of ≥1.7% in 6 years and ≥1.0% in 6 years to 1565 individuals who were sequentially diagnosed with lung cancer (of whom 12.7% self-reported as Indigenous) at the Monument Health Cancer Care Institute in South Dakota (2010-2019). RESULTS: Eligibility sensitivities of USPSTF criteria did not differ significantly between individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous and those who did not (p > .05). Sensitivities of both PLCOm2012 models were significantly higher than comparable USPSTF criteria. The sensitivity of USPSTF2021 criteria was 66.1% and, for comparable PLCOm2012 models with and without race, sensitivity was 90.7% and 89.6%, respectively (both p < .001); 1.4% of individuals were younger than 50 years, and proportions did not differ by Indigenous classification (p = .518). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in screening eligibility were not observed for individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous. USPSTF criteria had lower sensitivities for lung cancer eligibility. Both PLCOm2012 models had high sensitivities, with higher sensitivity for the model that included race. The PLCOm2012noRace model selected effectively in this population, and screening individuals younger than 50 years did not appear to be justified. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Studies show that using low-dose computed tomography scans to screen people who smoke or who used to smoke and are at elevated risk for lung cancer reduces lung cancer deaths. This study of 1565 individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota compared screening eligibility using US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and a lung cancer risk-prediction model (PLCOm2012; from the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial). The model had higher sensitivity and picked more people with lung cancer to screen compared with USPSTF criteria. Eligibility sensitivities were similar for individuals who self-reported as Indigenous versus those who did not between USPSTF criteria and the model.

State of the science on prevention and screening to reduce melanoma incidence and mortality: The time is now.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Although overall cancer incidence rates are decreasing, melanoma incidence rates continue to increase about 3% annually. Melanoma is a significant public health problem that exacts a substantial financial burden. Years of potential life lost from melanoma deaths contribute to the social, economic, and human toll of this disease. However, most cases are potentially preventable. Research has clearly established that exposure to ultraviolet radiation increases melanoma risk. Unprecedented antitumor activity and evolving survival benefit from novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies are now available for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic melanoma. Still, prevention (minimizing sun exposure that may result in tanned or sunburned skin and avoiding indoor tanning) and early detection (identifying lesions before they become invasive or at an earlier stage) have significant potential to reduce melanoma incidence and melanoma-associated deaths. This article reviews the state of the science on prevention and early detection of melanoma and current areas of scientific uncertainty and ongoing debate. The US Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer and US Preventive Services Task Force reviews on skin cancer have propelled a national discussion on melanoma prevention and screening that makes this an extraordinary and exciting time for diverse disciplines in multiple sectors-health care, government, education, business, advocacy, and community-to coordinate efforts and leverage existing knowledge to make major strides in reducing the public health burden of melanoma in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:460-480. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012Race3L risk-prediction model. METHODS: The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. RESULTS: Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI, 33.8-35.6). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups. LAY SUMMARY: In 2013, lung cancer screening (lung screening) was recommended for high risk individuals. The annual rate of lung screening has risen slowly, particularly among Black individuals. In part, this racial disparity resulted in expanded 2021 criteria. Survey data was used to: 1) describe the number of people screened in 2019, 2) compare the percent eligible for lung screening using the 2013 versus 2021 guidelines, and 3) determine the percent eligible using more detailed criteria. Lung screening rates increased in 2019, and the 2021 criteria will result in more individuals eligible for screening. Using additional criteria may identify more individuals eligible for lung screening.

Issues with implementing a high-quality lung cancer screening program.

After a comprehensive review of the evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed screening with low-dose computed tomography as an early detection approach that has the potential to significantly reduce deaths due to lung cancer. Prudent implementation of lung cancer screening as a high-quality preventive health service is a complex challenge. The clinical evaluation and management of high-risk cohorts in the absence of symptoms mandates an approach that differs significantly from that of symptom-detected lung cancer. As with other cancer screenings, it is essential to provide to informed at-risk individuals a safe, high-quality, cost-effective, and accessible service. In this review, the components of a successful screening program are discussed as we begin to disseminate lung cancer screening as a national resource to improve outcomes with this lethal cancer. This information about lung cancer screening will assist clinicians with communications about the potential benefits and harms of this service for high-risk individuals considering participation in the screening process.

Prostate Cancer Characteristics in the US Preventive Services Task Force Grade D Era: A Single-Center Study and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force assigned prostate-specific antigen-based screening a grade D recommendation, advising against screening at any age. Our objective was to compare prostate cancer characteristics pre- and post-recommendation with an adjusted analysis of our data and a pooled analysis including other primary data sources. METHODS: We identified all incident prostate cancer diagnoses at our institution from 2007 to 2016. Multivariable log binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk (RR) of metastasis at diagnosis, ≥Gleason Group 4, and high D'Amico risk disease pre- versus post-recommendation. The meta-analysis included primary data studies evaluating these outcomes. RESULTS: At our institution, 287 (44.6%) and 224 (48.8%) patients were diagnosed in the pre- and post-cohorts. The RR of metastatic disease at diagnosis did not differ between groups (p = 0.224), nor did the risk of high D'Amico category disease (p = 0.089). The risk of ≥Gleason Group 4 was 1.58 times higher post-recommendation (p = 0.007). The pooled risk of ≥Gleason Group 4 disease was 1.5 (p < 0.001) post-recommendation and was 1.29 (p = 0.006) for high D'Amico risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: While the number of metastatic cases did not differ after the recommendation, the risk of high-grade cancers increased at both a local and aggregated level.

Testing and referral patterns in the years surrounding the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening.

BACKGROUND: Since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, there have been conflicting reports regarding the impact on the behavior of providers. This study analyzed real-world data on PSA ordering and referral practices in the years surrounding the recommendation. METHODS: A whole-institution sample of entered PSA orders and urology referrals was obtained from the electronic medical record. The study was performed at a tertiary referral center with a catchment in the southern United States. PSA examinations were defined as screening when they were ordered by providers with appointments in internal medicine, family medicine, or general internal medicine. Linear and quadratic regression analyses were performed, and joinpoint regression was used to assess for trend inflection points. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and July 2015, there were 275,784 unique ambulatory visits for men. There were 63,722 raw PSA orders, and 54,684 were evaluable. Primary care providers ordered 17,315 PSA tests and 858 urology referrals. The number of PSA tests per ambulatory visit, the number of referrals per ambulatory visit, the age at the time of the urology referral, and the proportion of PSA tests performed outside the recommended age range did not significantly change. The PSA value at the time of referral increased significantly (P = .022). Joinpoint analysis revealed no joinpoints in the analysis of total PSA orders, screening PSA tests, or examinations per 100 visits. CONCLUSIONS: In the years surrounding the USPSTF recommendation, PSA behavior did not change significantly. Patients were referred at progressively higher average PSA levels. The implications for prostate cancer outcomes from these trends warrant further research into provider variables associated with actual PSA utilization. Cancer 2016;122:3785-3793. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy pre- and postaspirin guideline publication in individuals with pregestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Taskforce published guidelines in 2014 recommending that low-dose aspirin be initiated between 12 and 28 weeks of gestation among high-risk patients for preeclampsia prophylaxis. Moreover, low-dose aspirin is recommended by some clinicians for the prevention of preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether there is an association between the US Preventive Services Taskforce aspirin guideline hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth in individuals with pregestational diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN: This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of individuals with pregestational diabetes mellitus and at least 1 singleton delivery at >20 weeks of gestation with records available in the National Vital Statistics System between 2010 and 2018. The primary outcome was hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and the secondary outcome was preterm birth. Demographics and clinical characteristics among individuals in the pre-US Preventive Services Taskforce guideline cohort (2010-2013) were compared with that of individuals in the post-US Preventive Services Taskforce guideline cohort (2015-2018). Multivariable regression estimated the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between guideline publication and the selected endpoints. Effect modification was assessed for access to prenatal care using the Kotelchuck Index (<80% vs ≥80%). Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis limited to nulliparas was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 224,065 individuals were included. Individuals in the post-US Preventive Services Taskforce guideline cohort were more likely to be older, be obese, and have a history of preterm birth. In unadjusted and adjusted modeling, delivery in the post-US Preventive Services Taskforce guideline cohort was associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.28) and preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.12). The adjusted odds ratios for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth were more pronounced among those with less than adequate access to care. The findings were similar in the sensitivity analysis of only nulliparas. CONCLUSION: Delivery after US Preventive Services Taskforce aspirin guideline publication was associated with higher rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth in a population of individuals with diabetes mellitus. It is unknown whether patient or practitioner factors, or other changes in obstetrical care, contributed to these findings.

A qualitative study of primary care clinician's approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that cervical cancer screening end in average-risk patients with a cervix at 65 years of age if adequate screening measures have been met, defined as having 1) at least three normal consecutive cytology (Pap) tests, or 2) two normal cytology tests and/or two negative high-risk human papillomavirus tests between ages 55-65; the last test should be performed within the prior 5 years. Up to 60 % of all women aged 65 years and older who are ending screening do not meet the criteria for adequate screening. The objective of this study was to understand the process and approach that healthcare clinicians use to determine eligibility to end cervical cancer screening. In 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews in San Francisco, CA with twelve healthcare clinicians: two family medicine physicians, three general internal medicine physicians, two obstetrician/gynecologists and five nurse practitioners. Thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive coding, was utilized. Three major themes emerged: following guidelines, relying on self-reported data regarding prior screening, and considering sexual activity as a factor in the decision to end screening. All interviewees endorsed following the USPSTF guidelines and they utilized self-report to determine eligibility to end screening. Clinicians' approach was dependent in part on their judgement about the reliability of the patient to convey their screening history. Sexual activity of the patient was considered when making clinical recommendations. Shared decision-making was often utilized. Clinicians voiced a strong reliance on self-reported screening history to end cervical cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators among Jordanians: A cross-sectional study.

The factors affecting the adherence of Jordanians to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remain underexplored. We examined the inhibitory and facilitating factors that influence the uptake of CRC screening among Jordanians. We conducted questionnaire interviews between April 2020 and June 2021 with 861 Jordanians aged 50-75. We analyzed the differences between proportions using the chi-square test. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine factors associated with awareness of CRC and its screening. Of all participants, 41.7 % were aware of the necessity of screening for CRC, and 27.2 % were aware of at least one of the tests for CRC screening. However, only 17.2 % of participants underwent screening. In the multivariate analysis, participants with higher income (p-value < 0.001, odds ratio[OR] = 1.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-2.7), higher level of education (p-value < 0.001, OR = 2.6, 95 % CI: 1.8-3.7), family history of colon cancer (p-value < 0.001, OR = 2.8, 95 % CI = 1.7-4.5), and those who had been screened for other cancers (p-value = 0.003, OR = 1.7, 95 % CI: 1.2-2.5) were more aware of the necessity of screening. Concerning barriers to screening, 'feeling well,' lack of physician endorsement, and difficult access to health care were the most commonly reported inhibitory factors (53.9 %, 52.3 %, and 31.9 %, respectively). The most commonly stated incentivizing factor was physician endorsement (82.3 %). Screening rates for CRC in eligible Jordanians remain low, albeit more than one-third of participants are aware of the necessity of screening. Enhanced awareness of barriers and incentivizing factors should help to prioritize national strategies to improve screening rates.

BRCA testing and testing results among women 18-65 years old.

Since the 1990 s discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in breast or ovarian cancer patients, genetic testing has been recommended as part of a targeted, individualized approach for cancer prevention and treatment in eligible individuals. The aim of this study was to assess trends in BRCA test rates and results among adult women aged 18 to 65 in the US between 2007 and 2017. Using Clinformatics© Data Mart (CDM) Electronic Health Records, we included 223,211 women 18-65 years old with documented BRCA testing results from 1/1/2007-9/30/2017. Positive results indicated the presence of pathogenic variantss. BRCA test rates increased significantly from 34 per 100,000 women in 2007 to 488 per 100,000 women in 2016 (APC 30.8, 95% confidence interval 26.6-35.1). Documented positive results decreased from 86.1% in 2007 to 78.0% in 2017(APC -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.4-0.2). From 2007 to 2017, decreasing trends in the rates of documented positive results were observed among all three age groups (18-39, 40-54, and 55-65 years; largest in 40-54 group). In 2015-2017, women with positive test results were less likely to be non-Hispanic Whites, cancer patients, or living in the Northeast or an area with average household income ≥$50,000. Between 2007 and 2017, increasing use of BRCA testing for cancer prevention and treatment occurred, correlating to the observed decreasing documented positive test rate. The utilization of testing and corresponding test results differed significantly across races/ethnicities, suggestive of a divergent application of the same testing criteria.

Contemporary Trends in the Incidence of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Among US Men: Results from Nationwide Analyses.

Studies have noted contrasting findings with regard to the contemporary incidence of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) in the USA, especially in light of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in recent years. We used data from the 18 population- based tumor registries of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) 2004-2013 database to study trends in the incidence of metastatic PCa among men stratified by age and race. Joinpoint regression analyses were performed to identify time points associated with any statistically significant change in incidence. Overall, there was a significant increase in incidence between 2009 and 2013 (annual percentage change [APC] 3.10%; p<0.05). In age-stratified analyses, there was a continuous increase in the incidence of metastatic PCa from 2004 to 2013 among men aged 45-54 yr and 55-64 yr (APC 1.77% and 1.43% respectively; both p<0.05). For men aged ≥75 yr there was a significant decline in the incidence of metastatic PCa from 2004 to 2011 (APC -2.07%; p<0.05) and a nonsignificant increase from 2011 onwards (APC 6.09%). Distinct incidence trends were noted for white and black men. While it is too early to presume that the recent decline in PSA screening secondary to the USPSTF statement is causally associated with our findings, our results highlight a concerning trend of increasing metastatic disease. Our results thus warrant validation in future longer-term studies on the contemporary incidence and mortality of metastatic PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: We noted increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer from 2009 onwards among US men (especially those aged 45-74 yr) in a population-based tumor registry. Pending validation in longer-term studies, our results suggest the need for close surveillance of trends for metastatic prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

Contemporary Primary Prevention Aspirin Use by Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Impact of US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations, 2007-2015: A Serial, Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: No previous study has evaluated the impact of past US Preventive Services Task Force statements on primary prevention (PP) aspirin use in a primary care setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal changes in PP aspirin use in a primary care population, stratifying patients by their 10-year global cardiovascular disease risk, in response to the 2009 statement. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study estimated biannual aspirin use prevalence using electronic health record data from primary care clinics within the Fairview Health System (Minnesota) from 2007 to 2015. A total of 94 270 patient encounters had complete data to estimate a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk score using the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association global risk estimator. Patients were stratified into low- (<10%), intermediate- (10-20%), and high- (≥20%) risk groups. Over the 9-year period, PP aspirin use averaged 43%. When stratified by low, intermediate and high risk, average PP aspirin use was 41%, 63%, and 73%, respectively. Average PP aspirin use decreased after the publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement: from 45% to 40% in the low-risk group; from 66% to 62% in the intermediate-risk group; and from 76% to 73% in the high-risk group, before and after the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation was not associated with an increase in aspirin use. High risk PP patients utilized aspirin at high rates. Patients at intermediate risk were less intensively treated, and patients at low risk used aspirin at relatively high rates. These data may inform future aspirin guideline dissemination.