-
Journal of Dental Research Nov 2021Oral cancer is a major public health problem, and there is an increasing trend for oral cancer to affect young men and women. Public awareness is poor, and many patients... (Review)
Review
Oral cancer is a major public health problem, and there is an increasing trend for oral cancer to affect young men and women. Public awareness is poor, and many patients present with late-stage disease, contributing to high mortality. Oral cancer is often preceded by a clinical premalignant phase accessible to visual inspection, and thus there are opportunities for earlier detection and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening asymptomatic individuals by systematic visual oral examinations to detect the disease has been shown to be feasible. A positive screen includes both oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders. We review key screening studies undertaken, including 1 randomized clinical trial. Screening of high-risk groups is cost-effective. Strengths and weaknesses of oral cancer screening studies are presented to help guide new research in primary care settings and invigorated by the prospect of using emerging new technologies that may help to improve discriminatory accuracy of case detection. Most national organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, have so far not recommended population-based screening due a lack of sufficient evidence that screening leads to a reduction in oral cancer mortality. Where health care resources are high, opportunistic screening in dental practices is recommended, although the paucity of research in primary care is alarming. The results of surveys suggest that dentists do perform oral cancer screenings, but there is only weak evidence that screening in dental practices leads to downstaging of disease. Where health care resources are low, the feasibility of using primary health care workers for oral cancer screening has been tested, and measures indicate good outcomes. Most studies reported in the literature are based on 1 round of screening, whereas screening should be a continuous process. This review identifies a huge potential for new research directions on screening for oral cancer.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Mouth Neoplasms; Precancerous Conditions; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34036828
DOI: 10.1177/00220345211014795 -
Journal of Internal Medicine Jul 2022Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered... (Review)
Review
Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mass Screening; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 35253286
DOI: 10.1111/joim.13480 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2021Cervical Cancer is the second most common cancer among women in the world leading to 90% deaths in low and middle income countries. About 96,922 new Cervical Cancer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical Cancer is the second most common cancer among women in the world leading to 90% deaths in low and middle income countries. About 96,922 new Cervical Cancer cases are diagnosed annually in India.
OBJECTIVE
To study the knowledge, attitude and practice on Cervical Cancer and screening among women in India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Health sciences electronic databases PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2012 to March 2020. Keywords used for the search were ("Cervical Cancer screening"), ("knowledge"),("attitude"), ("practice") AND ("India"). 19 articles were included in the review based on the eligibility criteria. Statistical software SPSS-V.23 was used for the statistical application.
RESULTS
7688 women were included in the study. Age of study participants ranged from 12-65 years. Overall knowledge on Cervical Cancer among women was 40.22%. Knowledge of risk factors and signs and symptoms was fairly adequate among the women. 32.68% of women knew that early age of marriage was a risk factor for Cervical Cancer followed by 23.01% women who mentioned that early age of initiation of sexual activity was a common risk factor for Cervical Cancer. Inter menstrual bleeding and foul smelling discharge was the most common sign and symptom reported in 30.75% and 28.86% women respectively. Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding Cervical Cancer screening was seen in 20.31%, 43.64% and 13.22% of women respectively.
CONCLUSION
Effective information, education and communication strategies are required to improve the level of awareness of women on Cervical Cancer.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Community Health Services; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; India; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Rural Population; Urban Population; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears
PubMed: 33926235
DOI: 10.1177/10732748211010799 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2012Whether breast cancer screening does more harm than good has been debated extensively. The main questions are how large the benefit of screening is in terms of reduced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Whether breast cancer screening does more harm than good has been debated extensively. The main questions are how large the benefit of screening is in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality and how substantial the harm is in terms of overdiagnosis, which is defined as cancers detected at screening that would not have otherwise become clinically apparent in the woman's lifetime. An independent Panel was convened to reach conclusions about the benefits and harms of breast screening on the basis of a review of published work and oral and written evidence presented by experts in the subject. To provide estimates of the level of benefits and harms, the Panel relied mainly on findings from randomised trials of breast cancer screening that compared women invited to screening with controls not invited, but also reviewed evidence from observational studies. The Panel focused on the UK setting, where women aged 50-70 years are invited to screening every 3 years. In this Review, we provide a summary of the full report on the Panel's findings and conclusions. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials, the relative risk of breast cancer mortality for women invited to screening compared with controls was 0·80 (95% CI 0·73-0·89), which is a relative risk reduction of 20%. The Panel considered the internal biases in the trials and whether these trials, which were done a long time ago, were still relevant; they concluded that 20% was still a reasonable estimate of the relative risk reduction. The more reliable and recent observational studies generally produced larger estimates of benefit, but these studies might be biased. The best estimates of overdiagnosis are from three trials in which women in the control group were not invited to be screened at the end of the active trial period. In a meta-analysis, estimates of the excess incidence were 11% (95% CI 9-12) when expressed as a proportion of cancers diagnosed in the invited group in the long term, and 19% (15-23) when expressed as a proportion of the cancers diagnosed during the active screening period. Results from observational studies support the occurrence of overdiagnosis, but estimates of its magnitude are unreliable. The Panel concludes that screening reduces breast cancer mortality but that some overdiagnosis occurs. Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide. If these figures are used directly, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases of breast cancer, invasive and non-invasive, would be overdiagnosed; that is one breast cancer death prevented for about every three overdiagnosed cases identified and treated. Of the roughly 307,000 women aged 50-52 years who are invited to begin screening every year, just over 1% would have an overdiagnosed cancer in the next 20 years. Evidence from a focus group organised by Cancer Research UK and attended by some members of the Panel showed that many women feel that accepting the offer of breast screening is worthwhile, which agrees with the results of previous similar studies. Information should be made available in a transparent and objective way to women invited to screening so that they can make informed decisions.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United Kingdom
PubMed: 23117178
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Aug 2020Adherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Adherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3 theory-based interventions to usual care to simultaneously increase breast and colon cancer screening in women who were nonadherent to both screenings at study entry.
DESIGN
RCT.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS
Women (n=692) who were nonadherent to both breast and colon cancer screenings and aged 51-75 years were recruited. Enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection were completed between 2013 and 2017, and data analyzed in 2018.
INTERVENTION
The randomized intervention included the following 4 groups: 3 intervention arms (personally tailored messages using a web-based intervention, phone delivery by a trained navigator, or both) compared with usual care. Women at an average risk for colon cancer were allowed to select either colonoscopy or stool test as their preferred colon cancer screening. Mammography was promoted for breast cancer screening.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Outcome data at 6 months included self-report and medical records for screening activity.
RESULTS
All intervention arms significantly increased receipt of either a mammogram or stool test compared with control (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0001, web + phone: p<0.0001). When considering receipt of both mammogram and stool test, all intervention arms were significantly different from usual care (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0003, web + phone: p<0.0001). In addition, women who were adherent to mammography had a 4.5 times greater odds of becoming adherent to colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS
The tailored intervention simultaneously supporting both breast and colon cancer screenings significantly improved rates of obtaining one of the screenings and increased receipt of both tests.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study is registered with the clinical trials identifier NCT03279198 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Topics: Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Male; Mammography; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Occult Blood
PubMed: 32690203
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.008 -
Gastroenterology Mar 2021The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown.
METHODS
Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 μg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated.
RESULTS
We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13).
CONCLUSIONS
Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.
Topics: Aged; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Norway; Occult Blood; Odds Ratio; Pilot Projects; Sigmoidoscopy
PubMed: 33227280
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.037 -
La Clinica Terapeutica 2020The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and...
OBJETCTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific literature concerning the use of the Precede-Proceed model (PPM) applied to educational programs and health screenings contextsV.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
The search process was based on a selection of publications listed in Medline and Scopus. The keywords used were "Precede-Proceed" AND ("screening" OR "educational programs"). Studies included in the systematic review were subdivided into those applying the model in a screening context, and those applying it within educational programs.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were retrieved, mostly performed in the USA and, generally, the promoting center was the University. In the context of cancer screening, the PPM model was most of all applied to Mammography Screening (5 of 13 studies in cancer screening), and Cervical Cancer Screening (5 of 13). Another three studies within the cancer field investigated Menopause-Inducing Cancer Treatments, Oral cancer prevention, and cancer screening in general. In the remaining studies, the model was applied in various screening areas, particularly chronic and degenerative diseases. There were many different study designs, most of which cross-sectional (8), though several RTCs (8) and focus groups (5) were also found. For the cross-sectional studies the methodological quality varied between 3/10 and 9/10, whilst for the RCTs it ranged from 2/5 to 3/5.
CONCLUSIONS
The PPM provides an excellent framework for health intervention programs especially in screening contexts, and could improve the understanding of the relationship between variables such as knowledge and screening. Given the complexity of a behavioral change process, certain important predisposing factors could be measured in future studies, and during health intervention planning.
Topics: Biobehavioral Sciences; Cross-Sectional Studies; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Mass Screening; Neoplasms; Public Health
PubMed: 32141490
DOI: 10.7417/CT.2020.2208 -
European Radiology Jun 2022Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women...
Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. KEY POINTS: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript.
Topics: Breast; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35258677
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08617-6 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.
DESIGN
Systematic review of test accuracy studies.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women's digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.
STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 34470740
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1872 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology Jul 2023
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Early Detection of Cancer; Mass Screening
PubMed: 37417555
DOI: 10.4111/icu.20230178