Principles of Cancer Screening: Lessons From History and Study Design Issues

Early detection of cancer has held great promise and intuitive appeal in the medical community for well over a century. Its history developed in tandem with that of the periodic health examination, in which any deviations—subtle or glaring--from a clearly demarcated “normal” were to be rooted out, given the underlying hypothesis that diseases develop along progressive linear paths of increasing abnormalities. This model of disease development drove the logical deduction that early detection—by “breaking the chain” of cancer development--must be of benefit to affected individuals. In the latter half of the 20th century, researchers and guidelines organizations began to explicitly challenge the core assumptions underpinning many clinical practices. A move away from intuitive thinking began with the development of evidence-based medicine. One key method developed to explicitly quantify the overall risk-benefit profile of a given procedure was the analytic framework. The shift away from pure deductive reasoning and reliance on personal observation was driven, in part, by a rising awareness of critical biases in cancer screening that can mislead clinicians, including healthy volunteer bias, length-biased sampling, lead-time bias, and overdiagnosis. A new focus on the net balance of both benefits and harms when determining the overall worth of an intervention also arose: it was recognized that the potential downsides of early detection were frequently overlooked or discounted because screening is performed on basically healthy persons and initially involves relatively noninvasive methods. Although still inconsistently applied to early detection programs, policies, and belief systems in the United States, an evidence-based approach is essential to counteract the misleading—even potentially harmful--allure of intuition and individual observation

Percentage Up to Date With Chest Computed Tomography Among Those Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION: Authors aimed to calculate the percentage up-to-date with testing in the context of lung cancer screening across 5 healthcare systems and evaluate differences according to patient and health system characteristics. METHODS: Lung cancer screening‒eligible individuals receiving care within the 5 systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung consortium from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 were included in analyses. Data collection was completed on June 15, 2021; final analyses were completed on April 1, 2022. Chest computed tomography scans and patient characteristics were obtained through electronic health records and used to calculate the percentage completing a chest computed tomography scan in the previous 12 months (considered up-to-date). The association of patient and healthcare system factors with being up-to-date was evaluated with adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs using log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: There were 29,417 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as of September 30, 2019; 8,333 (28.3%) were up-to-date with testing. Those aged 65-74 years (prevalence ratio=1.19; CI=1.15, 1.24, versus ages 55-64), those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence ratio=2.05; CI=1.98, 2.13), and those in higher SES census tracts (prevalence ratio=1.22; CI=1.16, 1.30, highest quintile versus lowest) were more likely to be up-to-date. Currently smoking (prevalence ratio=0.91; CI=0.88, 0.95), having a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) (prevalence ratio=0.83; CI=0.77, 0.88), identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (prevalence ratio=0.79; CI=0.68, 0.92), and having a decentralized lung cancer screening program (prevalence ratio=0.77; CI=0.74, 0.80) were inversely associated with being up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage up-to-date with testing among those eligible for lung cancer screening is well below up-to-date estimates for other types of cancer screening, and disparities in lung cancer screening participation remain

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test\u27s accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

RATIONALE: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs, and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs 76.1%; P\u3c0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs 74.6%; P\u3c0.001) was lower at decentralized compared to centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P\u3c0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84) while at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P=0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS compared to White patients at decentralized compared to centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

RATIONALE: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs, and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs 76.1%; P\u3c0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs 74.6%; P\u3c0.001) was lower at decentralized compared to centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P\u3c0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84) while at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P=0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS compared to White patients at decentralized compared to centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care

Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials

Background: Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes. Methods: We did a systematic review of randomised trials comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control, or with each other, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. We identified published and unpublished trials that completed primary data collection before July 30, 2016, (12 months before data collection began), by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, and relevant trial registers between inception and July 30, 2019. Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediately-threatened preterm birth were excluded. Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials. Outcomes included preterm birth, early preterm birth, and mid-trimester birth. Adverse neonatal sequelae associated with early births were assessed using a composite of serious neonatal complications, and individually. Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually. Individual participant data were checked and risk of bias assessed independently by two researchers. Primary meta-analyses used one-stage generalised linear mixed models that incorporated random effects to allow for heterogeneity across trials. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017068299. Findings: Initial searches identified 47 eligible trials. Individual participant data were available for 30 of these trials. An additional trial was later included in a targeted update. Data were therefore available from a total of 31 trials (11 644 women and 16185 offspring). Trials in singleton pregnancies included mostly women with previous spontaneous preterm birth or short cervix. Preterm birth before 34 weeks was reduced in such women who received vaginal progesterone (nine trials, 3769 women; relative risk [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), 17-OHPC (five trials, 3053 women; 0·83, 0·68–1·01), and oral progesterone (two trials, 181 women; 0·60, 0·40–0·90). Results for other birth and neonatal outcomes were consistently favourable, but less certain. A possible increase in maternal complications was suggested, but this was uncertain. We identified no consistent evidence of treatment interaction with any participant characteristics examined, although analyses within subpopulations questioned efficacy in women who did not have a short cervix. Trials in multifetal pregnancies mostly included women without additional risk factors. For twins, vaginal progesterone did not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks (eight trials, 2046 women: RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·84–1·20) nor did 17-OHPC for twins or triplets (eight trials, 2253 women: 1·04, 0·92–1·18). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was increased with 17-OHPC exposure in multifetal gestations (rupture <34 weeks RR 1·59, 95% CI 1·15–2·22), but we found no consistent evidence of benefit or harm for other outcomes with either vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC. Interpretation: Vaginal progesterone and 17-OHPC both reduced birth before 34 weeks' gestation in high-risk singleton pregnancies. Given increased underlying risk, absolute risk reduction is greater for women with a short cervix, hence treatment might be most useful for these women. Evidence for oral progesterone is insufficient to support its use. Shared decision making with woman with high-risk singleton pregnancies should discuss an individual's risk, potential benefits, harms and practicalities of intervention. Treatment of unselected multifetal pregnancies with a progestogen is not supported by the evidence. Funding: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute