Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc

Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: factors associated with practices and attitudes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with cancer screening practices and with general attitudes toward cancer screening in a general population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mailed survey of 30–60 year old residents of Geneva, Switzerland, that included questions about screening for five cancers (breast, cervix uteri, prostate, colon, skin) in the past 3 years, attitudes toward screening, health care use, preventive behaviours and socio-demographic characteristics. Cancer screening practice was dichotomised as having done at least one screening test in the past 3 years versus none.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey response rate was 49.3% (2301/4670). More women than men had had at least one cancer screening test in the past 3 years (83.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). A majority of women had had a cervical smear (76.6%) and a mammography (age 30–49: 35.0%; age 50 and older: 90.3%); and 55.1% of men 50–60 years old had been screened for prostate cancer. Other factors associated with screening included older age, higher income, a doctor visit in the past 6 months, reporting a greater number of preventive behaviours and a positive attitude toward screening. Factors linked with positive attitudes included female gender, higher level of education, gainful employment, higher income, a doctor visit in the past 6 months and a personal history of cancer.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Attitudes play an important role in cancer screening practices among middle-aged adults in the general population, independent of demographic variables (age and sex) that determine in part screening recommendations. Negative attitudes were the most frequent among men and the most socio-economically disadvantaged. The moderate participation rate raises the possibility of selection bias.</p

Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation.

The diagnosis of cancer is a complex, multi-step process. In this paper, we highlight factors involved in missed opportunities to diagnose cancer more promptly in symptomatic patients and discuss responsible mechanisms and potential strategies to shorten intervals from presentation to diagnosis. Missed opportunities are instances in which post-hoc judgement indicates that alternative decisions or actions could have led to more timely diagnosis. They can occur in any of the three phases of the diagnostic process (initial diagnostic assessment; diagnostic test performance and interpretation; and diagnostic follow-up and coordination) and can involve patient, doctor/care team, and health-care system factors, often in combination. In this perspective article, we consider epidemiological 'signals' suggestive of missed opportunities and draw on evidence from retrospective case reviews of cancer patient cohorts to summarise factors that contribute to missed opportunities. Multi-disciplinary research targeting such factors is important to shorten diagnostic intervals post presentation. Insights from the fields of organisational and cognitive psychology, human factors science and informatics can be extremely valuable in this emerging research agenda. We provide a conceptual foundation for the development of future interventions to minimise the occurrence of missed opportunities in cancer diagnosis, enriching current approaches that chiefly focus on clinical decision support or on widening access to investigations.We acknowledge the helpful and incisive comments by Dr Rikke Sand Andersen (Aarhus University, Denmark) in conceptualising this piece and in drafts of the manuscript. The work is independent research supported by different funding schemes. GL was supported by a Post-Doctoral Fellowship by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2011-04-047) until the end of 2014 and by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship award (A18180) from 2015. HS is supported by the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (CRE 12-033; Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers USA 14-274), the VA National Center for Patient Safety, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (R01HS022087) and in part by the Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13–413). PV was supported by CaP, funded by The Danish Cancer Society and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.4

Predictors of Nonadherence to Screening Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no-shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. METHODS: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. RESULTS: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient-reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive-emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is sub-optimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms