Search

Background: Previous study reported shared decision making was underused in PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In mid-2018, the US Preventive Service Task Force recommended shared decision making (SDM) before PSA-based prostate cancer screening among men aged 55-69 year while remained against PSA testing in men aged 70 or older. The objective of this study is to examine recent changes in SDM and prostate cancer screening following recent USPSTF recommendations., Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years or older were conducted using 2015 and 2018 National Health Interview Survey data (n = 10,926). Outcomes included self-reported PSA testing for prostate cancer screening last year, and if yes, whether respondent ever had a discussion with the healthcare provider about its advantages and disadvantages. Analyses were stratified by respondent's age (50-54 vs. 55-69 vs. 70+)., Results: Routine PSA screening rates remained stable from 34.3% in 2015 to 35.4% in first half of 2018, and 36.0% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.57). A similar pattern was found in men ≥70 years (p trend = 0.98). Receipt of SDM increased in men aged ≥50 years from 30.5% in 2015 to 33.6% in first half of 2018, and 36.7% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.002). The increase was most prominent in men aged 55 to 69 years (31.6, 36.9, and 40.2% in 2015, first half of 2018 and second half of 2018 respectively; p trend = 0.001)., Conclusions: Between 2015 and 2018, there was no significant increase in the PSA-based prostate cancer screening. However, a significant increasing trend in SDM was observed, especially in men aged 55-69 years.

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., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests., (© 2019 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., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Previous studies report infrequent use of shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. It is unknown whether this pattern has changed recently considering increased emphasis on shared decision making in prostate cancer screening recommendations. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine recent changes in shared decision making., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years and older in the United States using 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data (n = 9,598). Changes in receipt of shared decision making were expressed as adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified on PSA testing (recent [in the past year] or no testing). Elements of shared decision making assessed included the patient being informed about the advantages only, advantages and disadvantages, and full shared decision making (advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties)., Results: Among men with recent PSA testing, 58.5% and 62.6% reported having received ≥1 element of shared decision making in 2010 and 2015, respectively ( P = .054, aPR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Between 2010 and 2015, being told only about the advantages of PSA testing significantly declined (aPR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and full shared decision making prevalence significantly increased (aPR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.28-1.79) in recently tested men. Among men without prior PSA testing, 10% reported ≥1 element of shared decision making, which did not change with time., Conclusion: Between 2010 and 2015, there was no increase in shared decision making among men with recent PSA testing though there was a shift away from only being told about the advantages of PSA testing towards full shared decision making. Many men receiving PSA testing did not receive shared decision making., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Cancer screening patterns according to occupation characteristics in the United States are not well known, but could be used to help inform cancer control efforts. We examined cervical (CC), breast (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence and prevalence ratios (PR) by occupational characteristics in 2010, 2013 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) among eligible US workers (CC women 21-65years; n=20,997), (BC women ≥40years; n=14,258) and (CRC men and women ≥50years; n=17,333). Cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening prevalence among US workers was 84.0%, 68.9%, and 56.8%, respectively. Unadjusted prevalence ratios for cervical (PR=0.92, 95%CI 0.90, 0.94), breast (PR=0.86, 95%CI 0.83, 0.90) and colorectal cancer screening (PR=0.83, 95%CI 0.80, 0.87) were lower among workers in small (<25 employees) compared to large organizations (≥500 employees). People in food service, construction, production, and sales occupations were 13-26%, 17-28% and 9-30% less likely to be up to date with cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively, compared to healthcare professionals. Adjustment for socioeconomic factors and insurance status eliminated most associations. Disparities in cancer screening by occupational characteristics were mostly attributed to lower socioeconomic status and lack of insurance. These findings underscore the need for innovative public health strategies to improve cancer screening in vulnerable populations., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Recent studies report racial disparities among individuals in organized colorectal cancer (CRC) programs; however, there is a paucity of information on CRC screening utilization by race/ethnicity among newly age-eligible adults in such programs., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among Kaiser Permanente Northern California enrollees who turned age 50 years between 2007 and 2012 (N=138,799) and were served by a systemwide outreach and facilitated in-reach screening program based primarily on mailed fecal immunochemical tests to screening-eligible people. Kaplan-Meier and Cox model analyses were used to estimate differences in receipt of CRC screening in 2015-2016., Results: Cumulative probabilities of CRC screening within 1 and 2 years of subjects' 50th birthday were 51% and 73%, respectively. Relative to non-Hispanic whites, the likelihood of completing any CRC screening was similar in blacks (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI=0.96, 1.00); 5% lower in Hispanics (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI=0.93, 0.96); and 13% higher in Asians (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI=1.11, 1.15) in adjusted analyses. Fecal immunochemical testing was the most common screening modality, representing 86% of all screening initiations. Blacks and Hispanics had lower receipt of fecal immunochemical testing in adjusted analyses., Conclusions: CRC screening uptake was high among newly screening-eligible adults in an organized CRC screening program, but Hispanics were less likely to initiate screening near age 50 years than non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that cultural and other individual-level barriers not addressed within the program likely contribute. Future studies examining the influences of culturally appropriate and targeted efforts for screening initiation are needed., (Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the authors summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines, describe an update of their guideline for using human papillomavirus vaccination for cancer prevention, describe updates in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening, discuss interim findings from the UK Collaborative Trial on Ovarian Cancer Screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:100-121. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) no longer recommended routine mammography for women aged 40-49 and ≥75 years (younger and older women, respectively). Whether mammography usage and physician recommendation among younger and older women changed in response to these recommendations is unclear., Methods: Cross-sectional data from women aged ≥40 years in the 2008 and 2013 National Health Interview Surveys were used (n=4,942 younger and 3,047 older women) and were analyzed in 2015. Changes between 2008 and 2013 in self-reports about having undergone mammography in the past 2 years and physician recommendation for mammography were expressed as adjusted prevalence difference (PD) and 95% CI., Results: Overall, adjusted prevalence of mammography among younger women was similar in 2008 (62.2%) and 2013 (58.5%) (p=0.05), but significantly declined in high-income (PD=-6.1%, 95% CI=-11.2, -1.0); non-Hispanic white (PD=-5.5%, 95% CI=-10.2, -0.8); and privately insured (PD=-5.7%, 95% CI=-9.8, -1.6) younger women. For older women, there was no change in adjusted mammography prevalence overall (2008, 56.2%; 2013, 54.2%; p=0.473) or by SES. Physician mammography recommendation declined in younger (PD=-5.0%, 95% CI=-8.7, -1.3) and older (PD=-5.8%, 95% CI=-10.5, -1.1) women., Conclusions: Four years after publication of USPSTF mammography recommendations, mammography prevalence for younger and older women did not significantly decrease except for higher-SES younger women. The significant decrease in physician recommendation of mammography in younger and older women may reflect a change in practice patterns by some physicians in response to USPSTF recommendations., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite important controversy in its efficacy, prostate cancer (PCa) screening has become widespread. Important socioeconomic screening disparities have been reported. However, trends in PCa screening and social disparities have not been investigated in Switzerland, a high risk country for PCa. We used data from five waves (from 1992-2012) of the population-based Swiss Health Interview Survey to evaluate trends in PCa screening and its association with socioeconomic indicators., Methods: We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) adjusting for demographics, health status, and use of healthcare., Results: The study included 12,034 men aged ≥50 years (mean age: 63.9). Between 1992 and 2012, ever use of PCa screening increased from 55.3% to 70.0% and its use within the last two years from 32.6% to 42.4% (p-value <0.05). Income, education, and occupational class were independently associated with PCa screening. PCa screening within the last two years was greater in men with the highest (>$6,000/month) vs. lowest income (≤$2,000) (46.5% vs. 38.7% in 2012, PR for overall period =1.29, 95%CI: 1.13-1.48). These socioeconomic disparities did not significantly change over time., Conclusions: This study shows that about half of Swiss men had performed at least one PCa screening. Men belonging to high socioeconomic status are clearly more frequently screened than those less favored. Given the uncertainty of the usefulness of PCa screening, men, including those with high socioeconomic status, should be clearly informed about benefits and harms of PCa screening, in particular, the adverse effect of over-diagnosis and of associated over-treatment., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A recent study estimates that 277,000 colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 203,000 CRC deaths will be averted between 2013 and 2030 if the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of increasing CRC screening prevalence to 80% by 2018 is reached. However, the number of individuals who need to be screened (NNS) to achieve this goal is unknown. In this communication, the authors estimate the NNS to achieve 80% by 2018 nationwide and by state., Methods: The authors estimated the NNS by subtracting adults aged 50 to 75 years who would need to be screened to achieve an 80% CRC screening prevalence from the number who are currently guideline-compliant from population estimates for this age group. The 2013 National Health Interview Survey and the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were used to estimate CRC screening prevalence and data from the US Census Bureau were used to estimate population projections. The NNS were age-standardized and sex-standardized., Results: Nationwide, 24.39 million individuals (95% confidence interval, 24.37-24.41 million) aged 50 to 75 years will need to be screened to achieve 80% by 2018. By state, the NNS ranged from 45,400 in Vermont to 2.72 million in California. The majority of individuals who need to be screened are aged 50 to 64 years and the largest subgroup is privately insured., Conclusions: The authors estimated that at least 24.4 million additional individuals in the United States will need to be screened to achieve the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of increasing CRC screening prevalence to 80% by 2018. To reach this goal, improving facilitators of CRC screening, including physician recommendation and patient awareness, is needed., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The aim of the cost-sharing provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was to reduce financial barriers for preventive services, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) among privately and Medicare-insured individuals. Whether the provision has affected CRC and BC screening prevalence is unknown. The current study investigated whether CRC and BC screening prevalence among privately and Medicare-insured adults by socioeconomic status (SES) changed before and after the ACA., Methods: Data obtained from the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to privately and Medicare-insured adults from 2008 (before the ACA) and 2013 (after the ACA) were used. There were 15,786 adults aged 50 to 75 years in the CRC screening analysis and 14,530 women aged ≥40 years in the BC screening analysis. Changes in guideline-recommended screening between 2008 and 2013 by SES were expressed as the prevalence difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) adjusted for demographics, insurance, income, education, body mass index, and having a usual provider., Results: Overall, CRC screening prevalence increased from 57.3% to 61.2% between 2008 and 2013 (P<.001). Adjusted CRC screening prevalence during the corresponding period increased in low-income (PD, 5.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 10.2), least-educated (PD, 7.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 13.5), and Medicare-insured (PD, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 10.7) individuals, but not in high-income, most-educated, and privately insured respondents. BC screening remained unchanged overall (70.5% in 2008 vs 70.2% in 2013) and in the low SES groups., Conclusions: Increases in CRC screening prevalence between 2008 and 2013 were confined to respondents with low SES. These findings may in part reflect the ACA's removal of financial barriers., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection along with a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current ACS cancer screening guidelines. The latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) also is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:30-54. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]