Search

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case-control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus-based screening and to allow comparisons between programs., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Self-sampling is poised to be a disruptor for cervical screening. So far, cancer screening has been a causality of COVID-19; however, the opposite may transpire for self-sampling. Self-sampling enables socially distanced cervical screening with an outreach that extends to underserved populations. As evidence mounts that self-sampling is noninferior to clinician-taken samples, the focus for self-sampling is now as a primary screening option for all women. Now, we have evidence from a modeling study (using Australia as an exemplar) to suggest that program effectiveness with primary self-sampling would be better than the current program, even if sensitivity is lower. Regulatory issues, suitable triage strategies, and clear communication about self-sampling are hurdles yet to be overcome. Nevertheless, existing evidence coupled with COVID-19 could be the tipping point for wider introduction of self-sampling. See related article by Smith et al., p. 268 ., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Safety netting is an important diagnostic strategy for patients presenting to primary care with potential (low-risk) cancer symptoms. Typically, this involves asking patients to return if symptoms persist. However, this relies on patients re-appraising their symptoms and making follow-up appointments, which could contribute to delays in diagnosis. Text messaging is increasingly used in primary care to communicate with patients, and could be used to improve safety netting., Aim: To explore the acceptability and feasibility of using text messages to safety net patients presenting with low-risk cancer symptoms in GP primary care (txt-netting)., Design and Setting: Qualitative focus group and interview study with London-based GPs., Method: Participants were identified using convenience sampling methods. Five focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 22 GPs between August and December 2016. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis., Results: GPs were amenable to the concept of using text messages in cancer safety netting, identifying it as an additional tool that could help manage patients and promote symptom awareness. There was wide variation in GP preferences for text message content, and a number of important potential barriers to txt-netting were identified. Concerns were raised about the difficulties of conveying complex safety netting advice within the constraints of a text message, and about confidentiality, widening inequalities, and workload implications., Conclusion: Text messages were perceived to be an acceptable potential strategy for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms. Further work is needed to ensure it is cost-effective, user friendly, confidential, and acceptable to patients., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Objective: To compare time to diagnosis of the typically slow-growing Type I (low-grade serous, low-grade endometrioid, mucinous, clear cell) and the more aggressive Type II (high-grade serous, high-grade endometrioid, undifferentiated, carcinosarcoma) invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC)., Design: Multicentre observational study., Setting: Ten UK gynaecological oncology centres., Population: Women diagnosed with primary EOC between 2006 and 2008., Methods: Symptom data were collected before diagnosis using patient questionnaire and primary-care records. We estimated patient interval (first symptom to presentation) using questionnaire data and diagnostic interval (presentation to diagnosis) using primary-care records. We considered the impact of first symptom, referral and stage on intervals for Type I and Type II iEOC., Main Outcome Measures: Patient and diagnostic intervals., Results: In all, 78% of 60 Type I and 21% of 134 Type II iEOC were early-stage. Intervals were comparable and independent of stage [e.g. median patient interval for Type I: early-stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3-3.0) versus late-stage 0.3 months (interquartile range 0.3-4.5), P = 0.8]. Twenty-seven percent of women with Type I and Type II had diagnostic intervals of at least 9 months. First symptom (questionnaire) was also similar, except for the infrequent abnormal bleeding (Type I 15% versus Type II 4%, P = 0.01). More women with Type I disease (57% versus 41%, P = 0.04) had been referred for suspected gynaecological cancer. Median time from referral to diagnosis was 1.4 months for women with iEOC referred via a 2-week cancer referral to any specialty compared with 2.6 months (interquartile range 2.0-3.7) for women who were referred routinely to gynaecology., Conclusion: Overall, shorter diagnostic delays were seen when a cancer was suspected, even if the primary tumour site was not recognised to be ovarian. Despite differences in carcinogenesis and stage for Type I and Type II iEOC, time to diagnosis and symptoms were similar. Referral patterns were different, implying subtle symptom differences. If symptom-based interventions are to impact on ovarian cancer survival, it is likely to be through reduced volume rather than stage-shift. Further research on histological subtypes is needed., Tweetable Abstract: No difference in time to diagnosis for Type I versus Type II invasive epithelial ovarian cancers., (© 2015 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)