Journal of medical screening
-
Some degree of general worry about cancer may facilitate screening participation, but specific worries about the potential consequences (e.g. treatment, death) may act as deterrents. No studies have examined these associations in the same sample. We assessed associations between general versus specific cancer worries and cancer screening participation. ⋯ Specific worries about cancer may be differentially associated with participation across screening programmes. Further research is needed, as interventions to optimise informed participation may be improved if the specific worries associated with low participation in each programme are understood.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
False-positive screens and lung cancer risk in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for shared decision-making.
Objectives Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality but has a high false-positive rate. The precision medicine approach to low-dose computed tomography screening assesses subjects' benefits versus harms based on their personal lung cancer risk, where harms include false-positive screens and resultant invasive procedures. We assess the relationship between lung cancer risk and the rate of false-positive LDCT screens. ⋯ Results Of 26,722 subjects randomized to the low-dose computed tomography arm, 26,309 received a baseline screen and were included in the analysis. The proportion with any false positive over three screening rounds increased from 12.9% to 25.9% from lowest to highest risk decile, and the proportion with an invasive procedure following a false positive also significantly increased from 0.7% to 2.0% from lowest to highest risk decile. Conclusion These findings indicate a need for personalized low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening decision aids to accurately convey the benefits to harm trade-off.
-
Objective Current lung cancer screening criteria based primarily on outcomes from the National Lung Screening Trial may not adequately capture all subgroups of the population at risk. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of lung cancer screening criteria recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in identifying known cases of lung cancer. Methods An investigation of the Stony Brook Cancer Center Lung Cancer Evaluation Center's database identified 1207 eligible, biopsy-proven lung cancer cases diagnosed between January 1996 and March 2016. ⋯ Applying the United States Preventive Services Task Force, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network eligibility criteria to the Stony Brook Cancer Center's Lung Cancer Evaluation Center cases, 49.2, 46.3, and 69.8%, respectively, would have met the current lung cancer screening guidelines. Conclusions The United States Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening captured less than 50% of lung cancer cases in this investigation. These findings highlight the need to reevaluate the efficacy of current guidelines and may have major public health implications.
-
Objectives To compare abdominal aortic aneurysm screening outcomes of men with non-visualized aorta at original scan with subsequent scans and to determine predictors of non-visualized aorta. Methods In the Northern Ireland Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm screening programme, outcomes (discharge, annual surveillance, three-monthly surveillance, or vascular referral) and patient and programme characteristics (age, deprivation quintile, family history, technician experience, and screening location) for men with non-visualized aorta were investigated at original scan, and first and second rescans. Results Non-visualized aorta proportions were 2.9, 11.4, and 4.7% at original, first, and second rescan, respectively. ⋯ A man scanned by screening technician compared with lead sonographer was 51% less likely to have aorta visualized at original scan and 94% less likely at first rescan. Conclusions The risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm in men with non-visualized aorta on first or subsequent rescans is no more than for those with visualized aorta on original scanning. Men from deprived areas are much more likely to have non-visualized aorta at original scan.
-
Objectives To monitor the early effect of a national population screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-year-old men. Setting The study used national statistics for death rates from abdominal aortic aneurysm (Office of National Statistics) and hospital admission data in England (Hospital Episode Statistics). Methods Information concerning deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm (ruptured and non-ruptured) (1999-2014) and hospital admissions for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (2000-2015) was examined. ⋯ The relative decline in admissions to hospital with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm may be greater in men and women aged 60-74 (which contains the screened group of men), than those older, giving the first possible evidence that abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is having an effect. Conclusion The death rate from abdominal aortic aneurysm is declining rapidly in England. There is the first evidence that screening may be contributing to this reduction.