1. Home
  2. early detection of cancer

early detection of cancer

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

Author/s: 
Causada-Calo, N., Bishay, K., Albashir, S., Mazroui, A.A., Armstrong, D.

Abstract

Importance: There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.

Objective: To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.

Design, setting, and participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.

Exposures: Older age (≥75 years).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.

Results: The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.

Continuation of Annual Screening Mammography and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women Older Than 70 Years

Author/s: 
García-Albéniz, X., Hernán, M.A., Logan, R.W., Price, M., Armstrong, K., Hsu, J.

BACKGROUND:

Randomized trials have shown that initiating breast cancer screening between ages 50 and 69 years and continuing it for 10 years decreases breast cancer mortality. However, no trials have studied whether or when women can safely stop screening mammography. An estimated 52% of women aged 75 years or older undergo screening mammography in the United States.

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate the effect of breast cancer screening on breast cancer mortality in Medicare beneficiaries aged 70 to 84 years.

DESIGN:

Large-scale, population-based, observational study of 2 screening strategies: continuing annual mammography, and stopping screening.

SETTING:

U.S. Medicare program, 2000 to 2008.

PARTICIPANTS:

1 058 013 beneficiaries aged 70 to 84 years who had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, had no previous breast cancer diagnosis, and underwent screening mammography.

MEASUREMENTS:

Eight-year breast cancer mortality, incidence, and treatments, plus the positive predictive value of screening mammography by age group.

RESULTS:

In women aged 70 to 74 years, the estimated difference in 8-year risk for breast cancer death between continuing and stopping screening was -1.0 (95% CI, -2.3 to 0.1) death per 1000 women (hazard ratio, 0.78 [CI, 0.63 to 0.95]) (a negative risk difference favors continuing). In those aged 75 to 84 years, the corresponding risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.93 to 1.3) death per 1000 women (hazard ratio, 1.00 [CI, 0.83 to 1.19]).

LIMITATIONS:

The available Medicare data permit only 8 years of follow-up after screening. As with any study using observational data, the estimates could be affected by residual confounding.

CONCLUSION:

Continuing annual breast cancer screening past age 75 years did not result in substantial reductions in 8-year breast cancer mortality compared with stopping screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

National Institutes of Health.

Keywords 
breast cancer cancer screening

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians

Author/s: 
Qaseem, A., Crandall, C.J., Mustafa, R.A., Hicks, L.A., Wilt, T.J., Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION:

The purpose of this guidance statement is to guide clinicians on colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults.

METHODS:

This guidance statement is derived from a critical appraisal of guidelines on screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults and the evidence presented in these guidelines. National guidelines published in English between 1 June 2014 and 28 May 2018 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. The authors also included 3 guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites were searched for guideline updates in December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION:

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults at average risk for colorectal cancer.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1:

Clinicians should screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2:

Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the basis of a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences. Suggested screening tests and intervals are fecal immunochemical testing or high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical testing every 2 years.

GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3:

Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.

Keywords 
Colonoscopy Early Detection of Cancer

Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care

Author/s: 
Misra-Hebert, AD, Hom, G, Klein, EA, Bauman, JA, Gupta, N, Ji, X, Stephenson, AJ, Jones, JS, Kattan, Kattan, MW

The link to the study is available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30003062

BACKGROUND:

As prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed.

METHODS:

A previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients' knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar's and Stuart-Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses.

RESULTS:

14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40-69 at the five clinics with 2-10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION:

A brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients' knowledge about the screening decision.

Keywords 
cancer screening clinical decision-making prostate cancer prostate-specific antigen shared decision-making

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Author/s: 
US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE:

Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased riskfor breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases.

OBJECTIVE:

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW:

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery.

FINDINGS:

For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Keywords 
breast cancer genetics risk ovarian cancer

Practice Transformation Under the University of Colorado's Primary Care Redesign Model

Author/s: 
Smith, P.C., Lyon, C., English, A.F., Conry, C.

PURPOSE:

We compared the transformation experience of 2 family medicine practices that implemented the Primary Care Redesign (PCR) team-based model to improve access, quality, and experience without increasing cost. The University of Colorado's A.F. Williams Family Medicine clinic (pilot practice) implemented the model in February 2015, and a smaller, community-based practice (wave 2 practice) did so 2 years later, in February 2017.

METHODS:

The PCR model increased the ratio of medical assistants to clinicians from about 1:2 to 2.5:1 while expanding the role of the medical assistants, through enhanced rooming procedures, in-room support (eg, scribing), postclinician wrap-up, and in-basket assistance. We assessed access, clinical quality metrics, staffing costs, and clinician and staff experience and burnout for at least 7 months before and 42 months after the intervention.

RESULTS:

In the pilot practice, compared with preimplementation, there were improvements in total appointments and rates of hypertension control, colorectal cancer screening, and most diabetic quality metrics. In the wave 2 practice, total appointments increased slightly when clinicians were added pre-PCR and then increased substantially after implementation; initially variable hypertension control improved rapidly after implementation. The wave 2 practice's colorectal cancer screening improved gradually, then accelerated postimplementation, while diabetic metrics initially remained stable or declined, then improved postimplementation. New patient appointments began to increase for both practices in late 2015, but grew faster in the pilot practice under PCR. Over time, all experiential domains improved for clinicians; most remained stable for staff. Clinician burnout was reduced by at least one-half in both practices except during low staffing periods, which also adversely affected staff. After a ramp-up period, the number of staff hours per visit remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The PCR model is associated with simultaneous improvements in quality, access, and clinician experience, as well as reductions in burnout, while maintaining staffing costs.

Keywords 
quality of care MA Clinicians

Discussions of Dense Breasts, Breast Cancer Risk, and Screening Choices in 2019

Author/s: 
Kerlikowske, Karla", C.M., Miglioretti, D.L.

Breast density, a radiologic term that describes the proportion of parenchymal relative to fatty tissue in mammograms, is a strong and prevalent risk factor. With increasing breast density, the risk of having a breast cancer masked or hidden on mammography increases, as does future breast cancer risk.1 Almost 50% of US women aged 40 to 74 years have dense breasts (an estimated 27.6 million women). The widespread incorporation of breast density information into screening mammography reports in 36 US states and suggestion to consider supplemental imaging has resulted in women raising questions about breast density and supplemental imaging with their clinicians.2 Thus, clinicians need to be knowledgeable of the clinical significance of breast density and how it may be useful when combined with breast cancer risk to inform screening discussions.

Keywords 
breast cancer Breast Radiologists Radiology mammography screening mammography

Treatment of Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer

Author/s: 
Ruddy, Kathryn J., Ganz, Patricia A.

The treatment of breast cancer has evolved largely based on refinements in understanding of the biology of the disease and the variable risk for mortality among separate disease subtypes.1 Further, due to widespread use of screening mammography, there is a reduction in average breast tumor size at diagnosis. Breast cancer primarily affects women but also affects a smaller number of men. Because many clinicians provide medical care to patients with breast cancer, familiarity with contemporary treatments is important. In this JAMA Insights article, current practices and emerging trends in breast oncology are highlighted, including aspects of precision oncology and the recent deescalation of certain treatments to minimize long-term toxicities.

Keywords 
breast cancer mammography screening early detection

Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians

Author/s: 
Qaseem, Amir, Lin, Jennifer S., Mustafa, Reem A., Horwitch, Carrie A., Wilt, Timothy J., Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

Description:

The purpose of this guidance statement is to provide advice to clinicians on breast cancer screening in average-risk women based on a review of existing guidelines and the evidence they include.

Methods:

This guidance statement is derived from an appraisal of selected guidelines from around the world that address breast cancer screening, as well as their included evidence. All national guidelines published in English between 1 January 2013 and 15 November 2017 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. In addition, the authors selected other guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites associated with all selected guidelines were checked for updates on 10 December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines.

Target Audience and Patient Population:

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all asymptomatic women with average risk for breast cancer.

Guidance Statement 1:

In average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years, clinicians should discuss whether to screen for breast cancer with mammography before age 50 years. Discussion should include the potential benefits and harms and a woman's preferences. The potential harms outweigh the benefits in most women aged 40 to 49 years.

Guidance Statement 2:

In average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, clinicians should offer screening for breast cancer with biennial mammography.

Guidance Statement 3:

In average-risk women aged 75 years or older or in women with a life expectancy of 10 years or less, clinicians should discontinue screening for breast cancer.

Guidance Statement 4:

In average-risk women of all ages, clinicians should not use clinical breast examination to screen for breast cancer.

Keywords 
breast cancer average-risk women mammography screening

Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Author/s: 
US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE:

The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE:

To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW:

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies.

FINDINGS:

Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer. (D recommendation).

Keywords 
cervical cancer screening
Subscribe to early detection of cancer