cancer screening

We all want better ways to find breast cancer early and save lives from this disease. Breast cancer screening can detect cancer early, when it’s most treatable. This guide is meant to help you and your health care professional understand the benefits and risks of breast cancer screening, including what age to start screening and how often people should be screened. This guide is not for women who have a BRCA gene variant, a history of chest radiation, or a personal history of breast cancer. These women should talk to their health care professional about how best to stay healthy.

Author/s:

US Preventive Services Task Force

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Alex Haga — Tue, 07 May 2024 21:01:58 +0000

Date Added:

May 7, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 30, 2024

URL:

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.5534

Keywords

breast cancer

cancer screening

breast neoplasms

Early Detection of Cancer

mammography

PMID (1):

38687503

MeSH

early detection of cancer

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The USPSTF now recommends beginning biennial breast cancer screening at 40 rather than 50 in most women. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate.

Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review.

Population: Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer.

Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density.

Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Author/s:

US Preventive Services Task Force

Cervical Cancer Screening

Erin Blanchette — Mon, 13 Nov 2023 16:19:48 +0000

Date Added:

November 14, 2023

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

October 27, 2023

URL:

Cervical Cancer Screening

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2023.21987

Keywords

Human Papillomavirus Viruses

PMID (1):

37889510

MeSH

Human Papillomavirus Viruses

Cervix Uteri

uterine cervical neoplasms

early detection of cancer

Papanicolaou Test

Patient education regarding cervical cancer screening. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This JAMA Patient Page discusses screening for cervical cancer, including who should be screened, recommendations for handling positive results, and the prevention of cervical cancer.

Author/s:

Rebecca A. Voelker

What Should I Know About Stopping Routine Cancer Screening?

Rowan Hutchins — Sun, 19 Mar 2023 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

March 19, 2023

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

March 13, 2023

URL:

What Should I Know About Stopping Routine Cancer Screening?

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0088

Keywords

cancer

cancer screening

Neoplasms

PMID (1):

36912847

MeSH

early detection of cancer

Information for patients on when and why to stop getting screening tests for cancer. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Cancer screening tests are not perfect. Test results may suggest cancer when there is none (false-positive screen). They can also miss cancer even if it is present (false-negative screen). False-positive results can lead to emotional stress and more testing without improving health. Screening tests may also lead to overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is when screening tests find slow-growing forms of cancer that would never have caused symptoms or affected health if left undetected.

Author/s:

Zhang, Grace, Incze, Michael

Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:45:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 12, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Family Medicine

Publication Date:

November 1, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

545-552

URL:

Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2582

Keywords

cancer screening

health services

low-dose computed tomography

An unbiased meta-analysis documenting that screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality with a 20% rate of overdiagnoses. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death is 294. However, there is as yet no conclusive evidence that it reduces all-cause mortality. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

Purpose: Benefit of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess its associations with outcomes.

Methods: We searched the literature and previous systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LDCT screening with usual care or chest radiography. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and the cumulative incidence ratio of lung cancer between screened and unscreened groups as a measure of overdiagnosis.

Results: Meta-analysis was based on 8 trials with 90,475 patients that had a low risk of bias. There was a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality with LDCT screening (relative risk = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89); the estimated absolute risk reduction was 0.4% (number needed to screen = 250). The reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (relative risk = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01), but the absolute reduction was consistent with that for lung cancer-specific mortality (0.34%; number needed to screen = 294). In the studies with the longest duration of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 25% higher in the screened group, corresponding to a 20% rate of overdiagnosis.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality, albeit with a tradeoff of likely overdiagnosis, supports recommendations to screen individuals at elevated risk for lung cancer with LDCT.

Keywords: cancer screening; health services; low-dose computed tomography; lung cancer; mass screening; overdiagnosis; preventive medicine; public health.

Author/s:

Ebell, M.H., Bentivegna, M., Hulme, C.

Managing Minimally Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Test Results

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:27:23 +0000

Date Added:

September 29, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association

Publication Date:

September 25, 2020

URL:

Managing Minimally Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Test Results

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2020.12488

Keywords

cancer screening

cancer prevention

oncology

Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

cervical cancer

gynecological cancer

A concise summary of the recommended management of patients with abnormal pap smears. James W. Mold, MD

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

Not available.

Author/s:

Sawaya, George F., Lamar, Robyn, Perkins, Rebecca B.

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

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:27:32 +0000

Date Added:

February 25, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publication Date:

February 25, 2020

URL:

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

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M18-1199

Keywords

MeSH

early detection of cancer

Rare Diseases

Records

Evidence from a large cohort study that annual mammography beyond age 70 does not reduce breast cancer mortality. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

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.

Author/s:

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

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

John Bayhi — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:53:04 +0000

Date Added:

September 30, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Frontiers in Oncology

Publisher:

Frontiers Media S.A.

Publication Date:

June 28, 2018

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.3389/fonc.2018.00238

Keywords

cancer screening

clinical decision-making

prostate cancer

prostate-specific antigen

shared decision-making

PMID (1):

30003062

MeSH

early detection of cancer

Surveys and Questionnaires

This tool was developed and tested in primary care settings as a way to facilitate discussions about prostate cancer screening. Both clinicians and patients seemed to like it. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

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.

Author/s:

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