Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those assigned to no screening.

After 4 years of the GÖTEBORG-2 trial, MRI-targeted biopsy led to less detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy without compromising the detection of cancer that may affect survival.

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, but studies analyzing interval cancers diagnosed after negative screens have shown that many cancers are missed. Supplemental screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the number of missed cancers. However, as qualified MRI staff are lacking, the equipment is expensive to purchase and cost-effectiveness for screening may not be convincing, the utilization of MRI is currently limited. An effective method for triaging individuals to supplemental MRI screening is therefore needed. We conducted a randomized clinical trial, ScreenTrustMRI, using a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to score each mammogram. We offered trial participation to individuals with a negative screening mammogram and a high AI score (top 6.9%). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals were assigned randomly to one of two groups: those receiving supplemental MRI and those not receiving MRI. The primary endpoint of ScreenTrustMRI is advanced breast cancer defined as either interval cancer, invasive component larger than 15 mm or lymph node positive cancer, based on a 27-month follow-up time from the initial screening. Secondary endpoints, prespecified in the study protocol to be reported before the primary outcome, include cancer detected by supplemental MRI, which is the focus of the current paper. Compared with traditional breast density measures used in a previous clinical trial, the current AI method was nearly four times more efficient in terms of cancers detected per 1,000 MRI examinations (64 versus 16.5). Most additional cancers detected were invasive and several were multifocal, suggesting that their detection was timely. Altogether, our results show that using an AI-based score to select a small proportion (6.9%) of individuals for supplemental MRI after negative mammography detects many missed cancers, making the cost per cancer detected comparable with screening mammography. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04832594 . In an interim analysis, an artificial intelligence model was nearly four times more efficient in terms of cancers detected per number of magnetic resonance imaging tests, compared to traditional breast density measures used in a previous clinical trial.

In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176 464 women aged 20–64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1 214 415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40–0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46–1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25–0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15–0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 105 (1·1–12·1) and 8·7 per 105 (3·3–18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 105 (7·9–27·0) and 36·0 per 105 (23·2–53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14–0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49–1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30–34 years (0·36, 0·14–0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60–70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.

Abstract Rationale Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% compared with screening with chest X-ray (CXR) in the National Lung Screening Trial, but uncertainty remains concerning the efficacy of LDCT screening in a community setting. Objectives To explore the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality compared with no screening. Secondary endpoints included incidence, stage, and resectability rates. Methods Male smokers of 20+ pack-years, aged 60 to 74 years, underwent a baseline CXR and sputum cytology examination and received five screening rounds with LDCT or a yearly clinical review only in a randomized fashion. Measurements and Main Results A total of 1,264 subjects were enrolled in the LDCT arm and 1,186 in the control arm. Their median age was 64.0 years (interquartile range, 5), and median smoking exposure was 45.0 pack-years. The median follow-up was 8.35 years. One hundred four patients (8.23%) were diagnosed with lung cancer in the screening arm (66 by CT), 47 of whom (3.71%) had stage I disease; 72 control patients (6.07%) were diagnosed with lung cancer, with 16 (1.35%) being stage I cases. Lung cancer mortality was 543 per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 413–700) in the LDCT arm versus 544 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI, 410–709) in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.993; 95% confidence interval, 0.688–1.433). Conclusions Because of its limited statistical power, the results of the DANTE (Detection And screening of early lung cancer with Novel imaging TEchnology) trial do not allow us to make a definitive statement about the efficacy of LDCT screening. However, they underline the importance of obtaining additional data from randomized trials with intervention-free reference arms before the implementation of population screening.

The PLCO trial generated data that argue against PSA screening. However, participants in the control group also reported being screened. An analysis of health questionnaires suggests that more than 80% of controls had been tested within the previous 3 years. To the Editor: In March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services temporarily suspended the development of a proposed “Non-Recommended Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)–Based Screening” measure that would discourage PSA screening in all men. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is currently in the process of updating its recommendations for prostate-cancer screening. The decisions made by these two organizations are likely to determine the fate of PSA screening in the United States. Much of the controversy surrounding screening revolves around the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, which randomly assigned men to annual prostate-cancer screening or usual . . .

Background While guidelines recommend twice-yearly liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) surveillance for people with cirrhosis, adherence to these guidelines remains variable. We aimed to empirically identify and apply successful implementation strategies through Getting to Implementation (GTI), a manualized facilitation approach. Methods A hybrid type III, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted at 12 underperforming Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites between October 2020 and October 2022. GTI included a stepwise approach to guide sites to detail their current state, set implementation goals, identify implementation barriers, select implementation strategies, make a work plan, conduct an evaluation, and sustain their work. Outcomes were defined using the Reach , Effectiveness , Adoption , Implementation , and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Results Facilitators supported site teams with an average of 20±6 facilitation hours over a 12-month period. Ten of 12 sites (83%) adopted GTI and applied a median of five strategies (e.g., dashboard use, small tests of change, direct patient outreach). Reach , the primary outcome, increased from mean 29.1% to mean 38.8% at-risk Veterans receiving HCC surveillance from pre- to post-intervention, and further increasing to 41.3% in the sustainment period. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, the odds of HCC surveillance were significantly higher during intervention (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=1.67, 95% CI:1.59, 1.75) and during sustainment (aOR=1.69, 95% CI:1.60, 1.78) compared with baseline, and with difference between active and sustainment periods, indicating sustained improvement after active facilitation ended. Conclusions GTI sustainably improved HCC surveillance, suggesting that applying data-driven implementation strategies within a manualized facilitation approach can improve care. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04178096

Background: Chinese women tend to have small and dense breasts and ultrasound is a common method for breast cancer screening in China. However, its efficacy and cost comparing with mammography has not been evaluated in randomised trials. Methods: At 14 breast centres across China during 2008–2010, 13 339 high-risk women aged 30–65 years were randomised to be screened by mammography alone, ultrasound alone, or by both methods at enrolment and 1-year follow-up. Results: A total of 12 519 and 8692 women underwent the initial and second screenings, respectively. Among the 30 cancers (of which 15 were stage 0/I) detected, 5 (0.72/1000) were in the mammography group, 11 (1.51/1000) in the ultrasound group, and 14 (2.02/1000) in the combined group ( P =0.12). In the combined group, ultrasound detected all the 14 cancers, whereas mammography detected 8, making ultrasound more sensitive (100 vs 57.1%, P =0.04) with a better diagnostic accuracy (0.999 vs 0.766, P =0.01). There was no difference between mammography and ultrasound in specificity (100 vs 99.9%, P =0.51) and positive predictive value (72.7 vs 70.0%; P =0.87). To detect one cancer, the costs of ultrasound, mammography, and combined modality were $7876, $45 253, and $21 599, respectively. Conclusions: Ultrasound is superior to mammography for breast cancer screening in high-risk Chinese women.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is suboptimal. The TEMPO trial evaluated the impact of two evidence-based, theory-informed, and co-designed behavioural interventions on uptake of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal screening. TEMPO was a 2 × 4 factorial, eight-arm, randomised controlled trial embedded in the nationwide Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. All 40 000 consecutive adults (aged 50–74 years) eligible for colorectal screening were allocated to one of eight groups using block randomisation: (1) standard invitation; (2) 1-week suggested FIT return deadline; (3) 2-week deadline; (4) 4-week deadline; (5) problem-solving planning tool (no deadline); (6) planning tool plus 1-week deadline; (7) planning tool plus 2-week deadline; (8) planning tool plus 4-week deadline. The primary outcome was the proportion of FITs returned correctly completed to be tested by the colorectal screening laboratory providing a positive or negative result, within 3 months of the FIT being mailed to a person. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05408169. From June 19 to July 3, 2022, 5000 participants were randomly assigned per group, with no loss to follow-up. 266 participants met the exclusion criteria; 39 734 (19 909 [50·1%] female and 19 825 [49·9%] male; mean age 61·2 [SD 7·3] years) were included in the analysis. The control group (no deadline, and no planning tool) had a 3-month FIT return rate of 66·0% (3275 of 4965). The highest return rate was seen with a 2-week deadline without the planning tool (3376 [68·0%] of 4964; difference vs control of 2·0% [95% CI 0·2 to 3·9]). The lowest return rate was seen when the planning tool was given without a deadline (3134 [63·2%] of 4958; difference vs control of –2·8% [–4·7 to –0·8]). The primary analysis, assuming independent effects of the two interventions, suggested a clear positive effect of giving a deadline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·13 [1·08 to 1·19]; p<0·0001), and no effect for use of a planning tool (aOR 0·98 [0·94 to 1·02]; p=0·34), though this was complicated by an interaction between the two interventions (pinteraction=0·0041); among those who were given a deadline, there was no evidence that receiving a planning tool had any effect (aOR 1·02 [0·97 to 1·07]; p=0·53), but in the absence of a deadline, giving the planning tool appeared detrimental (aOR 0·88 [0·81 to 0·96]; p=0·0030). In the absence of the planning tool, there was little evidence that the use of a deadline had any effect on return rates at 3 months. However, secondary analyses indicated that the use of deadlines boosted earlier return rates (within 1, 2, and 4 weeks, particularly around the time of the deadline), and reduced the need to issue a reminder letter after 6 weeks, with no evidence that the planning tool had any positive impact, and without evidence of interactions between interventions. Adding a single sentence suggesting a deadline for FIT return in the invitation letter to FIT colorectal screening resulted in more timely FIT return and reduced the need to issue reminder letters. This is a highly cost-effective intervention that could be easily implemented in routine practice. A planning tool had no positive effect on FIT return. Scottish Government and Cancer Research UK.

ObjectiveThe English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services.DesignIntermediate-risk patients (60–72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012–December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance.Results74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively.ConclusionsReplacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%–40% of CRCs and 40%–70% of AAs.Trial registration number ISRCTN18040196; Results.