Canadian Task Force On Preventive Health Care Research Articles

Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice

To investigate abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening rates in the 6 months before and after the introduction of updated Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) guidelines to determine effects on practice patterns, as well as to determine whether certain patient characteristics impact AAA screening rates. Retrospective chart review. Academic family health centre in London, Ont. Male patients between the ages of 65 and 80. Screening rates for AAA before and after the guideline update were compared using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution. Analysis of demographic characteristic effects on screening rates was completed with the Fisher exact test. Number of visits to the clinic with a primary care provider within the study period and imaging type were collected. Of the 266 patients included in the study, 160 patients were eligible for screening at the start of the study period, 6 months before publication of the CTFPHC AAA guideline. Individuals eligible for screening visited the clinic an average (SD) of 2.44 (1.82) times in the 6 months before and 2.66 (1.99) times in the 6 months after. Overall, 69 individuals had AAA screening completed and 9 had a discussion of AAA screening without any imaging, for a total uptake rate of 88.5% for those who had screening recommended. The overall imaging rate was 48.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in screening rates between the time periods (P=.337) among those eligible for screening. For demographic characteristics for risk stratification, 7 individuals had a documented family history, of whom 5 had imaging of their abdominal aorta performed, plus 1 additional individual who had screening recommended but not completed. This was not statistically significant relative to the total population (P=.0598). Positive smoking status (active or ex-smoker) was more common, with 135 individuals having a relevant smoking history. Approximately half of these current and former smokers (68 individuals [50.4%]) had any sort of abdominal aortic imaging performed or recommended, which was not statistically significantly different compared with non-smokers (62 of 126 imaging performed or recommended, 49.2%; P=.9016). Screening practices did not change appreciably with the introduction of the CTFPHC AAA screening guidelines. Further research is needed to improve AAA screening rates. It is worth exploring electronic medical record-based reminders, nursing staff involvement in screening, screening programs via public health, and point-of-care ultrasound screening in a primary care setting.

What should educators teach to improve preventive health care?

Since 2017 the Prevention in Practice[1][1] series of articles has been published in Canadian Family Physician . In part, this series is grounded in our experiences as physician-educators or members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC). In this article we describe how

Efficacy of Risk Prediction Models and Thresholds to Select Patients for Lung Cancer Screening.

PurposeScreening for lung cancer is recommended to reduce lung cancer mortality, but there is no consensus on patient selection for screening in Canada. Risk prediction models are more efficacious than the screening recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), but it remains to be determined which model and threshold are optimal. MethodsWe retrospectively applied the PLCOm2012, PLCOall2014 and LLPv2 risk prediction models to 120 lung cancer patients from a Canadian province, at risk thresholds of ≥ 1.51% and ≥ 2.00%, to determine screening eligibility at time of diagnosis. OncoSim modelling was used to compare these risk thresholds. ResultsSensitivities of the risk prediction models at a threshold of ≥ 1.51% were similar with 93 (77.5%), 96 (80.0%), and 97 (80.8%) patients selected for screening, respectively. The PLCOm2012 and PLCOall2014 models selected significantly more patients for screening at a ≥ 1.51% threshold. The OncoSim simulation model estimated that the ≥ 1.51% threshold would detect 4 more cancers per 100000 people than the ≥ 2.00% threshold. All risk prediction models, at both thresholds, achieved greater sensitivity than CTFPHC recommendations, which selected 56 (46.7%) patients for screening. ConclusionCommonly considered lung cancer screening risk thresholds (≥1.51% and ≥2.00%) are more sensitive than the CTFPHC 30-pack-years criterion to detect lung cancer. A lower risk threshold would achieve a larger population impact of lung cancer screening but would require more resources. Patients with limited or no smoking history, young patients, and patients with no history of COPD may be missed regardless of the model chosen.

Understanding Compliance, Practice Patterns, and Barriers Among Gastroenterologists and Primary Care Providers Is Crucial for Developing Strategies to Improve Screening for Barrett’s Esophagus

Understanding Compliance, Practice Patterns, and Barriers Among Gastroenterologists and Primary Care Providers Is Crucial for Developing Strategies to Improve Screening for Barrett’s Esophagus

Appropriateness of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening With Ultrasound: Potential Cost Savings With Guideline Adherence and Review of Prior Imaging.

To assess the appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening with ultrasound (US) and potential cost savings by adhering to guidelines and reviewing prior imaging. Screening aortic US performed in Nova Scotia from January 1 to April 30, 2019, were reviewed. Patient sex, age, risk factors, and study result (negative, <2.5 cm; ectatic, 2.5-2.9 cm; positive for AAA, ≥3 cm) were recorded. Previous imaging tests were reviewed for the presence/absence of aortic ectasia or aneurysm. Appropriateness was based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the Canadian Society of Vascular Surgery (CSVS) guidelines. The number of potentially averted US, subsequent missed positive findings, and cost savings (over the 4-month period) were calculated according to: 1) each guideline; and 2) each guideline combined with review of imaging done 0 to 5 years and 0 to 10 years previously. There were 17 (4.6%) of 369 ectatic aortas and 18 (4.9%) of 369 AAAs. The number of potentially averted examinations, missed ectatic aortas, missed AAAs, and cost savings were as follows, respectively: CTFPHC, 222 (60.2%) of 369, 8, 7, and CAD$20 501.70; CSVS, 117 (31.7%) of 369, 4, 2, and CAD$10 804.95. The model that would yield the greatest cost savings and fewest missed positive findings was the combination of CSVS guidelines with review of prior imaging within 5 years; this would avert 189 (51.2%) of 369 examinations, save CAD$17 454.15 over 4 months, and miss only 2 AAAs and 2 ectatic aortas. Over half of aortic US screening tests can be safely averted by adhering to CSVS guidelines and reviewing imaging performed within 5 years.

Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions (dysplasia and Barrett\u2019s esophagus) in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with or without other risk factors: two systematic reviews and one overview of reviews to inform a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)

BackgroundTwo reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews).MethodsBibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence.ResultsTen studies evaluated the effectiveness of screening. One retrospective study reported no difference in long-term survival (approximately 6 to 12 years) between those who had a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy and those who had not (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–1.50). Though there may be higher odds of a stage 1 diagnosis than a more advanced diagnosis (stage 2–4) if an EGD had been performed in the previous 5 years (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.00–7.67). Seven studies compared different screening modalities, and showed little difference between modalities. Three studies reported on patients’ unwillingness to be screened (e.g. due to anxiety, fear of gagging). Eleven systematic reviews evaluated treatment modalities, providing some evidence of early treatment effect for some outcomes.ConclusionsLittle evidence exists on the effectiveness of screening and values and preferences to screening. Many treatment modalities have been evaluated, but studies are small. Overall, there is uncertainty in understanding the effectiveness of screening and early treatments.Systematic review registrationsPROSPERO (CRD42017049993 [KQ1], CRD42017050014 [KQ2], CRD42018084825 [KQ3]).

IBS30.03 Risk Assessment to Establish Screening Programs: The Canadian Point of View

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) supports screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to decrease lung cancer mortality.1 The Task Force recommends annual screening up to three consecutive years in high risk adults aged 55-74 years with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history, who currently smoke or quit less than 15 years ago. Pilot LDCT screening program or studies are being conducted in Canada to help determine how to best implement organized lung cancer screening for people at high risk at the population level. Based on emerging data that suggests both the CTFPHC and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age and pack-years selection criteria2 are suboptimal and that risk prediction tools such as the PLCOm2012 are more sensitive with better positive predictive power to identify ever smokers who will develop lung cancer with a lower number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death and are more cost-effective,3-8 pilot studies in Canada adopt the PLCOm2012 risk prediction tool to select high risk ever smokers for LDCT screening. A prospective study is being conducted in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients in the Greater Vancouver area. In 1,076 patients, 37% were never smokers reflecting the foreign-born ethnic distribution. Of the 683 ever smokers, 60% met the PLCOm2012 model 6-year risk ≥1.5% screening criteria while only 39.5% met the USPSTF screening criteria. The International Lung Screen Trial (ILST), a multi-center prospective trial in Canada (British Columbia, Alberta), Australia, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom, offer screening to ever smokers age 55 to 80 years if they meet the USPSTF criteria or the PLCOm2012 model 6-year risk ≥1.5% criteria. Participants receive two annual screens and are followed for six years for lung cancer outcomes. Interim results in 4,863 participants with 101 lung cancers showed that PLCOm2012 identified 26.6% more lung cancers than USPSTF criteria (99% of all lung cancers versus 78% with USPSTF). However, PLCOm2012 screened 9.9% more people than USPSTF criteria. If 2% six-year lung cancer risk threshold were used for screening selection criteria as is currently used in the Cancer Care Ontario Pilot, PLCOm2012 would be 12.7% more sensitive identifying 88.1% of lung cancers while screening 11% fewer people compared to USPSTF criteria. A 1.7% six-year lung cancer risk threshold would be 24.1% more sensitive identifying 97% of all lung cancers while screening only 1% more people than USPSTF criteria. The 1.7% threshold may be a better screening selection criterion. The worldwide burden of lung cancer is significant and projected to rise during the coming years especially in East Asian countries, namely, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan because of the large population size, high stable incidence rates in male and significant upward trends in females many of whom are never smokers.9 With global migration and increasing number of new Canadians who are diagnosed with lung cancer are from Asian countries such as in Vancouver, better lung cancer risk assessment tools need to be developed that take into account ethnicity and other environmental exposures such as outdoor and household air pollution exposures.10 Risk prediction tools may be perceived by some to be more complex to use than age and pack-years. The web based PanCan risk prediction tool, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model, was tested in both English and French in 8 centers across Canada from coast to coast.7 The tool was found to be simple to use and took approximately 5 minutes to administer over the telephone. Similar experience was found with the web based PLCOm2012 risk assessment tool for enrollment into the International Lung Screen Trial and the Cancer Care Ontario pilot screening program. Risk assessment can be readily done by a navigator or a physician for enrollment into lung cancer screening programs as part of the shared decision process. Supported by the Terry Fox Research Institute, BC Cancer Foundation, the VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, and the Australian NHMRC.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review

BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.MethodsWe have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.DiscussionThe results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC—supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity―to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Prostate cancer screening among family physicians in Ontario: An update on attitudes and current practice

This study serves as an update of prostate cancer screening practices among family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Since this population was first surveyed in 2010, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released recommendations against prostate cancer screening. An online survey was developed through input from urologists and family practitioners. It was distributed via email to all members of the Ontario Medical Association's Section on General and Family practice (11 657 family physicians). A reminder email was sent at two weeks and the survey remained active for one month. A total of 1880 family physicians completed surveys (response rate 16.1%). Overall, 80.4% offered prostate cancer screening compared to 91.7% when surveyed in 2010. Physicians new to practice (two years or less) were the most likely to not offer screening (24.6%). A combination of digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remained the most common form of screening (58.3%). Following the release of the CTFPHC recommendations, 45.6% of respondents said they now screen fewer patients. Participants were less familiar with national urological society guidelines compared to task force recommendations. The majority (72.6%) of respondents feel PSA screening leads to overdiagnosis and treatment. Those surveyed remained split with respect to PSA utility. Data suggest a decline in screening practices since 2010, with newer graduates less likely to offer screening. CFTPHC and USPSTF recommendations had the greatest impact on clinical practice. Those surveyed were divided with respect to PSA utility. Some additional considerations to PSA screening in the primary care setting, including patient-driven factors, were not captured by our concise survey.

Prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening: A national survey of Canadian primary care physicians' opinions and practices.

In 2014, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) recommended against routine prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. We surveyed Canadian primary care physicians (PCPs) to understand their opinions and attitudes towards prostate cancer screening in 2016. Twenty PCPs piloted the survey to assess its accessibility. We distributed a flyer to 19 633 PCPs as an insert in a large mailed package inviting them to attend a national meeting, and later promoted the survey at the meeting. Multinomial logistic regression models examined factors associated with agreement of key guideline statements and the overall benefit of PSA screening. A total of 1254 PCPs responded (rate of 6.4%); 54.7% of physicians aware of the CTFPHC recommendations report screening less often as a result. Overall, 55.6% of PCPs feel that the risks of PSA screening outweigh the benefits. On multivariable analysis, physicians who did not read the guidelines, did not have an academic appointment, or were in practice for over 20 years were significantly more likely to disagree with the statement that men 55-69 years old should not be screened for prostate cancer with PSA. Our national survey found that the prostate cancer screening practices of Canadian PCPs varies widely across physician demographic groups, with almost equal numbers for or against. This has significant ethical, medical, and legal implications. The poor response rate to highly incentivized survey request may suggest a reluctance or general apathy towards this subject because of the Task Force recommendations. Future efforts should provide physicians with objective guidance around PSA screening, incorporating input from all stakeholders, including PCPs, urologists, and patients.

Consistency and sources of divergence in recommendations on screening with questionnaires for presently experienced health problems or symptoms: a comparison of recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, UK National Screening Committee, and US Preventive Services Task Force

BackgroundRecently, health screening recommendations have gone beyond screening for early-stage, asymptomatic disease to include “screening” for presently experienced health problems and symptoms using self-report questionnaires. We examined recommendations from three major national guideline organizations to determine the consistency of recommendations, identify sources of divergent recommendations, and determine if guideline organizations have identified any direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for the effectiveness of questionnaire-based screening.MethodsWe reviewed recommendation statements listed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) as of 5 September 2016. Eligible recommendations focused on using self-report questionnaires to identify patients with presently experienced health problems or symptoms. Within each recommendation and accompanying evidence review we identified screening RCTs.ResultsWe identified 22 separate recommendations on questionnaire-based screening, including three CTFPHC recommendations against screening, eight UKNSC recommendations against screening, four USPSTF recommendations in favor of screening (alcohol misuse, adolescent depression, adult depression, intimate partner violence), and seven USPSTF recommendations that did not recommend for or against screening. In the four cases where the USPSTF recommended screening, either the CTFPHC, the UKNSC, or both recommended against. When recommendations diverged, the USPSTF expressed confidence in benefits based on indirect evidence, evaluated potential harms as minimal, and did not consider cost or resource use. CTFPHC and UKNSC recommendations against screening, on the other hand, focused on the lack of direct evidence of benefit and raised concerns about harms to patients and resource use. Of six RCTs that directly evaluated screening interventions, five did not report any statistically significant primary or secondary health outcomes in favor of screening, and one trial reported equivocal results.ConclusionsOnly the USPSTF has made any recommendations for screening with questionnaires for presently experienced problems or symptoms. The CTFPHC and UKNSC recommended against screening in all of their recommendations. Differences in recommendations appear to reflect differences in willingness to assume benefit from indirect evidence and different approaches to assessing possible harms and resource consumption. There were no examples in any recommendations of RCTs with direct evidence of improved health outcomes.

Universal Depression Screening to Improve Depression Outcomes in Primary Care: Sounds Good, but Where Is the Evidence?

The 2016 recommendation statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsed screening for depression in the general adult population. The recommendation was mainly based on studies that compared enhanced depression care that included depression screening with usual care. In contrast to the USPSTF recommendation, the 2013 guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) recommended against routine depression screening. The CTFPHC could not identify any studies comparing depression outcomes of usual care with and without the addition of routine depression screening. In the absence of evidence of clinical benefit, there are concerns that wide adoption of the USPSTF recommendation for universal depression screening would lead to overdiagnosis of depression and an increase in inappropriate prescription of antidepressant medications.

Canadian Primary Care Physicians' Attitudes Toward Understanding Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Screening.

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) produces guidelines for Canadian physicians regarding screening and prevention. To better appreciate the barriers to and facilitators of guideline adherence, we sought to explore physicians' views of guidelines in general and their understanding of this CTFPHC diabetes screening guideline in particular because they pertain to screening and positive treatment. We included Canadian physicians (N=10) who agreed to be interviewed regarding their use of guidelines as part of practice, focusing on the CTFPHC 2012 diabetes screening guideline. Individual semistructured interviews explored primary care physicians' experiences and perspectives on the use, relevance and feasibility of guidelines as part of practice, approaches to screening for diabetes, and suggestions for improving guidelines. Overall, physicians recognized the need for guidelines and the benefits of using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods in the guideline development process. Physicians also noted several barriers to guideline adherence, including the lack of opportunity for physicians to provide input during guideline formulation, insufficient guidance on interpreting GRADE's weak or conditional recommendations, and feasibility issues concerning using risk calculators. The predominant challenge raised by physicians was the unclear guidance for pharmacologic interventions; all respondents were unclear about the guidelines' implicit assumption that screen-positive patients would be treated with statins and aspirin (ASA). These interviews suggest the need for greater clarity in guideline recommendations, including clarification of the quality of evidence ratings and the strength of recommendation grading. Our low participation rate raises the issue of representativeness; replication in samples with greater willingness to participate would be desirable.

Hepatitis C in Canada and the importance of risk-based screening.

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) remains a public health issue affecting an estimated 220,000 individuals in Canada. In 2011, approximately 44% of those with CHC were unaware of their infection. Hepatitis C is infectious in origin, and if left untreated, can lead to significant morbidity and mortality in its chronic form, including liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. These health outcomes are associated with comorbidities, adding a burden to the Canadian health care system. Recent advancements in the treatment of hepatitis C have changed the clinical landscape. In Canada, the prevalence of incident cases is higher in specific population groups. Injection drug use (IDU) currently accounts for the highest proportion of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. It is unclear to what extent HCV infection through health care or personal services use contributed to current prevalent cases of CHC. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) is currently reviewing the evidence for different approaches to HCV screening and the benefits and harms of screening. Risk-based screening remains critical to detecting hepatitis C as knowing one's status has been linked to the cascade of care and improved population health outcomes. This article intends to highlight risk factors associated with the acquisition of HCV so that health care providers can screen, where appropriate, and detect CHC.

Cost-effectiveness of population-based mammography screening strategies by age range and frequency

There is little cost-effectiveness evidence for breast cancer screening with mammography in women under the age of 50 years, or over the age of 70 years, and available estimates vary widely. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) took cost-effectiveness into account in their recent recommendations on breast cancer screening, but no data are available from a Canadian setting. We constructed a microsimulation model using data from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (BC) and the BC Cancer Registry. Eight screening strategies with varying age ranges and frequencies were compared to a reference strategy of no screening. Local screening, diagnostic, and treatment costs, and utility weights from the literature were applied to health states. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, using the results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The most cost-effective strategies were biennial screening from ages 50 to 69, with an ICER of $28,921/QALY, and biennial screening from 40 to 69, with an ICER of $86,029/QALY. Screening women ages 40–49 was more cost-effective than screening women ages 70–74, which conflicts with the recommendations of the CTFPHC. There was, however, considerable uncertainty around these cost-effectiveness results. Regardless of willingness-to-pay, no single strategy was significantly more likely to be cost effective than the others. There is value in reducing the uncertainty around these cost-effectiveness estimates, to better inform future screening policy.

Depression Screening in Primary Care: Why the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Did the Right Thing

To review the recent recommendation against routinely screening adults for depression in primary care settings by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC). We reviewed the CTFPHC recommendation and discussed it in the context of relevant evidence. Depression screening, which involves using depression symptom questionnaires to attempt to identify patients who have unrecognized depression, was previously recommended by the CTFPHC in primary care settings with staff-assisted depression care programs in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up, but not in the absence of such programs. The CTFPHC recently updated this guideline and recommended against routinely screening adults for depression in primary care because there have not been any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have shown depression screening to be beneficial and because of a concern about the potentially high number of false-positive screens that would occur. Without evidence from RCTs of better health outcomes from screening, there are numerous factors that suggest that depression screening, even with collaborative depression care, may not be beneficial for patients, including the high rate of patients already treated, uncertainty about the ability of depression screening tools to accurately identify previously unrecognized patients, and relatively small treatment effects among patients with less severe depression who would be most likely to be identified through screening. Routine screening would expose some patients to avoidable risks and would pose a significant cost burden. The CTFPHC recommendation to not screen for depression in primary care is consistent with available evidence. Clinicians in primary care settings should be alert to signs of depression and attend to symptoms through assessment and, as appropriate, referral or management, as recommended by the CTFPHC.

Depression Screening in Primary Care: Why the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Did the Right Thing

Objective: To review the recent recommendation against routinely screening adults for depression in primary care settings by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC). Methods: We reviewed the CTFPHC recommendation and discussed it in the context of relevant evidence. Results: Depression screening, which involves using depression symptom questionnaires to attempt to identify patients who have unrecognized depression, was previously recommended by the CTFPHC in primary care settings with staff-assisted depression care programs in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up, but not in the absence of such programs. The CTFPHC recently updated this guideline and recommended against routinely screening adults for depression in primary care because there have not been any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have shown depression screening to be beneficial and because of a concern about the potentially high number of false-positive screens that would occur. Without evidence from RCTs of better health outcomes from screening, there are numerous factors that suggest that depression screening, even with collaborative depression care, may not be beneficial for patients, including the high rate of patients already treated, uncertainty about the ability of depression screening tools to accurately identify previously unrecognized patients, and relatively small treatment effects among patients with less severe depression who would be most likely to be identified through screening. Routine screening would expose some patients to avoidable risks and would pose a significant cost burden. Conclusion: The CTFPHC recommendation to not screen for depression in primary care is consistent with available evidence. Clinicians in primary care settings should be alert to signs of depression and attend to symptoms through assessment and, as appropriate, referral or management, as recommended by the CTFPHC.

New Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Large population-based trials showed that the human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test can be even more effective than Pap tests in preventing cervical cancer. Nevertheless, there are still many questions on how to implement HPV testing in screening, and particularly how to manage its lower specificity. In this paper, we compare the recommendations concerning the cervical cancer screening tools proposed by the most influential agencies and scientific societies in the last 3 years. We included six documents that evaluated the use of HPV DNA tests and formulated recommendations: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) systematic review and recommendations, the multi-societal USA, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the Dutch Health Council recommendations, and the Italian Health Technology Assessment report. The USPSTF review and the Canadian document concluded that there is no sufficient evidence to recommend HPV as a primary screening test, while the others conclude that HPV tests can be used as the primary screening test in patients starting from 30 years of age. The interval after a negative HPV test is 5 years for all the documents except the Dutch (5-10 year interval). The only relevant difference between recommendations is the role of cytology: co-testing in the USA, triage in Europe. The new European and USA guidelines on cervical cancer screening represent a further step towards protocol harmonisation, even if there are still some differences. This harmonisation was achieved through an evidence-based approach to the introduction of HPV as a primary test and through a general reduction of the intensity of screening protocols.

Cervical screening

Several recent publications have challenged parts of the new Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) guideline on Cervical Screening[1][1]: a commentary by Dollin,[2][2] a joint statement by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Society of Gynaecological Oncologists,

P098 The Canadian Task Force On Preventive Health Care: Process For Critical Appraisal Of Externally-Produced Guidelines

BackgroundThe Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) was re-established in 2010, with a mandate to produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for primary preventive care, based on systematic analysis...