Cancer Screening Recommendations Research Articles

Comprehensive periodic health evaluations of 454 Norwegian Paralympic and Olympic athletes over 8 years: what did we learn?

ObjectiveA periodic health evaluation (PHE) is a comprehensive and multidisciplinary investigation of athlete health widely used in elite sport, but its contents and benefits can be questioned. This study aimed...

The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.

Recommendations regarding personalized lung cancer screening are being informed by natural-history modeling. Therefore, understanding how differences in model assumptions affect model-based personalized screening recommendations is essential. Five Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were evaluated. Lung cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distributions were compared across 4 theoretical scenarios to assess model assumptions regarding 1) sojourn times, 2) stage-specific sensitivities, and 3) screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions. Analyses were stratified by sex and smoking behavior. Most cancers had sojourn times <5 y (model range [MR]; lowest to highest value across models: 83.5%-98.7% of cancers). However, cancer aggressiveness still varied across models, as demonstrated by differences in proportions of cancers with sojourn times <2 y (MR: 42.5%-64.6%) and 2 to 4 y (MR: 28.8%-43.6%). Stage-specific sensitivity varied, particularly for stage I (MR: 31.3%-91.5%). Screening reduced stage IV incidence in most models for 1 y postscreening; increased sensitivity prolonged this period to 2 to 5 y. Screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions among lung cancers detected at screening ranged widely (MR: 14.6%-48.9%), demonstrating variations in modeled treatment effectiveness of screen-detected cases. All models assumed longer sojourn times and greater screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for women. Models assuming differences in cancer epidemiology by smoking behaviors assumed shorter sojourn times and lower screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for heavy smokers. Model-based personalized screening recommendations are primarily driven by assumptions regarding sojourn times (favoring longer intervals for groups more likely to develop less aggressive cancers), sensitivity (higher sensitivities favoring longer intervals), and screening-induced mortality reductions (greater reductions favoring shorter intervals). Models suggest longer screening intervals may be feasible and benefits may be greater for women and light smokers. Natural-history models are increasingly used to inform lung cancer screening, but causes for variations between models are difficult to assess.This is the first evaluation of these causes and their impact on personalized screening recommendations through easily interpretable metrics.Models vary regarding sojourn times, stage-specific sensitivities, and screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions.Model outcomes were similar in predicting greater screening benefits for women and potentially light smokers. Longer screening intervals may be feasible for women and light smokers.

Population-level impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation for colorectal cancer screening: a microsimulation analysis

ObjectiveIn 2019, a BMJ Rapid Recommendation advised against colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults with a predicted 15-year CRC risk below 3%. Using Switzerland as a case study, we estimated...

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible. This cross-sectional study employed data from the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 23 states to compare age, gender, race, marital, sexual orientation, education, employment, comorbidity, vaccination, region, and rurality characteristics of the eligible population according to the original 2013 USPSTF recommendations with the revised 2021 USPSTF recommendations using chi-squared tests. This study compared those originally eligible to those newly eligible using the BRFSS raking-dervived weighting variable. There were 30,190 study participants. The results of this study found that eligibility increased by 62.4% due to the revised recommendations. We found that the recommendation changes increased the proportion of eligible females (50.1% vs 44.1%), Black persons (9.2% vs 6.6%), Hispanic persons (4.4% vs 2.7%), persons aged 55-64 (55.8% vs 52.6%), urban-dwellers(88.3% vs 85.9%), unmarried (3.4% vs 2.5%) and never married (10.4% vs 6.6%) persons, as well as non-retirees (76.5% vs 56.1%) Respondents without comorbidities and COPD also increased. It is estimated that the revision of the lung cancer screening recommendations decreased eligibility disparities in sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, respiratory comorbidities, and vaccination status. Research will be necessary to estimate whether uptake patterns subsequently follow the expanded eligibility patterns.

The current infection with Helicobacter pylori and association with upper gastrointestinal lesions and risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer: Insights from multicenter population-based cohort study.

The relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers is complex. This multicenter, population-based cohort study conducted in seven areas in China aimed to assess the correlation between current H. pylori infection and the severity of UGI lesions, as well as its association with the risk of gastric cancer (GC) and esophageal cancer (EC). From 2015 to 2017, 27,085 participants (aged 40-69) completed a standardized questionnaire, and underwent a 13C-urea breath test. Then a subset underwent UGI endoscopy to assess the UGI lesion detection rates. All individuals were followed up until December 2021 to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) for UGI cancers. H. pylori infection prevalence was 45.9%, and among endoscopy participants, 22.2% had gastric lesions, 19.2% had esophageal lesions. Higher detection rates of gastric lesions were noted in the H. pylori-positive population across all lesion severity levels. Over a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 EC and 179 GC cases were observed, including 103 non-cardia gastric cancer (NCGC) cases and 76 cardia gastric cancer (CGC) cases. H. pylori-infected individuals exhibited a 1.78-fold increased risk of GC (HR 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-2.40) but no significant increase in EC risk (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73-1.57). Notably, there was a higher risk for both NCGC and CGC in H. pylori-infected individuals. This population-based cohort study provides valuable evidence supporting the association between current H. pylori infection and the risk of both NCGC and CGC. These findings contribute to the empirical basis for risk stratification and recommendations for UGI cancer screening.

New USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: A Talk With Task Force Vice Chair Dr John Wong.

In this video article, Dr. John B. Wong, Vice Chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), discusses implications of the new USPSTF's recommendation for biennial screening mammography for women ages 40-74 years.

Abstract PO3-19-03: Addressing USPSTF 2023 Identified Key Gaps in Knowledge in Breast Cancer Screening through TMIST (ECOG-ACRIN EA1151) or its Ancillary Studies

Abstract Background The United States Preventative Services Task Force in their 2023 recommendations identified areas where more research data is needed to inform future breast cancer screening recommendations. Research areas identified are: improve clinicians and patients understanding and evaluation of dense breast tissue on a screening mammogram, benefits and harms of supplemental screening using ultrasound or MRI for women with dense breasts, health outcomes such as rates of breast cancer diagnosis requiring treatment, rates of advanced breast cancers diagnosed across consecutive screening rounds, and breast cancer-associated morbidity and mortality, causes of increased risk of breast cancer mortality in black women across spectrum of stages and biomarker patterns, understand why black women are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancers that have biomarker patterns that are indicative of poor health outcomes, assess benefits/harms differences between annual and biennial screening for breast cancer in women overall and if there are differences between black and white women, approaches to reduce the risk of overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment of breast lesions found at screening that may not cause morbidity and mortality, natural history of DCIS, and identify prognostic indicators of breast tumors that are unlikely to affect quality or length of life. Methods The ongoing TMIST study, currently with 88,801 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography ages 45-74 enrolled out of 128,905, could contribute to scientific evidence to support the above research areas through existing study aims and planned ancillary studies. Supplemental Screening with US and MRI: TMIST PreSCRIB will utilize Machine Learning applied to TMIST and All of Us data, including genetics, mammograms, social determinates of health and other data to recommend individualized screening strategies for women. DxMRI is a study where women will get AbMRI at time of Dx work-up. There are plans to use these examinations plus supplemental screening MRIs performed on TMIST subjects in an enriched reader study to evaluate the role of supplemental screening MRI in moderate risk women. Rates of breast cancer treatment, consecutive screening, morbidity, and mortality: TMIST’s primary outcome is the proportion of women experiencing an advanced breast cancer and needing treatment. TMIST is also collecting information on health care utilization following a cancer diagnosis, including types of treatment given, and costs data from the screening and diagnostic work-up visits, and mortality data for study participants. Increased risk of breast cancer mortality in black women: TMIST is performing PAM50 plus p53 status, immune profile, DNA repair phenotype, and 21-gene recurrence assay on all breast cancers and a subset of benign tissue. Blood and buccal smears might also help address this issue. Ongoing work, funded by the Susan B. Komen Foundation, focuses on improving Black participation in TMIST Biorepository (currently about 45% participation of the 21% of TMIST US black subjects). Surveys are planned on perceived racism and social determinates of health as part of DxMRI Study. Screening Frequency: We are developing a collaboration with the UK-based clinical trial PROSPECTS to compare rates of all cancers and advanced cancers for annual, biennial, and 3-year screening. Overdiagnosis, natural history of DCIS, prognostic indicators of breast tumors not impacting quality of life: PRoGram- will use radiomics, genomics and pathomics to develop a greater understanding of the variability of the non-advanced cancers diagnosed in the TMIST population, including DCIS. It is hoped that this model will provide greater understanding of the risk of poor outcomes for women diagnosed with lower risk cancers, including DCIS. Citation Format: Etta Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Mitchell Schnall, Melissa Troester, Elodia Cole, Jean Cormack, Ilana Gareen, Martin Yaffe, Laura Collins, Amarinthia Curtis, Ruth Carlos, Kathy Miller, Christopher Comstock. Addressing USPSTF 2023 Identified Key Gaps in Knowledge in Breast Cancer Screening through TMIST (ECOG-ACRIN EA1151) or its Ancillary Studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-19-03.

AAPA talks with USPSTF about its new breast cancer screening recommendation.

AAPA talks with USPSTF about its new breast cancer screening recommendation.

Self-Care Practices and Health-Seeking Behaviors Among Older Adults in Urban Indian Slums: A Mixed Methods Study.

Background Effective self-care is crucial for maintaining health among older adults in resource-constrained communities. This study examined self-care practices, health-seeking behaviors, and associated factors among older adults in urban slums in India. Materials and methods A mixed methods study was conducted among 432 adults aged ≥65 years. Participants were selected through multistage random sampling from five slum areas. Self-care practices, health-seeking behaviors, demographic information, chronic conditions, self-efficacy, and health literacy were assessed through interviews. The qualitative data was explored through in-depth interviews with 30 participants. Results Inadequate health literacy (194, 45%) and low self-efficacy (162, 37.5%) were common. While 324 (75%) had an adequate diet and 378 (87.5%) took medications properly, only 86 (20%) monitored diabetes complications. Only 194 (45%) of the patients underwent recommended cancer screening, and 324 (75%) of the patients saw doctors ≥twice a year. Age, sex, education, income, comorbidities, self-efficacy, and health literacy had significant associations. Alongside facilitators such as social support, barriers such as limited healthcare access and suboptimal prevention orientation emerged. Conclusion Suboptimal prevention orientation and overreliance on secondary care instead of self-care among elderly people are problematic given the limited use of geriatric services. Grassroots health workers can improve health literacy and self-efficacy through home visits to enable self-care. Healthcare access inequities for vulnerable groups merit policy attention.

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Review of Breast Imaging in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients: Gender-Affirming Care, Histopathologic Findings, Breast Cancer Risk, and Screening Recommendations.

Gender diversity, especially pertaining to transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) populations, is often stigmatized. A small but not insignificant number of adults in the United States identify as TGD, including transgender, nonbinary, and other gender identities than cisgender. Accessing health care remains a significant challenge for TGD individuals because many health care systems adhere to a gender binary model and many TGD individuals experience negative interactions when interfacing with health care. There is also a scarcity of literature addressing their unique health care needs, limiting our current understanding of breast cancer risks and screening recommendations for TGD patients. This article reviews important considerations when providing care to TGD patients. It covers background information on gender identity and sexuality, explores gender-affirming care, discusses histopathologic findings of breast biopsy specimens, examines breast cancer risks, and presents current breast cancer screening recommendations for TGD patients. Education on TGD breast cancer risks and screening and creating a standardized screening protocol for TGD patients who may receive gender-affirming care through hormonal and surgical therapies could help improve their health care equity and access.

Adequacy of prostate cancer prevention and screening recommendations provided by an artificial intelligence-powered large language model.

We aimed to assess the appropriateness of ChatGPT in providing answers related to prostate cancer (PCa) screening, comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. A committee of five reviewers designed 30 questions related to PCa screening, categorized into three difficulty levels. The questions were formulated identically for both GPTs three times, varying the prompts. Each reviewer assigned a score for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. The readability was assessed by the Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). The mean scores were extracted and compared using the Wilcoxon test. We compared the readability across the three different prompts by ANOVA. In GPT-3.5 the mean score (SD) for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness was 1.5 (0.59), 1.7 (0.45), 1.7 (0.49), respectively for easy questions; 1.3 (0.67), 1.6 (0.69), 1.3 (0.65) for medium; 1.3 (0.62), 1.6 (0.56), 1.4 (0.56) for hard. In GPT-4 was 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0), 2.0 (0.14), respectively for easy questions; 1.7 (0.66), 1.8 (0.61), 1.7 (0.64) for medium; 2.0 (0.24), 1.8 (0.37), 1.9 (0.27) for hard. GPT-4 performed better for all three qualities and difficulty levels than GPT-3.5. The FKG mean for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 answers were 12.8 (1.75) and 10.8 (1.72), respectively; the FRE for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was 37.3 (9.65) and 47.6 (9.88), respectively. The 2nd prompt has achieved better results in terms of clarity (all p < 0.05). GPT-4 displayed superior accuracy, clarity, conciseness, and readability than GPT-3.5. Though prompts influenced the quality response in both GPTs, their impact was significant only for clarity.

Abstract 1001: Association between oral cancer screening and knowledge of head and neck cancer symptoms and risk factors among Arab Americans

Abstract Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) has been increasingly affecting individuals of different ages, significantly contributing to the annual cancer burden in the US. While most HNC cases present at late-stages and are more likely to require aggressive surgical interventions with higher mortality, those who present with premalignant clinical signs or early-stages have a 5-year survival of 70%-90%. Moreover, current HNC public awareness is poor with lack of data on cultural and ethnic minorities. This study evaluated the association between oral cancer screening (OCS) recommendation and receipt and HNC symptoms and risk factors knowledge among Arab Americans in Michigan. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of adult Arab Americans conducted between March and July 2023. Surveys were available in English and Arabic per participants preference. Outcome variables were knowledge of three main HNC risk factors—alcohol, cigarette smoking, and HPV— and four of the most common HNC symptoms—nonhealing oral ulcers, dysphagia/odynophagia, voice changes and neck/throat masses—defined as yes/no. OCS was captured as receiving provider-given recommendation for screening and undergoing a screening test (yes/no). Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the associations between OCS and HNC symptoms and risk factor knowledge adjusting for socioeconomic factors. Results: A total of 295 respondents were included in the study, 9% had received recommendation for OCS and 11% had undergone a screening test. In adjusted models, respondents who did not correctly identify nonhealing oral ulcers (aOR=0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.67) as HNC symptoms or HPV (aOR=0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.55) as risk factor of HNC were less likely to have received provider-given recommendation for OCS compared to those who identified the symptom and risk factor. Similarly, respondents who did not correctly identify nonhealing oral ulcers (aOR=0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.42), dysphagia or odynophagia (aOR=0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.70), voice changes (aOR=0.27; 95% CI 0.09-0.81), and neck/throat masses (aOR=0.24; 95% CI 0.06-0.91) as HNC symptoms or HPV (aOR=0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.29) and alcohol (aOR=0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.58) as HNC risk factors were less likely to have undergone OCS compared to those who identified the symptoms and risk factors. Conclusion: Respondents who reported limited knowledge of HNC symptoms and risk factors were less likely to be exposed to screening recommendations or testing. Combining screening with education on premalignant and early-stage clinical signs and risk factors might facilitate reduction of HNC incidence and late diagnosis. Further interventions are needed to increase Arab Americans education and identification of high-risk groups by their providers. As HNC screening efficacy remains controversial, future efforts should be directed towards deepening our understanding in this area. Citation Format: Nada Al-Antary, Reem Siddiqui, Marissa Gilbert, Lamis Fakhoury, Mrudula Nair, Farzan Siddiqui, Eric Adjei Boakye. Association between oral cancer screening and knowledge of head and neck cancer symptoms and risk factors among Arab Americans [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1001.

Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.

The promise and challenges of multi-cancer early detection assays for reducing cancer disparities.

Since improvements in cancer screening, diagnosis, and therapeutics, cancer disparities have existed. Marginalized populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, lower-income individuals, those living in rural areas, and persons living with disabilities) have worse cancer-related outcomes. Early detection of cancer substantially improves outcomes, yet uptake of recommended cancer screenings varies widely. Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests use biomarkers in the blood to detect two or more cancers in a single assay. These assays show potential for population screening for some cancers-including those disproportionally affecting marginalized communities. MCEDs may also reduce access barriers to early detection, a primary factor in cancer-related outcome disparities. However, for the promise of MCEDs to be realized, during their development and testing, we are obligated to be cautious to design them in a way that reduces the myriad of structural, systematic, and personal barriers contributing to disparities. Further, they must not create new barriers. Population studies and clinical trials should include diverse populations, and tests must work equally well in all populations. The tests must be affordable. It is critical that we establish trust within marginalized communities, the healthcare system, and the MCED tests themselves. Tests should be expected to have high specificity, as a positive MCED finding will trigger additional, oftentimes invasive and expensive, imaging or other diagnosis tests and/or biopsies. Finally, there should be a way to help all individuals with a positive test to navigate the system for follow-up diagnostics and treatment, if warranted, that is accessible to all.

Dr. GPT will see you now: the ability of large language model-linked chatbots to provide colorectal cancer screening recommendations

Dr. GPT will see you now: the ability of large language model-linked chatbots to provide colorectal cancer screening recommendations

Family Recall of and Response to Germline Pathologic Variants Found on Paired Tumor-Germline Sequencing in Pediatric Oncology.

Paired tumor-germline sequencing can identify somatic variants for targeted therapy and germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) causative of hereditary cancer/tumor predisposition syndromes. It is unknown how patients/families in pediatric oncology use information about an identified GPV. We assessed recall of germline results and actions taken on the basis of findings. We completed phone surveys with patients (and/or their parent) with GPVs identified via a single academic medical center's paired tumor-germline sequencing study. Seven hundred forty pediatric (aged 0-25 years) oncology patients were enrolled in this sequencing study between May 2012 and August 2021. Ninety-six participants (13.0%) had at least one GPV identified and were therefore eligible for this survey. The parent/guardian (for patients younger than 18 years or deceased patients) or patients themselves (if 18 years or older) were contacted. Survey topics included germline result recall, experience with genetic counseling, changes to patient's cancer treatment/screening, sharing of results with family members, and lifestyle changes. Fifty-three surveys (response rate, 55.2%) were completed between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirty-seven (69.8%) respondents correctly recalled the identified GPV. Discussing results with a genetic counselor (P = .0001), having a GPV related to the cancer/tumor diagnosis (P = .002), and non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity (P = .02) were associated with accurate recall. Twenty-five respondents (47.2%) reported a change in the child's cancer treatment and/or screening recommendations, 17 respondents (32.1%) made a lifestyle change on the basis of the results, and 44 respondents (83.0%) shared results with at least one family member. While most respondents remembered that a GPV was identified in the patient, some did not recall having a GPV found, and others recalled germline findings incorrectly. Future work may determine patient/family preferences for timing/method of result return to optimize patient recall and use of germline results.

Personal history of cancer as a risk factor for second primary lung cancer: Implications for lung cancer screening.

Personal history of cancer is an independent risk factor for lung cancer but is omitted from existing lung cancer screening eligibility criteria. In this study, we assess the lung cancer risk among cancer survivors and discuss potential implications for screening. This was a retrospective, secondary analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry and the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). We estimated the standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for lung cancer by site of first primary cancer using data from SEER. We assessed the lung cancer risk among head and neck cancer survivors from MDACC using cumulative incidence and compared the risk ratios (RR) by individuals' screening eligibility status. Other than first primary lung cancer (SIR: 5.10, 95% CI: 5.01-5.18), cancer survivors in SEER with personal history of head and neck cancer (SIR: 3.71, 95% CI: 3.63-3.80) had the highest risk of developing second primary lung cancer, followed by bladder (SIR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.81-1.90) and esophageal cancers (SIR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.61-1.96). Head and neck cancer survivors had higher risk to develop lung cancer compared to the National Lung Screening Trial's subjects, (781 vs. 572 per 100,000 person-years, respectively). Head and neck cancer survivors ineligible for lung cancer screening seen at MDACC had significantly higher lung cancer risk than head and neck cancer survivors from SEER (RR: 1.9, p < 0.001). Personal history of cancer, primarily head and neck cancer, is an independent risk factor for lung cancer and may be considered as an eligibility criterion in future lung cancer screening recommendations.

Integrating primary care, shared decision making, and community engagement to facilitate equitable access to multi-cancer early detection clinical trials.

Effective implementation of cancer screening programs can reduce disease-specific incidence and mortality. Screening is currently recommended for breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer. However, initial and repeat adherence to screening tests in accordance with current guidelines is sub-optimal, with the lowest rates observed in historically underserved groups. If used in concert with recommended cancer screening tests, new biospecimen-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests could help to identify more cancers that may be amendable to effective treatment. Clinical trials designed to assess the safety and efficacy of MCED tests to assess their potential for reducing cancer mortality are needed and many are underway. In the conduct of MCED test trials, it is crucial that participant recruitment efforts successfully engage participants from diverse populations experiencing cancer disparities. Strategic partnerships involving health systems, clinical practices, and communities can increase the reach of MCED trial recruitment efforts among populations experiencing disparities. This goal can be achieved by developing health system-based learning communities that build understanding of and trust in biomedical research; and by applying innovative methods for identifying eligible trial patients, educating potential participants about research trials, and engaging eligible individuals in shared decision making (SDM) about trial participation. This article describes how a developing consortium of health systems has used this approach to encourage the uptake of cancer screening in a wide range of populations and how such a strategy can facilitate the enrollment of persons from diverse patient and community populations in MCED trials.

Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand

BackgroundCervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death among women in Thailand. General practitioners, within their primary healthcare role, play a vital role in the cervical cancer screening program, as they are the healthcare professionals most easily accessible to the general population. This study aims to determine the level of knowledge of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer screening among last-year medical students.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among sixth-year medical students using an electronic self-administered questionnaire. The two-part questionnaire comprised demographic data and 12 true/false questions that assessed knowledge regarding HPV infection, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer screening recommendations. Pilot testing revealed a high Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest reliability coefficient.ResultsA 67% response rate was achieved. Among the 198 respondents, only one (0.5%) student correctly answered over 80% of the questions while most respondents (172, 71.7%) correctly answered less than 60% of the questions. Less than half of the respondents correctly identified crucial aspects such as the primary cause of cervical cancer, recommended vaccination age, cytology sensitivity compared to HPV testing, and the recommended screening frequency for average-risk women.ConclusionsThis study highlights a significant lack of comprehension among Thai medical students concerning HPV infection, vaccination, and cervical cancer screening guidelines. Encouraging educational enhancement, effective communication, and heightened awareness of these crucial topics within the medical school curriculum are imperative.