Risk-based Screening Strategies Research Articles

Hepatitis delta testing trends in a US national cohort: An analysis of patient and provider-level predictive factors.

The low prevalence of HDV infection in the United States could be attributed to insufficient testing rate, which can result in an underestimation of the true burden of HDV. The primary objective of this study is to quantify the prevalence of and factors associated with HDV antibody (anti-HDV) or RNA testing, among participants with positive HBsAg in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants who tested positive for HBsAg between January 2000 and December 2022 within the VHA. We identified those who were tested for HDV, and patient and provider-level factors associated with HDV testing. Of 41,658 participants with positive HBsAg who had follow-up, 4438 (10.7%) were tested at least once for HDV, of which 135 (3.0%) were positive. Participants in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17-1.44, p<0.001), and receiving hepatology care (aOR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.24-1.54, p<0.001) were more likely, while those in the Midwest (aOR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.79, p<0.001), under the care of a primary care provider (aOR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.50-0.74, p<0.001), Blacks (aOR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94, p=0.001), participants who were HCV antibody-positive (aOR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.99, p=0.03), and participants who were HIV-positive (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.90, p<0.001) were less likely to be tested for HDV. HDV screening rates in the VHA remain low overall. Participants who are Black, living in the Midwest, patients who are HIV-positive, and patients who are HCV-positive are less likely to be tested for HDV. These results suggest that risk-based screening strategies are ineffective in the VHA and highlight the need for refining testing strategies to increase HDV screening rates.

Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study

BackgroundAnnual screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers. However, it is questionable whether all individuals require annual screening given the potential harms of LDCT screening. This study examines the benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening in heavy smokers and determines the optimal risk threshold for screening and risk-stratified screening intervals.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis in China, using a cohort-based Markov model which simulated a lung cancer screening cohort of 19,146 heavy smokers aged 50 ~ 74 years old, who had a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and were either current smokers or had quit for < 15 years. A total of 34 risk-based screening strategies, varying by different risk groups for screening eligibility and screening intervals (1-year, 2-year, 3-year, one-off, non-screening), were evaluated and were compared with annual screening for all heavy smokers (the status quo strategy). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective with a 30-year time horizon. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was adopted as three times the gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 (CNY 242,928) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.ResultsCompared with the status quo strategy, nine risk-based screening strategies were found to be cost-effective, with two of them even resulting in cost-saving. The most cost-effective strategy was the risk-based approach of annual screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of ≥ 1.70%, biennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of 1.03 ~ 1.69%, and triennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of < 1.03%. This strategy had the highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of CNY 1032. All risk-based screening strategies were more efficient than the status quo strategy, requiring 129 ~ 656 fewer screenings per lung cancer death avoided, and 0.5 ~ 28 fewer screenings per life-year gained. The cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening was further improved when individual adherence to screening improved and individuals quit smoking after being screened.ConclusionsRisk-based screening strategies are more efficient in reducing lung cancer deaths and gaining life years compared to the status quo strategy. Risk-stratified screening intervals can potentially balance long-term benefit–harm trade-offs and improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screenings.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-based low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Switzerland.

Throughout Europe, computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer is in a phase of clinical implementation or reimbursement evaluation. To efficiently select individuals for screening, the use of lung cancer risk models has been suggested, but their incremental (cost-)effectiveness relative to eligibility based on pack-year criteria has not been thoroughly evaluated for a European setting. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pack-year and risk-based screening (PLCOm2012 model-based) strategies for Switzerland, which aided in informing the recommendations of the Swiss Cancer Screening Committee (CSC). We use the MISCAN (MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis)-Lung model to estimate benefits and harms of screening among individuals born 1940 to 1979 in Switzerland. We evaluate 1512 strategies, differing in the age ranges employed for screening, the screening interval and the strictness of the smoking requirements. We estimate risk-based strategies to be more cost-effective than pack-year-based screening strategies. The most efficient strategy compliant with CSC recommendations is biennial screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 with a 1.6% PLCOm2012 risk. Relative to no screening this strategy is estimated to reduce lung cancer mortality by 11.0%, with estimated costs per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) gained of €19 341, and a €1.990 billion 15-year budget impact. Biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with 20 pack-years shows a lower mortality reduction (10.5%) and higher cost per QALY gained (€20 869). Despite model uncertainties, our estimates suggest there may be cost-effective screening policies for Switzerland. Risk-based biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with ≥1.6% PLCOm2012 risk conforms to CSC recommendations and is estimated to be more efficient than pack-year-based alternatives.

A province-by-province cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis of one-time birth cohort screening of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Canada

Managing chronic hepatitis C is challenging, as the majority of those infected are asymptomatic. Therefore, to ensure treatments are administered before the onset of severe complications, screening is important. In Canada, uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of screening has led to conflicting recommendations. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact of one-time HCV screening. A state-transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact between a risk-based screening strategy (current-practice) and a one-time screening strategy on three different birth-cohorts. Cost and prevalence data were obtained from administrative data. Progression and utility data were based on recent systematic reviews. We used a provincial payer-perspective, life-time time-horizon and a 1.5% discount rate for the cost-effectiveness analysis, and used a 10-year time-horizon and no discounting for the budget-impact analysis. One-time screening strategy would cost more and provide more health benefits than the risk-based screening for all birth cohorts. For those born after 1964, the incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of screening versus current-practice varied from $27,422/QALY to $42,191/QALY across different provinces. One-time screening of the cohort would cost an additional $2 million to $236 million across different provinces. For those born 1945–1964, the ICER of screening versus current-practice varied from $35,217/QALY to $48,197/QALY across different provinces. For the cohort born before 1945, the ICER of screening versus current-practice was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY across all provinces. Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that a one-time HCV screening program for those born after 1945 is cost-effective. Considering the budget impact relative to other funded recommended health services and technologies, HCV screening could be considered affordable.

Screening for thyroid disease in pregnancy: a study of Danish clinical practice

BackgroundThyroid disease in pregnant women is a matter of clinical awareness, and current clinical guidelines recommend a risk-based screening strategy. This study aimed to evaluate current clinical practice regarding screening for thyroid disease in pregnancy in Denmark.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed in the North Denmark Region with consecutive inclusion of 150 pregnant women from Aalborg University Hospital each year in 2020 and 2021. Medical records were reviewed according to the recommended risk-based screening criteria for thyroid disease in pregnancy. Any measurement of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) was assessed 3 months prior to and in pregnancy.ResultsAltogether 292 pregnant women who received no current treatment for thyroid disease were included. A total of 81 (27.7%) had a measurement of TSH before or during the pregnancy, and 30 women (10.3%) in the early pregnancy specifically. One or more of the screening criteria for thyroid disease recommended in the Danish clinical practice guideline were fulfilled in 37 of the 81 women (45.7%) with thyroid function tested and among 41 of the 211 (19.4%) women who did not have thyroid function tested before or during pregnancy.ConclusionIn a Danish regional investigation, 1 in 4 women had their thyroid function tested in relation to a pregnancy. However, recommended risk-based screening criteria for thyroid disease in pregnancy were heterogeneously distributed. Results encourage considerations on the current practice for the screening of thyroid function in Danish pregnant women and inform the general debate.

Abstract PD14-01: PD14-01 A model to assess the utility of risk-based screening algorithms

Abstract PD14-01: PD14-01 A model to assess the utility of risk-based screening algorithms

Evolution of breast cancer incidence in young women in a French registry from 1990 to 2018: Towards a change in screening strategy?

BackgroundThe worldwide incidence of invasive breast cancer in women is increasing according to several studies. This increase in incidence seems to be higher in young women (< 40 years). However, the reasons for this trend are poorly understood. This article aims to provide the most recent estimates of this trend and assess whether there is indeed an increase in the incidence of breast cancer among young women to strengthen prevention campaigns.MethodsWe collected data from the Isere cancer registry in France of all invasive breast cancers from January 1990 to December 2018. The standardized incidence rate was calculated for four age groups (< 40 years, 40–49 years, 50–74 years, ≥ 75 years) for this period. The 10-year relative survival was evaluated for each age group age for two periods (1990–1999 and 2000–2008). From 2011 to 2013, we analyzed the incidence and 5-year relative survival by tumor subtype (triple negative, luminal, HER2 amplified) for each age group.ResultsA total of 23,703 cases were selected, including 1343 young women (< 40 years). The incidence of invasive breast cancer increased annually by 0,8% (95% CI 0,7; 1) in all age groups combined from 1990 to 2018. The highest incidence increase is found among young women, by 2,1% annually (95% CI 1,3; 2,8). Regarding tumor subtypes from 2011 to 2018, the incidence of triple negatives increases higher in young women (+ 1,4% by year, 95% CI − 8,2; 11) and those over 75 years (+ 4% by year, 95% CI − 5,1; 13,2), but the results are not statistically significant. 10-year relative survival in young women increased from 74,6% (95% CI 69,6; 78,9) to 78,3%(95% CI 73,7; 82,1) between 1990–1999 and 2000–2008, respectively. Five-year relative survival is better in young women among triple negative and HER2 amplified.ConclusionOur study confirms the current trend of increasing the incidence of breast cancer in young women, associated with improved survival very likely attributable to earlier diagnosis due to increased awareness, and improvements in treatment. A better individualized risk-based screening strategy is needed for these patients. Additional studies will be needed to more accurately assess the risk of developing breast cancer and improve diagnostic performance.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Cervical Cancer Screening in Gynecological Practices in Germany.

Simple SummaryThe outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major challenge for healthcare systems and impedes cancer screening programs worldwide. However, no research has been performed that analyzes the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the newly implemented German Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program. Here, we showed a severe clinically relevant decrease of patients receiving CCS in Germany between the pre-pandemic time period of 2018–2019 and the pandemic years of 2020–2021. Given that this sudden drop in number of CCS per practice is unlikely, our data suggest a dramatic number of underdiagnosed cervical precancer lesions that may lead to increased cervical cancer burden in the future.Purpose: the aim of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) in gynecological practices in Germany. Methods: The basis of the analysis was the Uniform Evaluation Standard (EBM) of the Statutory Health Insurance Scheme. This cross-sectional study included all women aged ≥20 years with at least one CCS (clinical and cytological examination) in 223 gynecological practices in Germany during the period 2018–2021. The number of patients with CCS per practice was shown for each year. The average number of patients per year was compared between the pre-pandemic time period (2018, 2019) and the pandemic time period (2020, 2021) using Wilcoxon tests. Analyses were conducted separately for clinical investigations and cytological investigations and were also stratified by age group (20–34, 35–50, >50 years). Results: CCS in gynecological practices significantly decreased in Germany between the pre-pandemic time period of 2018–2019 and the pandemic years of 2020–2021. This decrease was observed in all age groups but was stronger in women aged 20–34 (−25.6%) and weaker in women aged >50 (−15.2%). Conclusions: We found a statistically and clinically relevant decrease of patients receiving CCS in gynecological practices in Germany. This finding is even more exceptional because the new screening algorithm with direct invitations for each patient started in 2020 and was supposed to lead to a higher number of patients in its first years. However, the observed decline in the detection of cervical precancer lesions may lead to increased cervical cancer burden. Risk-based screening strategies and further measures are necessary to adapt to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and return to pre-pandemic CCS numbers.

Age-Stratified Prevalence and Predictors of Neoplasia Among U.S. Adults Undergoing Screening Colonoscopy in a National Endoscopy Registry

Background & AimsSeveral U.S. organizations now recommend starting average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years, but the prevalence of colonic neoplasia in individuals younger than 50 years has not been well characterized. We used a national endoscopic registry to calculate age-stratified prevalence and predictors of colorectal neoplasia. MethodsOutpatient screening colonoscopies performed during 2010–2020 in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry were analyzed. We measured the prevalence of advanced neoplasia and adenomas by age, sex, and race/ethnicity, as well as the prevalence ratio of neoplasia compared with the reference group of 50- to 54-year-olds. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of neoplasia. ResultsWe identified 3,928,727 screening colonoscopies, of which 129,736 (3.3%) were performed on average-risk individuals younger than 50 years. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 6.2% for 50- to 54-year-olds and 5.0% (prevalence ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.83) for average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds. Men had higher prevalence of neoplasia than women for all age groups. White individuals had higher prevalence of advanced neoplasia than persons of other racial/ethnic groups in most age groups, which was partially driven by serrated lesions. On multivariable regression, White individuals had higher odds of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals in both younger and older age groups. ConclusionsIn a large U.S. endoscopy registry, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in 45- to 49-year-olds was substantial and supports beginning screening at age 45 years. White individuals had higher risk of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals across the age spectrum. These findings may inform adenoma detection benchmarks and risk-based screening strategies.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BackgroundIn 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population.MethodsIn the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases.ResultsAmong 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases.ConclusionsIn the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Based Pancreatic Cancer Screening in Patients With New-Onset Diabetes.

There are no established methods for pancreatic cancer (PAC) screening, but the NCI and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) are investigating risk-based screening strategies in patients with new-onset diabetes (NOD), a group with elevated PAC risk. Preliminary estimates of the cost-effectiveness of these strategies can provide insights about potential value and inform supplemental data collection. Using data from the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (END-PAC) risk model validation study, we assessed the potential value of CT screening for PAC in those determined to be at elevated risk, as is being done in a planned PanCAN Early Detection Initiative trial. We created an integrated decision tree and Markov state-transition model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAC screening in patients aged ≥50 years with NOD using CT imaging versus no screening. PAC prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity were derived from the END-PAC validation study. PAC stage distribution in the no-screening strategy and PAC survival were derived from the SEER program. Background mortality for patients with diabetes, screening and cancer care expenditure, and health state utilities were derived from the literature. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs were tracked over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% per year. Results are presented in 2020 US dollars, and we took a limited US healthcare perspective. In the base case, screening resulted in 0.0055 more LYs, 0.0045 more QALYs, and $293 in additional expenditures for a cost per QALY gained of $65,076. In probabilistic analyses, screening resulted in a cost per QALY gained of <$50,000 and <$100,000 in 34% and 99% of simulations, respectively. In the threshold analysis, >25% of screen-detected PAC cases needed to be resectable for the cost per QALY gained with screening to be <$100,000. We found that risk-based PAC screening in patients with NOD is likely to be cost-effective in the United States if even a modest fraction (>25%) of screen-detected patients with PAC are resectable. Future studies should reassess the value of this intervention once clinical trial data become available.

A risk-based framework for assessing real-time lung cancer screening eligibility that incorporates life expectancy and past screening findings.

Current lung cancer risk-based screening approaches use a single risk-threshold, disregard life-expectancy, and ignore past screening findings. We address these limitations with a comprehensive analytical framework, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool that aims to optimize lung cancer screening for US ever-smokers under dynamic risk assessment by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings over time. ENGAGE employs a partially observable Markov decision process framework that integrates published risk prediction and disease progression models, to dynamically assess the trade-off between the expected health benefits and harms associated with screening. ENGAGE evaluates lung cancer risk annually and provides real-time screening eligibility that maximizes the expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of ever-smokers. We compare ENGAGE against the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guideline and single-threshold risk-based screening paradigms. Compared with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, ENGAGE expands screening coverage among ever-smokers (ENGAGE: 78%, USPSTF: 61%), while reducing the number of screening examinations per person (ENGAGE:10.43, USPSTF:12.07, P<.001), yields higher effectiveness in terms of increased lung cancer-specific mortality reduction (ENGAGE: 19%, USPSTF: 15%, P<.001) and improves screening efficiency (ENGAGE: 696, USPSTF: 819 screens per death avoided, P<.001). When compared against a single-threshold risk-based screening strategy, ENGAGE increases QALY requiring 30% fewer screens per death avoided (ENGAGE: 696, single-threshold: 889, P<.001), and reduces false positives by 40%. ENGAGE provides a comprehensive framework for dynamic risk-based assessment of lung cancer screening eligibility by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings that can serve to guide future policies on the effectiveness and efficiency of screening. A novel decision-analytical screening framework was developed for lung cancer, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool to provide personalized screening schedules for ever-smokers. ENGAGE captures the dynamic nature of lung cancer risk and incorporates life expectancy into the screening decision-making process. ENGAGE integrates past screening findings and changes in smoking behavior of individuals and provides informed screening decisions that outperform existing screening guidelines and single-threshold risk-based screening approaches. A personalized lung cancer screening program facilitated by a tool such as ENGAGE could enhance the efficiency of lung cancer screening.

Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020.

Cervical cancer can be prevented through routine screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Several guidelines have been published in the last 4 years from various medical societies and organizations. These guidelines aim to personalize screening and management, reducing unnecessary testing in low-risk patients and managing high-risk patients with more intensive follow-up. However, the resulting complexity can lead to confusion among providers. The CDC, NCI, and obstetrician-gynecologists involved in guideline development summarized current screening and management guidelines. For screening, guidelines for average-risk and high-risk populations are summarized and presented. For management, differences between the 2012 and 2019 consensus guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors are summarized. Current screening guidelines for average-risk individuals have minor differences, but are evolving toward an HPV-based strategy. For management, HPV testing is preferred to cytology because it is a more sensitive test for cancer precursor detection and also allows for precise risk stratification. Current risk-based screening and management strategies can improve care by reducing unnecessary tests and procedures in low-risk patients and focusing resources on high-risk patients. Knowledge of screening and management guidelines is important to improve adherence and avoid both over- and under-use of screening and colposcopy.

Dutch women\u2019s intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers

BackgroundRisk-based breast cancer screening may improve the benefit-harm ratio of screening by tailoring policy to a woman’s personal breast cancer risk. This study aims to explore Dutch women’s preferences regarding the organisation and implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to uptake.MethodsA total of 5110 participants in the Dutch Personalised RISk-based MAmmography screening (PRISMA) study were invited, of whom 942 completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics; for the second part, women were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical breast cancer risk scenarios (i.e. low, average, moderate, or high) with subsequent tailored screening and prevention advice. Descriptive statistics are used to present women’s organisational preferences. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using seven proxy measures for acceptability of risk-based screening (e.g., interest in risk) and risk-based prevention (e.g., willingness to change diet).ResultsInterest in breast cancer risk was high (80.3%). Higher assigned risk scenario was most consistently associated with acceptance of tailored screening and prevention recommendations. Increased acceptance of lifestyle changes was additionally associated with higher education. Having a first degree family history of breast cancer decreased women’s motivation to participate in preventative lifestyle measures. Acceptability of medication was associated with a woman’s general beliefs about the (over)use and benefit-harm balance of medication.ConclusionsDutch women generally appear in favour of receiving their breast cancer risk estimate with subsequent tailored screening and prevention recommendations. However, women’s level of acceptance depends on their assigned risk category. Offering tailored screening and prevention recommendations to low-risk women will be most challenging. Educating women on the benefits and harms of all risk-based screening and prevention strategies is key to acceptability and informed decision-making.

The potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-based pancreatic cancer screening strategy in new-onset diabetes.

7017 Background: There are no established methods for pancreatic cancer (PC) screening, but the National Cancer Institute and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) are investigating risk-based screening strategies in new-onset diabetes (NOD)—a group with elevated PC risk. Preliminary estimates of the cost-effectiveness of these strategies can provide insights about potential value and inform supplemental data collection. Using data from the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) risk model validation study, we assessed the potential value of CT screening for PC in those determined to be at elevated PC risk, as is being done in a planned PanCAN Early Detection Initiative (EDI) trial. Methods: We created an integrated decision tree and Markov state-transition model to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening those age ≥50 and with NOD for PC using CT imaging vs. no screening. PC prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity were derived from the ENDPAC validation study. PC stage distribution in the no screening strategy and PC survival were derived from SEER. Background mortality for diabetics, screening and cancer care expenditure, and health state utilities were derived from the literature. The base case assumed 40% of screen-detected PC cases were resectable, and a threshold analysis explored the fraction required for screening to be &lt;$100,000 per QALY gained. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were tracked over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% per year. Results are presented in 2019 USD, and we took a U.S. payer perspective. Results: In the base case, screening resulted in 0.0055 more LYs, 0.0045 more QALYs, and $305 in additional expenditure for a cost per QALY gained of $68,059 (Table). Among PC cases, screening resulted in 0.67 more LYs, 0.55 more QALYs, and $22,691 in additional expenditure. In probabilistic analyses, screening resulted in a cost per QALY gained of &lt;$50,000 and &lt;$100,000 in 34% and 99% of simulations, respectively. In the threshold analysis, &gt;25% of screen-detected cases needed to be resectable for the cost per QALY gained with screening to be &lt;$100,000. Conclusions: We found that risk-based pancreatic cancer screening in NOD is likely to be cost-effective in the U.S. if even a modest fraction (&gt;25%) of screen-detected cases are resectable. Future studies should reassess the value of this intervention once PanCAN EDI data become available. [Table: see text]

Assessing risk-based LDCT screening strategies versus the current USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations at an institutional setting.

e13572 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in men and women with 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018 [1]. Given its high prevalence and mortality, trials were developed to improve screening strategies. National-Lung-Screening-Trial showed a 20% relative-risk-reduction in mortality in people screened with annual low-dose-CT-scan [2] leading to the implementation of current USPSTF guidelines. We used USPSTF screening criteria to estimate the proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that would have been screening-eligible at our institution.Upon chart review 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines. We decided to investigate the need to modify the current screening guidelines of our institution based on individual risk assessment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of the new diagnoses at Louisiana-State-University-Shreveport from 2011-2015. Patients were categorized into high-risk (groups 1 and 2), moderate risk, and low risk according to 2018 NCCN Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Version 1.2020 [3]. To differentiate between high-risk group 2 and moderate risk, the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator was employed, considering 1.3% threshold of lung cancer risk over 6-year time frame [4]. According to NCCN, high-risk group 1 and 2 are eligible for annual low-dose-CT-scan. Results: 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines criteria, among the 33% ineligible for screening, only 12.5% fell under the high-risk category based on the Tammemagi calculator. Conclusions: Despite using individual risk assessment based on Tammemagi calculator, 87.5% of lung cancer patients ineligible to current USPSTF guidelines are still missing the eligibility for screening at our institution. We believe more efficient risk prediction models have to be developed to improve selection of individuals for lung cancer screening.

Risk-based maternal group B Streptococcus screening strategy is compatible with the implementation of neonatal early-onset sepsis calculator.

Background The early-onset sepsis (EOS) calculator was developed and validated in a setting with routine-based group B Streptococcus (GBS) screening.Purpose The study aimed to evaluate the extent of influence exerted by risk-based GBS screening on management recommendations by the EOS calculator.Methods All newborns with a gestational age greater than 35 weeks were screened for EOS risk factors in a Dutch regional teaching hospital using a risk-based GBS screening strategy. We calculated the EOS risk at birth and stratified the infants into the following 3 risk levels with corresponding management recommendations: low, <0.65; intermediate, 0.65–1.54; and high, >1.54 per 1000 live newborns. Thereafter, we recalculated the EOS risk and recommendation for the newborn infants without available maternal GBS screening results at birth.Results In one year, 1,877 eligible births occurred; of them, 206 infants were included. Maternal GBS status was available for 28 of 206 infants (14%) at birth, while a definitive GBS status was later available for 162 of 206 infants (79%). Median EOS risk was slightly lower after definitive GBS status was determined (0.41 vs. 0.46 per 1,000 live births, P=0.004). In 199 of 206 newborn infants (97%), the EOS calculator recommendation remained unchanged after the GBS results unavailable at birth were updated to definitive GBS status. Use of GBS status at birth versus definitive GBS status did not result in the withholding of antibiotic treatment of the newborn infants included in this study.Conclusion Risk-based GBS screening is compatible with EOS calculator recommendations. Larger studies are needed to develop the best strategy for combining GBS screening and EOS calculator recommendations.

A Comparison of Predictive Performances between Old versus New Criteria in a Risk-Based Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

BackgroundThe definition of the high-risk group for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was changed from the criteria composed of five historic/demographic factors (old criteria) to the criteria consisting of 11 factors (new criteria) in 2017. To compare the predictive performances between these two sets of criteria.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a large prospective cohort study of non-diabetic Korean women with singleton pregnancies designed to examine the risk of GDM in women with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Maternal fasting blood was taken at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation and measured for glucose and lipid parameters. GDM was diagnosed by the two-step approach.ResultsAmong 820 women, 42 (5.1%) were diagnosed with GDM. Using the old criteria, 29.8% (n=244) of women would have been identified as high risk versus 16.0% (n=131) using the new criteria. Of the 42 women who developed GDM, 45.2% (n=19) would have been mislabeled as not high risk by the old criteria versus 50.0% (n=21) using the new criteria (1-sensitivity, 45.2% vs. 50.0%, P>0.05). Among the 778 patients who did not develop GDM, 28.4% (n=221) would have been identified as high risk using the old criteria versus 14.1% (n=110) using the new criteria (1-specificity, 28.4% vs. 14.1%, P<0.001).ConclusionCompared with the old criteria, use of the new criteria would have decreased the number of patients identified as high risk and thus requiring early GDM screening by half (from 244 [29.8%] to 131 [16.0%]).

Infection control and risk factors for acquisition of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae. A 5\u2009year (2011\u20132016) case-control study

BackgroundCarbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) are a major threat for severely ill patients. However, only limited data on the epidemiology and on evidence-based infection prevention and control measures are available. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of patients with CPE, characterizing the CPE isolates by their resistance mechanisms and genetic similarity, to explore risk factors for their acquisition, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the current CPE infection control measures.MethodsA retrospective case-control study was performed using data from 2011 to 2016 in a 1800-bed academic hospital in Central Europe, where risk-based screening at patients´ admission is performed. Carbapenem resistance mechanisms of all carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae from patients admitted during this period were investigated. Clinical data of the CPE-positive patients were analysed and compared to a matched control group (case-control ratio of 1:3). We performed univariate and multivariate statistical analysis to identify risk factors for CPE acquisition.ResultsOf 621,623 admitted patients in the study period, 75 patients with carriage of carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae were included (0.12/1000 admittances). Carbapenemase-encoding genes were detected in 77.3% (58/75) of patients with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. The enzyme blaOXA-48 was found in 34.5% (20/58), blaKPC in 29.3% (17/58), blaNDM enzymes in 20.7% (12/58) and blaVIM in 8.6% (5/58) of the isolates. The overall mortality among CPE patients was 25.9% (15/58) and attributable mortality of CPE was 53.3% (8/15). Multivariate analysis revealed four risk factors to be independent predictors of CPE carriage: the length of hospital admission > 20 days (AOR: 4.9, 95% CI: 1.4–15.5; P < 0.001), hospital admission within the previous year (AOR: 22.3, 95% CI: 3.9–88.4; P < 0.001), exposure to a healthcare facility in a country with high or unknown carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae prevalence 3 months before admission (AOR: 11.8, 95% CI: 2.2–63.2; P < 0.01) and the use of antibiotics longer than 10 days (AOR: 5.2, 95% CI: 1.4–35.9; P < 0.05). The current risk-based screening strategy at hospital admission could not identify 37 (63.8%) of the 58 CPE-positive patients. Epidemiological investigation and genotyping revealed that no outbreaks due to CPE occurred during this period.ConclusionOverall, the CPE carriage rate in patients was very low, the attributable mortality, however, is alarming (53%). BlaOXA-48 and blaKPC were the main cause of carbapenem resistance in enterobacteriaceae. Although the strict application of standard infection control measures was effective for prevention of outbreaks in this setting, an enlarged risk based targeted screening strategy has to be implemented.

A machine-learning approach for stratifying breast cancer risk in Chinese women on the basis of epidemiological factors and mammographic density

BackgroundAn accurate model to stratify breast cancer risk is required to move from a one-size-fits-all screening paradigm to more personalised risk-based screening strategies. Most risk models have limited accuracy and have been calibrated for white women. Considering the rapid increase in breast cancer incidence in China, in this study we aimed to develop a breast cancer model for Chinese women. MethodsWe recruited women from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Centre. Information about their height, weight, body-mass index, age at menarche, age at first delivery, age at menopause, menopause status, parity history, number of children, breastfeeding history, personal history of breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, and degree of consanguinity was obtained. Mammograms were acquired from all recruited women. We used AutoDensity software to segment the mammographic dense area. To ensure that the breast density had not been affected by presence of the lesion, we measured the mammographic breast density of patients with cancer from the cancer-free breast contralateral to the biopsy-proven cancer. The breast area, dense area, percentage density, and demographic variables were input into an ensemble of 50 decision trees, the results of which we combined using a hybrid sampling and boosting algorithm (RUSBoost). The variables were also fed into the logistic and stepwise logistic regression models, which are two commonly used linear models. Leave-one-out cross-validation was used to assess the performance of the models and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated for each model. FindingsIn total, 1079 women (85 women with biopsy-proven breast cancer and 994 women without breast cancer) were recruited. The classifier had an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0·86 (95% CI 0·82–0·89) for classifying the cases as normal or high-risk. It outperformed the accuracy of traditionally employed logistic and stepwise logistic regression models, which resulted in AUC values of 0·739 (0·67–0·81) and 0·757 (0·69–0·81), respectively. InterpretationWhen compared with linear models, use of a machine-learning approach, which models data non-linearity, could lead to improvement in the accuracy of a breast cancer risk stratification model. Such a model can be used to recommend intensified surveillance for women at a high risk of future breast cancer. FundingNone.