Search

Background. Concerns have been raised about both over- and underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older patients and the need to align screening behavior with likelihood of net benefit. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test a novel use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) to promote appropriate CRC screening in older adults. Methods. A total of 424 patients ages 70 to 84 y who were not up to date with CRC screening participated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of a PtDA targeted to older adults making decisions about whether to undergo CRC screening from March 2012 to February 2015. Intervention. Patients were randomized to a targeted PtDA or an attention control. The PtDA was designed to facilitate individualized decision making—helping patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of CRC screening given advanced age, health state, preferences, and values. Outcomes. Two composite outcomes, appropriate CRC screening behavior 6 mo after the index visit and appropriate screening intent immediately after the visit, were defined as completed screening or intent for patients in good health, discussion about screening with their provider for patients in intermediate health, and no screening or intent for patients in poor health. Health state was determined by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results. Four hundred twelve (97%) and 421 (99%) patients were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Appropriate screening behavior at 6 mo was higher in the intervention group (55% v. 45%, P = 0.023) as was appropriate screening intent following the provider visit (61% v. 47%, P = 0.003). Limitations. The study took place in a single geographic region. The appropriate CRC screening classification system used in this study has not been formally validated. Conclusions. A PtDA for older adults promoted appropriate CRC screening behavior and intent. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT01575990. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01575990?term=epic-d&rank=1

Christine E Kistler,1 Maihan Vu,2 Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet,3 Ziya Gizlice,4 Russell P Harris,5 Noel T Brewer,6 Carmen L Lewis,7 Rowena J Dolor,8 Colleen Barclay,5 Stacey L Sheridan9 1Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, 2Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 3Napa County Office of Education, Napa, CA, 4Biostatistical Support Unit, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, 5Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, 6Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 7Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 8Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 9Reaching for High Value Care Team, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Background: Primary-care providers may contribute to the use of low-value cancer screening. Objective: We sought to examine circumstances under which primary-care providers would discuss and recommend two types of cancer screening services across a spectrum of net benefit and other factors known to influence screening. Patients and methods: This was a cross sectional survey of 126 primary-care providers in 24 primary-care clinics in the US. Participants completed surveys with two hypothetical screening scenarios for prostate or colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients in the scenarios varied by age and screening-request status. For each scenario, providers indicated whether they would discuss and recommend screening. Providers also reported on their screening attitudes and the influence of other factors known to affect screening (short patient visits, worry about lawsuits, clinical reminders/performance measures, and screening guidelines). We examined associations between providers’ attitudes and their screening recommendations for hypothetical 90-year-olds (the lowest-value screening). Results: Providers reported they would discuss cancer screening more often than they would recommend it (P

In an accompanying article, Hofmann (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(10):1812–1817) seeks to clarify the concept of overdiagnosis by screening. He makes a helpful suggestion to reconnect diagnosis with patient suffering, pointing out the underlying issue in overdiagnosis of prognostic uncertainty. He then divides prognostic uncertainty into developmental and progression uncertainty, using a categorical model of disease progression through indicators to manifest disease. This model could be improved by considering the heterogeneity of patient-condition combinations. This leads to an understanding of the probabilistic nature of the connection between any indicator in a specific individual and patient suffering. The model also needs to consider the time span over which the patient-condition combination leads to patient suffering. I propose a simpler approach that goes further to focus not only on overdiagnosis but also on the broader problem of diagnosis without benefit and diagnosis without net benefit. This makes measurement easier and focuses attention where it belongs: on the harm caused by overly aggressive screening programs.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body of experts who make evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services using a transparent and objective process. Developing recommendations on a clinical preventive service requires evidence of its effect on health outcomes. Health outcomes are symptoms, functional levels, and conditions that affect a patient's quantity or quality of life and are measured by assessments of physical or psychologic well-being. Intermediate outcomes are pathologic, physiologic, psychologic, social, or behavioral measures related to a preventive service. Given the frequent lack of evidence on health outcomes, the USPSTF uses evidence on intermediate outcomes when appropriate. The ultimate goal is to determine precisely a consistent relationship between the direction and magnitude of change in an intermediate outcome with a predictable resultant direction and magnitude of change in the health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed its historical use of intermediate outcomes, reviewed methods of other evidence-based guideline-making bodies, consulted with other experts, and reviewed scientific literature. Most important were the established criteria for causation, tenets of evidence-based medicine, and consistency with its current standards. Studies that follow participants over time following early treatment, stratify patients according to treatment response, and adjust for important confounders can provide useful information about the association between intermediate and health outcomes. However, such studies remain susceptible to residual confounding. The USPSTF will exercise great caution when making a recommendation that depends on the evidence linking intermediate and health outcomes because of inherent evidence limitations.

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has developed and used rigorous methods to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services to promote health and well-being for all Americans. Recommendations are based on the evidence of magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms). Expert opinion is not substituted when evidence is lacking. Evidence gaps are common. Few preventive services are supported by high-quality studies that directly and comprehensively determine the overall magnitude of benefits and harms in the same study. When assessing the body of evidence, studies may not have been conducted in primary care settings, studies may not have sufficiently included populations of interest, and long-term outcomes may not have been directly assessed. When direct evidence is not available, the USPSTF uses the methodologies of applicability to determine whether evidence can be generalized to an asymptomatic primary care population; coherence to link bodies of evidence and create an indirect evidence pathway; extrapolation to make inferences across the indirect evidence pathway, extend evidence to populations not specifically studied, consider service delivery intervals, and infer long-term outcomes; and conceptual bounding to set theoretical lower or upper limits for plausible benefits or harms. The USPSTF extends the evidence only so far as to maintain at least moderate certainty that its findings are preserved. This manuscript details with examples of how the USPSTF uses these methods to make recommendations that truly reflect the evidence.

Updated guidelines on breast cancer screening have been published by several major organisations over the past five years. Recommendations vary regarding both age range, screening interval, and even on whether breast screening should be offered at all. The variation between recommendations reflects substantial differences in estimates of the major benefit (breast cancer mortality reduction) and the major harm (overdiagnosis). Estimates vary considerably among randomised trials, as well as observational studies: from no benefit to large reductions, and from no overdiagnosis to substantial levels. The estimates vary according to the methodology of the randomised trials, and the design of the observational studies. Guideline recommendations reflect the choice of evidence informing them. While there are well-developed tools to deal with randomised trials in guideline work, these are not always used, or they may not be followed as recommended. Further, results of trials performed decades ago may no longer be applicable. For observational studies, the framework for inclusion in guidelines is not similarly well-developed and there are methodological concerns specific to screening interventions, such as small effects in absolute terms. There is a need for agreement on a hierarchy of observational study designs to quantify the major benefit and harm of cancer screening. This review provides a summary of recent guidelines on breast cancer screening and their major strengths and weaknesses, as well as a short overview of the major strengths and limitations of observational study designs. There is a need for agreement on a hierarchy of observational study designs in this field.

Objective To systematically review the observational evidence concerning the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality in actual populations of women ages 50–69 years. Methods We searched MEDLINE and multiple reference lists for relevant cohort and ecologic studies. At least 2 authors reviewed abstracts and full texts of studies meeting eligibility criteria. We rated each accepted study on standard quality criteria and developed a Summary Evidence Table. Results Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. Five studies found no to small effect of screening (0–12% relative risk reduction [RRR] in breast cancer mortality), 4 found a large effect (greater than 33% RRR), and 8 found a moderate effect (13% to 33% reduction). The authors found concerns about quality in all studies. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the effectiveness of screening is decreasing over time. Conclusions Current observational evidence shows that breast cancer screening in actual populations of women ages 50 to 69 reduces breast cancer mortality; the magnitude of the effect is probably smaller than predicted in the randomized controlled trials. Because the magnitude may change (either increase or decrease) in the future, further ecologic studies are needed. The methodology and infrastructure for these studies should be improved.

Objective. To examine the effects of a community-based intervention on decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening using multiple measures of informed decision making (IDM). Data Sources/Study Setting. Nonequivalent control group time series design collecting primary data in late 2004 and 2005. Study Design. We developed a multimodal intervention designed to convey the medical uncertainty about the benefits of PSA screening and early treatment and the limited predictive ability of both the PSA test and pathological specimens collected from prostate biopsy. We examined (1) patients' recognition that there is a decision to be made about PSA screening, (2) prostate cancer knowledge levels, (3) their preferred and actual levels of participation in decision making about screening at three points in time, and (4) screening decision. Data Collection. Baseline data collection occurred in community-based organizations. These organizations served as recruiting sources and as sites for the intervention. We collected follow-up data by mail with telephone reminders. Principal Findings. Our intervention was associated with greater recognition of the PSA test as a decision to be made, levels of knowledge, both preferred and actual levels of involvement in decision making, but did not have an impact on the screening decision. Conclusions. Community-based interventions can influence key measures of IDM about PSA screening.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children up to 5 years of age (I recommendation; see Appendix 1). Speech and language delay affects 5% to 8% of preschool children, often persists into the school years, and may be associated with lowered school performance and psychosocial problems. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence that brief, formal screening instruments that are suitable for use in primary care for assessing speech and language development can accurately identify children who would benefit from further evaluation and intervention. Fair evidence suggests that interventions can improve the results of short-term assessments of speech and language skills; however, no studies have assessed long-term outcomes. Furthermore, no studies have assessed any additional benefits that may be gained by treating children who are identified through brief, formal screening who would not be identified by addressing clinical or parental concerns. No studies have addressed the potential harms of screening or interventions for speech and language delays, such as labeling, parental anxiety, or unnecessary evaluation and intervention. Thus, the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and harms of using brief, formal screening instruments to screen for speech and language delay in the primary care setting. Address correspondence to Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, US Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Rd, Rockville, MD 20850. E-mail: uspstf{at}ahrq.gov

Objective To systematically review the evidence for screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Data sources We established eligibility criteria for relevant studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for studies meeting eligibility criteria. We supplemented this search with further studies identified from reference lists of reviews. Methods of study selection Two reviewers examined each article for eligibility. A single reviewer abstracted relevant data from the included articles; a second reviewer checked the abstractions. We graded the quality of the articles according to criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Tabulation, integration, and results No well-conducted, randomized, controlled trial provides direct evidence for the health benefits of screening for GDM. The evidence is unclear regarding the optimal screening and reference diagnostic test for GDM. The impact of hyperglycemia on adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes is probably continuous. Although insulin therapy decreases the incidence of fetal macrosomia for those women with more severe degrees of hyperglycemia, the magnitude of any effect on maternal and neonatal health outcomes is not clear. The evidence is insufficient to determine the magnitude of health benefit for any treatment among the large number of women with GDM at milder degrees of hyperglycemia. We found limited evidence regarding the potential adverse effects of screening for GDM. Conclusion Because of the lack of high-quality evidence concerning critical issues, we are unable to determine the extent to which screening has an important impact on maternal and neonatal health outcomes. A randomized, controlled trial of screening is necessary to answer the many remaining questions.

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the utility of screening pelvic examination for the detection of pathology in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. Methods: This guideline is based on a systematic review of the published literature in the English language from 1946 through January 2014 identified using MEDLINE and hand-searching. Evaluated outcomes include morbidity; mortality; and harms, including overdiagnosis, overtreatment, diagnostic procedure–related harms, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the ACP’s clinical practice guidelines grading system. Recommendation: ACP recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Studies of the effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women in their forties show that the probabil- ity of benefit is relatively small and, for some women, may be outweighed by the probability of harm. Thus, screening for breast cancer in this age group is a "close call" on which reasonable women may disagree. Many women in their forties, however, are being screened. We suggest that few truly understand the issues involved in this decision. In this paper, we examine the potential benefits and harms of breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49 and consider a strategy for helping women make informed decisions about screening: shared decision making. Shared decision making involves framing breast cancer screening as a decision that could reasonably be decided either for or against screening; giving the patient evidence-based information about the decision in an understandable format; and assisting the pa- tient to use her values to close on a decision. We believe that this approach will eventually become the standard of care not only for breast cancer screening for women in their forties, but for older women (and other issues), as well.

Medical investigators increasingly attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments given in routine practice settings as well as in research settings. We identified and describe several key issues in practice-based research: identifying the appropriate population; drawing the sample; recruitment of physicians and patients; maintenance of the physician-researcher relationship; and data management. Three on-going practice-based projects are described from the perspective of these key issues. Two are practice-based randomized trials, one is a larger cohort study. Common characteristics are identified which contributed to the success of the three projects: direct recruitment of clinicians by clinicians; close liaison with local medical organizations; on-going personal contact with the practices; and recognition of the value of the practicing physician's time.

A randomized, controlled trial was conducted to assess the effects of a financial and office systems intervention to increase preventive care in physicians' offices for patients aged 65 years or older. A total of 1,914 patients from 10 primary-care medical practices in central North Carolina were randomized within practices to an intervention and a usual-care control group. The intervention consisted of full Medicare reimbursement to physicians for preventive care and health promotion packages (thus making these services free for patients), regular prompting of physicians to routinely schedule preventive care visits, a new office system in which nurses carried out many preventive procedures, and a form for charting preventive care. The performance of screening tests dramatically increased in the intervention group relative to control (P < 0.001), but there was evidence of lack of follow-up of abnormal findings by physicians. At the 2-year follow-up, there were minimal differences between intervention and control groups in health-related quality-of-life indicators. Relative to the $294 per patient 3-year cost to Medicare for waivered services, the intervention was reimbursed-cost neutral or slightly cost reducing ($190 over 3 years) for Medicare. It is concluded that adding reimbursement for preventive services to Medicare--even with the office systems changes made in this study--will not by itself lead to effective implementation of preventive services in community medical practices. To enhance patient benefit from preventive services, greater attention needs to be focused on an organized approach to patient follow-up.

Background Over the past 30 years, eight major randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening--with mammography and/or clinical breast examination--have been conducted. Results from several trials have been updated during the past year, and initial results of three other trials have been reported. Purpose The National Cancer Institute held an International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer in February 1993 to conduct a thorough and objective critical review of the world's most recent clinical trial data on breast cancer screening, consider the new evidence, assess the current state of knowledge, and identify issues needing further research. Methods Investigators representing the eight randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-74 presented published and unpublished data. Evidence relating to the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in different age groups, especially women aged 40-49, was presented. Results For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials consistently demonstrated no benefit from screening in the first 5-7 years after study entry. A meta-analysis of six trials found a relative risk of 1.08 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-1.39) after 7 years' follow-up. After 10-12 years of follow-up, none of four trials have found a statistically significant benefit in mortality; a combined analysis of Swedish studies showed a statistically insignificant 13% decrease in mortality at 12 years. Only one trial (Health Insurance Plan) has data beyond 12 years of follow-up, and results show a 25% decrease in mortality at 10-18 years. Statistical significance of this result is disputed, however. In women aged 50-69, all studies show mortality reductions; three of four studies show reductions of about 30% at 10-12 years after study entry. Results from two of these trials were statistically significant. Too few women over age 70 have been included in studies for adequate analysis. Conclusions For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening show no benefit 5-7 years after entry. At 10-12 years, benefit is uncertain and, if present, marginal; thereafter, it is unknown. For women aged 50-69, screening reduces breast cancer mortality by about a third. Currently available data for women age 70 or older are inadequate to judge the effectiveness of screening. Implications Randomized trials have provided stronger scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening for breast cancer than for any other cancer. However, much still needs to be learned. Periodic gatherings of scientists in the field should speed the process.

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about the use of aspirin for the prevention of coronary heart disease. METHODS Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. The new evidence was reviewed and synthesized according to sex. RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage men age 45 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Encourage women age 55 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic strokes outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in men and women 80 years or older. (I statement) Do not encourage aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in women younger than 55 years and in men younger than 45 years. (D recommendation).

In 1997, the Schools of Medicine and Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) developed a formal MD-MPH program, called the Health Care and Prevention (HC&P) Program, located in the Public Health Leadership Program in the UNC School of Public Health. Since then, and especially since 2003, the number of UNC medical students taking a year out of their medical studies to pursue an MPH has increased dramatically. At present, more than 20% of UNC medical students enter an MPH program at some point between entering medical school and leaving for residency. The HC&P Program is designed to introduce clinicians to the population sciences and to create physicians who can think in both individual and population terms. The curriculum is a rigorous, 12-month program that includes a practicum experience and a master's paper. Several of the traditional MPH introductory courses have been redesigned to be more relevant to physicians. The program allows a maximum number of electives and places a value on flexibility so that students, together with faculty, can design the educational experience that best meets their needs. Many members of the faculty of the program themselves have both MD and MPH degrees, and some have dual appointments in the schools of medicine and public health. The authors have begun a longitudinal cohort study of program graduates and other medical graduates to understand the effect of the program on students' perceptions of their competency and their ability to exert leadership in various areas of population health.

Cerebrovascular disease is the third leading cause of death in the United States. The proportion of all strokes attributable to previously asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is low. In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against screening of asymptomatic persons for CAS by using physical examination or carotid ultrasonography.To examine the evidence of benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic patients with duplex ultrasonography and treatment with carotid endarterectomy for CAS.MEDLINE and Cochrane Library (search dates January 1994 to April 2007), recent systematic reviews, reference lists of retrieved articles, and suggestions from experts.English-language randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for CAS; RCTs of carotid endarterectomy versus medical treatment; systematic reviews of screening tests; and observational studies of harms from carotid endarterectomy were selected to answer the following questions: Is there direct evidence that screening with ultrasonography for asymptomatic CAS reduces strokes? What is the accuracy of ultrasonography to detect CAS? Does intervention with carotid endarterectomy reduce morbidity or mortality? Does screening or carotid endarterectomy result in harm?All studies were reviewed, abstracted, and rated for quality by using predefined Task Force criteria.No RCTs of screening for CAS have been done. According to systematic reviews, the sensitivity of ultrasonography is approximately 94% and the specificity is approximately 92%. Treatment of CAS in selected patients by selected surgeons could lead to an approximately 5-percentage point absolute reduction in strokes over 5 years. Thirty-day stroke and death rates from carotid endarterectomy vary from 2.7% to 4.7% in RCTs; higher rates have been reported in observational studies (up to 6.7%).Evidence is inadequate to stratify people into categories of risk for clinically important CAS. The RCTs of carotid endarterectomy versus medical treatment were conducted in selected populations with selected surgeons.The actual stroke reduction from screening asymptomatic patients and treatment with carotid endarterectomy is unknown; the benefit is limited by a low overall prevalence of treatable disease in the general asymptomatic population and harms from treatment.

In August 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) investigators published their results: screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality from lung cancer among heavy smokers.1 For some, these results were evidence enough to begin LDCT screening programs. Others2 more closely examined the total evidence about thevalueof lung cancer screening, that is, the extent towhich the benefits justify the harms and costs.3 One of the important analyses in this effort used NLST data to assess cost-effectiveness.4 This analysis found that screening heavy smokers has an incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) of $81 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with a wide 95% CI ($52 000-$186 000) and marked variation among subgroups. For example, a subgroup analysis showed that the ICER for people with a history of heavy smoking (at least 30 pack-years) who were currently smoking was $43 000 per QALY; for those who had previously stopped smoking, the ICER was $615 000 per QALY. This analysis involved 2 critical assumptions about the psychological effects of screening on heavy smokers: that the cascade of screening leads to few psychological harms and that screening has no effect on smoking behavior. The qualitative study by Zeliadt et al5 in this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine should prompt us to revisit these 2 assumptions. Althoughmany acknowledge the potential psychological effects of lung cancer screening,6 we have little useful evidence to help determine the frequency and burden of the potential psychological harms of lung cancer screening. The critical question that needs to be answered is what are the shortand longer-termpsychological effects of offering LDCT screening as a proven program to heavy smokers, compared withnot offering screening? Studies that compare screenedvs nonscreened groups within randomized clinical trials do not address this question because participation in the trial itself has psychological effects and participants usually differ from community nonparticipants in important ways. Studies that compare false-positivewithnegative screening results donot help us answer the critical question. Studies that do not use sensitive condition-specificmeasurement instruments areunlikely to detect the types of psychological effects thatmay result from screening. This issue iswhere thequalitative analysis byZeliadt et al5 is helpful. The investigators use a more sensitive qualitative approach to gain a richer understandingof the associationbetween screening and heavy smokers’ sense of their health. It Related article page 1530 Lung Cancer Screening in Smokers and theMotivation to Quit Smoking Original Investigation Research

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for hemochromatosis and the supporting scientific evidence. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and on the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). The USPSTF is redesigning its recommendation statement in response to feedback from primary care clinicians. The USPSTF plans to release, later in 2006, a new, updated recommendation statement that is easier to read and incorporates advances in USPSTF methods. The recommendation statement in this paper is an interim version that combines existing language and elements with a new format. Although the definitions of grades remain the same, other elements have been revised.

Screening fordisease is conceptually simple: identifydiseases inan early stage increasing the likelihoodof cure.However, the trade-offs involved, including false-positive test results and diagnosing clinicallyunimportant lesions,make thedecision toscreencomplex.Perhaps that iswhyphysiciansandpatients find itdifficult to resolve the trade-offs inherent in screening programs and to find the appropriateplaceofscreening inprevention.Publicdiscussionsof thesetradeoffs in screening for breast, cervical, and prostate cancers have increased awareness of harms and uncertainty about benefits and are informing the decisionmaking about less intensive screening. Now, for lung cancer, it is time to embark on a new discussion of both the trade-offs and the appropriate role of screening when alternate approaches to reducing the societal disease burden are available. Although earlier studies suggested that chest radiography screening for lung cancerwas not effective, the 2011 National Lung ScreeningTrial (NLST) foundthat screeninghigher-riskpatientswith 3annual low-dosecomputedtomography(LDCT)scansreduced lung cancermortality by 16% (risk ratio, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.75-0.95; absolute risk reduction from21per 1000to18per 1000over6.5years).1,2 The NLST participants were generally healthy adults aged 55 to 74 yearswith a 30-pack-year history of cigarette smoking.1,2 These results have spawned multiple recommendations for lung cancer screening. Relying on models from the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer InterventionandSurveillanceModelingNetwork, theUSPreventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended more intensive screening for adults with more than a 30-pack-year history of smoking: they should undergo LDCTevery year fromages 55 to80 years rather than only 3 total annual screens for people aged 55 to 74 years in NLST.3 Before screening can be recommended, the trade-offs betweenthebenefitsof screeningwithharmsandcosts shouldbeconsidered.TheharmsofLDCTscreeningareonlypartially known.4The NLSTfoundahigh rateof false-positivescreening tests:39.1%ofparticipants in the LDCT group had at least 1 false-positive scan, almost all requiring some diagnostic evaluation. Although most of theseevaluations involvedonly further imaging, thenumberofstudy participantswithout lungcancerundergoing invasiveprocedures far outnumbered the number whose lives were extended by screening.Manyof theLDCTparticipantswithpositive screening testshad indeterminatediagnostic evaluations, resulting inextendedsurveilJAMA INTERNALMEDICINE

In U.S. men, prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. Screening for prostate cancer is controversial.To examine for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force the evidence of benefits and harms of screening and earlier treatment.MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, experts, and bibliographies of reviews.Researchers developed eight questions representing a logical chain between screening and reduced mortality, along with eligibility criteria for admissible evidence for each question. Admissible evidence was obtained by searching the data sources.Two reviewers abstracted relevant information using standardized abstraction forms and graded article quality according to Task Force criteria.No conclusive direct evidence shows that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. Some screening tests can detect prostate cancer at an earlier stage than clinical detection. One study provides good evidence that radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific mortality for men with localized prostate cancer detected clinically. No study has examined the additional benefit of earlier treatment after detection by screening. Men with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years are unlikely to benefit from screening even under favorable assumptions. Each treatment is associated with several well-documented potential harms.Although potential harms of screening for prostate cancer can be established, the presence or magnitude of potential benefits cannot. Therefore, the net benefit of screening cannot be determined.

In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening for high-risk current and former smokers with a B recommendation (indicating a level of certainty that it offered moderate to substantial net benefit). Under the Affordable Care Act, the USPSTF recommendation requires commercial insurers to fully cover low-dose CT. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is now considering whether to also offer coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Although the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated the efficacy of low-dose CT, implementation of national screening may be premature. The magnitude of benefit from routine screening is uncertain; estimates are based on data from a single study and simulation models commissioned by the USPSTF. The potential harms—which could affect a large population—include false-positive results, anxiety, radiation exposure, diagnostic workups, and the resulting complications. It is unclear if routine screening would result in net benefit or net harm. The NLST may not be generalizable to a national screening program for the Medicare age group because 73% of NLST participants were younger than 65 years. Moreover, screening outside of trial conditions is less likely to be restricted to high-risk smokers and qualified imaging centers with responsible referral protocols. Until better data are available for older adults who are screened in ordinary (nontrial) community settings, CMS should postpone coverage of low-dose CT screening for Medicare beneficiaries.

The debate about breast cancer screening for women in their 40s has become so contentious that effective communication and rational discussion on this topic have been compromised. This contentiousness might be defused by understanding the reasons for it. The debate is less about facts than it is about perceptions and values. There is disagreement about how to fairly describe facts about risk and how to avoid misperceptions that may distort assessment of risk. Other sources of disagreement concern the potential harms of screening, the relative roles of physicians and patients in decision making, and how to factor cost into screening decisions. The entire decision-making process has also been highly charged by single-issue advocacy groups and a kind of gender rivalry. Several approaches might help defuse the debate and improve discussion. First, those on both sides of the debate might agree on several things: 1) that the evidence from clinical trials is widely agreed-upon and thus that a main task now is to factor in the values of individual women who are making decisions; 2) that the values of women may differ substantially and that those differences should be respected; 3) that both individuals and the public should be fully and fairly informed about the pros and cons of screening; and 4) that cost-effectiveness should at least be considered during the decision-making process. Lessons from this debate may apply to other medical problems that have small degrees of risk and whose management is strongly debated.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) bases its recommendations on an evidence-based model of clinical prevention that focuses on specific diseases, well-defined preventive interventions, and evidence of improved health outcomes. Applying this model to prevention for very old patients has been problematic for several reasons: Many geriatric disorders have multiple risk factors, interventions, and expected outcomes; older adults are not often represented in clinical trials; and important outcomes may not be measured and reported in ways that are conducive to evidence synthesis and interpretation. In 2005, the USPSTF convened a geriatrics workgroup to refine USPSTF methodology and processes to better address the preventive needs of older adults. The USPSTF has begun to apply these new approaches to the review and recommendation on interventions to prevent falls in older adults.

ContextThe clinical breast examination (CBE) is widely recommended and practiced as a tool for breast cancer screening; however, its effectiveness is dependent on its precision and accuracy.ObjectiveTo collect evidence on the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer and information on the best technique to use.Data SourcesWe searched the English-language literature using the MEDLINE database (1966-1997) and manual review of all reference lists, as well as contacting investigators of several published studies for clarifications and unpublished data.Study Selection and Data ExtractionTo study CBE effectiveness, we included all controlled trials and case-control studies in which CBE was at least part of the screening modality; for technique, we included both clinical studies and those that used silicone breast models. All 3 authors reviewed and agreed on the studies selected for inclusion in the pooled analyses.Data SynthesisRandomized clinical trials demonstrated reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women screened by both CBE and mammography. Evidence of CBE's independent contribution was less direct; CBE alone detected between 3% and 45%of breast cancers found that screening mammography missed. The precision of CBE was difficult to determine because of the lack of consistent and standardized examination techniques. Studies on CBE precision reported fair agreement (κ=0.22-0.59). Pooling trial data, we estimated CBE sensitivity at 54% and specificity at 94%. The likelihood ratio of a positive CBE result is 10.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8-19.2), while the likelihood ratio of a negative test result is 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56). Longer duration of CBE and a higher number of specific techniques used were associated with greater accuracy. The preferred technique for CBE includes proper positioning of the patient, thoroughness of search, use of a vertical-strip search pattern, proper position and movement of the fingers, and a CBE duration of at least 3 minutes per breast. The value of inspection is unproved. Professional and lay examiners improved their sensitivity on silicone breast models after being taught this technique.ConclusionsIndirect evidence supports the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer. Although the screening clinical examination by itself does not rule out disease, the high specificity of certain abnormal findings greatly increases the probability of breast cancer.

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).

DESCRIPTION Update of a 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on counseling to promote breastfeeding. METHODS The USPSTF evaluated the results of a systematic review, conducted by the Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, of literature published since January 2007 on primary care-initiated, -conducted, or -referable activities to promote and support breastfeeding. RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends interventions during pregnancy and after birth to promote and support breastfeeding (Grade B recommendation).

Description: Reaffirmation of the 2004 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement about screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Methods: The U. S. Preventive Services Task Force did a targeted literature search for evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women, nonpregnant women, and men. Recommendations: Screen for asymptomatic bacteriuria with urine culture in pregnant women at 12 to 16 weeks' gestation or at the first prenatal visit, if later. (Grade A recommendation.) Do not screen for asymptomatic bacteriuria in men and nonpregnant women. (Grade D recommendation.).

Description Updated U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Methods To estimate the balance of benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF updated its 2003 evidence review, adding evidence from new trials as well as updates on earlier studies. The review for this current recommendation focused on evidence that early treatment prevented long-term adverse outcomes of diabetes, including cardiovascular events, visual impairment, renal failure, and amputation. Recommendations Screen for type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic adults with sustained blood pressure (either treated or untreated) greater than 135/80 mm Hg. (B recommendation) Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening in asymptomatic adults with blood pressure of 135/80 mm Hg or lower. (I statement).

DESCRIPTION New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using spirometry. METHODS The USPSTF weighed the benefits (prevention of > or =1 exacerbation and improvement in respiratory-related health status measures) and harms (time and effort required by both patients and the health care system, false-positive screening tests, and adverse effects of subsequent unnecessary therapy) of COPD screening identified in the accompanying review of the evidence. The USPSTF did not consider the financial costs of spirometry testing or COPD therapies. RECOMMENDATION Do not screen adults for COPD using spirometry. (Grade D recommendation).

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. METHODS The USPSTF weighed the benefits and harms of screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy by identifying new evidence addressing previously identified gaps from the 2001 USPSTF recommendation. Published literature on this topic was identified by using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, reference lists, and consultation with experts and was systematically reviewed. When data allowed, a series of meta-analyses (using new and 2001 report data) was done to estimate the pooled effect of treatment on preterm delivery (

DESCRIPTION Update of the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force statement about screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS) in the general population. METHODS The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force examined the evidence on the natural history of CAS; systematic reviews of the accuracy of screening tests; observational studies of the harms of screening and treatment of asymptomatic CAS; and randomized, controlled trials of the benefits of treatment for CAS with carotid endarterectomy. RECOMMENDATION Do not screen for asymptomatic CAS in the general adult population. (Grade D recommendation).

The major goal of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide a reliable and accurate source of evidence-based recommendations on a wide range of preventive services. In this article, the USPSTF updates and reviews the process by which it evaluates evidence, determines the certainty and magnitude of net benefit, and gives a final letter grade to recommendations. Because direct evidence about prevention is often unavailable, the Task Force usually considers indirect evidence. To guide its selection of indirect evidence, a "chain of evidence" is constructed within an analytic framework. The Task Force examines evidence of various research designs that addresses the key questions within the framework. New terms have been added to describe the USPSTF's judgment about the evidence for each key question: "convincing," "adequate," or "inadequate." For increased clarity, the USPSTF has changed its description of overall evidence of net benefit for the preventive service from "good," "fair," or "poor" quality to "high," "moderate," or "low" certainty. This rating considers the extent to which an uninterrupted chain of evidence exists across the analytic framework. Individual studies will continue to be judged as being of "good," "fair," or "poor" quality. Using outcomes tables, the USPSTF estimates the magnitude of benefits and the magnitude of harms, and synthesizes them into an estimate of the magnitude of net benefit. Although some judgment is required at all steps, the USPSTF strives to make the process as explicit and transparent as possible. The USPSTF anticipates that its methods for making evidence-based recommendations will continue to evolve.