CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.
-
Upload
richard-kearney -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.
![Page 1: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CANCER SCREENING
TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE
Leah Karliner, MD, MAS
Department of Medicine
UCSF
![Page 2: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
CASE
56 y.o. man, healthy, no family history of GI cancer, no current symptoms of rectal bleeding, changes in stool or weight loss.
“Doc, can I get one of those virtual colonoscopies?”
![Page 3: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
OUTLINE
Evaluating Tests Colon cancer screening: old tests and new Breast cancer screening: mammograms and
MRIs Prostate cancer screening: should we screen? Where to go for the evidence(extra slides on ovarian and lung cancer
screening)
![Page 4: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
PRINCIPLES OF SCREENING
Disease has high prevalence Disease has serious consequences Detectable preclinical phase Treatment for presymptomatic disease is
more effective than after symptoms develop
Positive impact on clinical health outcomes: early detection reduces cancer mortality
![Page 5: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEST
Tests should be simple, inexpensive and acceptable with a high sensitivity and specificity
Number of false positives is acceptably low
![Page 6: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEST
Questions to be answered when evaluating/comparing tests:
Who will be tested? What tests will it supplement or replace? Is the new test safer? Is the new test less costly? Is the test more specific (excluding cases of
non-disease)? Is the new test more sensitive (detecting more
cases of disease)? Is wide-spread use of the test feasible in
practice?
![Page 7: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
SCREENING:OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Screening in high risk groups– Selective vs universal screening– Rare diseases and false positive test results
Involving patients in the decision– What are the co-morbid conditions?– Associated life expectancy, feasibility of
treatment, effects of treatment on quality of life
![Page 8: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
COLON CANCER
![Page 9: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
COLORECTAL CANCER: Principles of Screening
Disease has high prevalence: Second most common form of cancer in the U.S.
Disease has serious consequences: second highest cancer mortality rate overall in U.S.
Detectable preclinical phase – polyps Treatment for pre-symptomatic disease is more
effective than after symptoms develop - yes Screening reduces cancer mortality:
– Several studies have shown that screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or sigmoidoscopy is associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer mortality
![Page 10: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
HOW ARE WE DOING?
FOBT in past 2 years– White – Black– Latino– Other– Multiracial
Ever had a sig or colonoscopy
– White – Black– Latino– Other– Multiracial
27%– 28%– 24%– 17%– 20%– 27%
53%– 54%– 49%– 39%– 41%– 54% »BRFSS, 2004
Adults > age 50, National Data from the Center for Disease Control:
![Page 11: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
COLON CANCER SCREENING
RECOMMENDATIONS
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all persons over 50 – Benefits of screening outweigh potential harms– Quality of evidence, magnitude of benefit and
potential harms vary with each method – Unclear which is the best test: FOBT, FOBT plus
sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy
![Page 12: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
AVAILABLE TESTS
Tests should be simple, inexpensive and acceptable with a high sensitivity and specificity: ????
Available/commonly used tests:– Fecal occult blood test– Sigmoidoscopy– Colonoscopy
Newer tests:– Virtual Colonoscopy?– Fecal DNA testing?– Immunochemical FOBT?
![Page 13: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
WHICH TEST?
Are the tests equally safe? Are the tests equally costly? Are the tests equally specific? Are the tests equally sensitive? Is wide-spread use of the test feasible in
practice?
![Page 14: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
TEST ISSUES
Sigmoidoscopy – Fair evidence for reducing mortality– Sigmoidoscopy alone can miss proximal neoplasia –
a positive test needs to be followed by colonoscopy
FOBT – Good evidence for reducing mortality– Trials used 6 sample every 1-2 years– Positive test needs to be followed by colonoscopy– Many providers use digital FOBT as a primary
screening test - this is different use from in the trials - is in office single stool sample testing enough?
![Page 15: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
FOBT vs. IN-OFFICE SINGLE FOBT
Sensitivity for advanced neoplasia was 24% for 6 sample FOBT vs 5% for digital FOBT
Specificity was 94% for 6 sample FOBT and 98% for digital FOBT
Digital FOBT is a poor screening method•Collins, 2005
![Page 16: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
IS COLONOSCOPY “BETTER?”
Two observational studies of patients undergoing colonoscopy
Goal: Determine prevalence and location of colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic patients and the risk of proximal advanced neoplasia in patients with or without distal neoplasia
Did NOT assess morbidity and mortality
![Page 17: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
IS COLONOSCOPY “BETTER?”
Colonoscopy showed some lesions that would have been missed by sigmoidoscopy alone– distal polyps were a predictor of proximal
neoplasia, – but some patients with proximal neoplasia did
not have distal polyps If sigmoidoscopy alone had been done and
if every adenomatous polyp triggered colonoscopy, 80% of high risk lesions would have been detected
![Page 18: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
SCREENING COLONOSCOPY?
Would proximal lesions have been detected by FOBT?
No assessment of morbidity and mortality
![Page 19: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SCREENING COLONOSCOPY?
More sensitive than FOBT/sigmoidoscopy More specific than FOBT Higher risk (diagnostic colonoscopies have
1/2000 perforation rate; with polypectomy 1/500-1000)
More costly? (USPSTF says all of these screening methods are probably cost-effective)
Presumed to save lives because used as diagnostic test in FOBT studies, but at higher rate than FOBT?
Feasibility in practice dependent on availability of gastroenterologists and insurance coverage
![Page 20: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
WHICH TEST?
Most preventable cases of colon cancer are found in those who have never been screened
If we screened with the currently available tests at the recommended intervals, we could make a big impact – particularly in ethnic minorities
Any screening is better than no screening for reducing colorectal cancer mortality
![Page 21: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
NEWER TESTS
Virtual Colonoscopy Fecal DNA Immunochemical FOBT (iFOBT)
![Page 22: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
Non-invasive colon imaging method using thin section CT
Test characteristics in largest study to date– N=1,233 average risk individuals– Sensitivity
» 94% for polyps ≥8 mm» 89% for polyps ≥6 mm
– Specificity» 96% for polyps ≥10 mm» 80% for polyps ≥6 mm
•Pickhardt, 2003
![Page 23: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
Study used 3 D technology which is not available everywhere
Single center study Are these results reproducible? Is this
feasible in widespread practice?
![Page 24: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
Multicenter study of screening population– 615 participants at 9 hospitals
Two-dimensional scans Sensitivity
– 55% for lesions ≥10 mm– 39% for lesions ≥6 mm
Specificity– 96% for lesions ≥10 mm– 91% for lesions ≥6 mm
• Cotton, 2004
![Page 25: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
VIRTUAL COLONOSCOPY
Requires bowel prep and insufflation Patients do not necessarily prefer over
colonoscopy Test interpretation is very time consuming Cost effectiveness
– Assuming 100% sensitivity and specificity– To replace colonoscopy, it would have to be less
than 50% the cost of colonoscopy and compliance would have to be 15-20% better
•Sonnenberg, 1999
![Page 26: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
FECAL DNA TESTING
DNA alterations in colorectal cancer can be detected in the stool
Potential advantages– Non-invasive– No preparation– Detection along entire length of the colon
![Page 27: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
FECAL DNA TESTING
Recently evaluated as a screening test in asymptomatic individuals aged 50 and older
Fecal DNA test (21 mutations), Hemoccult II and colonoscopy
4404/5486 completed all three aspects of the study
Subgroup of 2507 patients were analyzed• Imperiale, 2004
![Page 28: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
FECAL DNA TESTING
Fecal DNA Hemoccult II
Sensitivity for invasive cancer
51.6% 12.9%
Sensitivity for invasive cancer/adenoma with high grade dysplasia
40.8% 14.1%
Sensitivity for advanced neoplasia
18.2% 10.8%
Specificity 18.2% 10.8%
![Page 29: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
FECAL DNA TESTING
20% of the subjects either did not provide samples or did not have colonoscopy
Many were aged 65 and over Both FOBT and fecal DNA had relatively
low sensitivities compared with what was expected based on prior studies
![Page 30: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
FECAL DNA: REMAINING QUESTIONS
Are health outcomes improved?– Even if we assume benefit based on FOBT trials,
how much? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
– Public expectations about accuracy of DNA testing?
Frequency of testing? Acceptability and availability? Cost
– $400 to $800 vs $3 to $40 for FOBT
![Page 31: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
IMMUNOCHEMICAL FOBT
Potential advantages: Easier to use Improved specificity Probably small increase in sensitivity (may
not need as many samples) Test characteristics in large average risk
populations has not been studied
![Page 32: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING:
CONCLUSIONS
Any currently available screening is better than no screening for reducing colorectal cancer mortality
Virtual colonoscopy, immunochemical tests and fecal DNA testing may have a role in the future
![Page 33: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Breast Cancer
![Page 34: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
BREAST CANCER SCREENING
Disease has high prevalence: most commonly detected cancer in women in U.S.
– but lower prevelance for women in 40’s
Disease has serious consequences: second highest cancer mortality rate for women in U.S.
Detectable preclinical phase – microcalcifications Treatment for pre-symptomatic disease is more
effective than after symptoms develop – unclear in case of DCIS
Screening reduces cancer mortality: Several studies have shown that screening mammography can reduce mortality
– RCTs have not shown a mortality reduction in women in their 40’s
![Page 35: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
USPSTF
United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening mammography with or without clinical breast examination every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older–Data are most clear for women aged 50-69
–For women in their forties the evidence is weaker
–Benefit to women aged 70 and older if life expectancy not compromised by co-morbid disease
![Page 36: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
USPSTF
Evidence insufficient for or against clinical breast examination alone
Evidence insufficient for or against teaching or performing routine breast self-examination
![Page 37: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
TEST ISSUES
Tests should be simple, inexpensive and acceptable with a high sensitivity and specificity: Increased density of pre-menopausal breast tissue leads to decreased sensitivity
Number of false positives is acceptably low:– Cumulative risk of false positive result: 49%
after ten mammograms– False positive rates were higher for women in
their forties than for women age 50-69» (Elmore et al, 1998)
![Page 38: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
MAMMOGRAPHY IN WOMEN AGED 40-49
Increased density of premenopausal breast tissue leads to decreased sensitivity
More cases discovered by mammography in women in their forties are ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) than in women in their fifties (40-45% vs 20%)– Clinical significance of DCIS is unclear– Only 20% will progress to invasive cancer over 10
years and those that do progress will do so slowly– Who will benefit from DCIS treatment?
![Page 39: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
MAMMOGRAPHY IN WOMEN
AGED 40-49
Discuss the pros and cons of mammography screening and should consider patient risk factors in making a decision about screening
If mammography is offered, it should be performed annually
![Page 40: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
MAMMOGRAPHY IN ELDERLY WOMEN
Age is the most important risk factor for breast cancer
Nearly half (47%) of breast cancer is diagnosed in women over the age of 65 and 52% of breast cancer mortality occurs in this age group
Competing mortality
» Mandelblatt, JGIM 2005
![Page 41: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
SCREENING HIGH RISK WOMEN
Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations or with a family history of breast cancer are often diagnosed at a young age
Screening is often offered to younger high risk women but efficacy is not known– Lower sensitivity of mammography in younger
women– High tumor growth rate– Atypical mammography changes in women with
BRCA mutations
![Page 42: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
MRI SCREENING
Does MRI have a role for screening in high risk women?
Sensitive method of breast imaging and has been used as a diagnostic tool in women with breast cancer– Not influenced by breast density
Specificity is variable Expensive
![Page 43: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
MRI SCREENING
236 Canadian women aged 25-65 with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations had 1-3 annual screening examinations
MRI, ultrasound, mammography annually Clinical breast examination every 6 months
» Warner et al JAMA 2004
![Page 44: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
MRI SCREENING
22 cancers detected– 6 DCIS
All four screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography plus clinical breast exam
![Page 45: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY
Test Sensitivity Specificity
MRI 77% 95%
Mammography
36% 99.8%
Ultrasound 33% 96%
Clinical Breast Exam
9% 99%
![Page 46: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
IMPACT FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
MRI may be useful in screening high risk women, although the effect of MRI screening on mortality is not yet known
MRI is not currently recommended for screening average risk women
![Page 47: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Prostate Cancer
![Page 48: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
PROSTATE CANCER: SHOULD WE SCREEN?
Disease has high prevalence: Most commonly diagnosed cancer in U.S. men
– 10% lifetime risk– 30% of men have prostate cancer at autopsy
Disease has serious consequences: variable; prostate cancer may be a benign disease for many men
Detectable preclinical phase – ?PSA Treatment for pre-symptomatic disease is more
effective than after symptoms develop - Does early detection do more good than harm or vice versa?Complications of prostate cancer treatment
– 8.4% incontinence– 60% impotence
• Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study 24 month follow up Screening reduces cancer mortality: ???
![Page 49: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
IS TREATMENT OF EARLY DISEASE EFFECTIVE?
Does treatment of early prostate cancer reduce morbidity and mortality?– RCT showed reduction in mortality, prostate
cancer mortality, metastatic disease and local progression
– Absolute reduction in mortality is small
» Bill-Axelson, NEJM 2005
![Page 50: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
DOES SCREENING DECREASE MORTALITY? EPIDEMIOLOGIC
EVIDENCE
Prostate cancer mortality has decreased following the introduction of prostate cancer screening
Reduction in mortality followed an initial increase in incidence – Due to PSA screening?
» Short time interval
– Changes in treatment – Is the decline most in the areas with most
screening?
![Page 51: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
46,000 men underwent DRE and PSA – 11 year follow-up– 23 % of invited group and 6.5% of non-invited
group underwent screening– Decrease in prostate cancer mortality, but
small numbers of deaths overall» Labrie, Prostate 2004
PLCO trial sponsored by the NCI is ongoing European Randomized Study of Screening
for Prostate Cancer
![Page 52: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION
One-third of prostate cancers occur in areas which can be reached
Higher sensitivity performed by urologists An abnormal digital rectal examination
increases the likelihood of prostate cancer somewhat
A negative examination does not change the likelihood of a clinically significant prostate cancer– Low sensitivity of the examination
![Page 53: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
PSA SCREENING: TEST ISSUES
15% of men over the age of 50 have an elevated PSA
PSA >10 ng/ml: – 66% have prostate cancer
PSA 4-10 ng/ml: – 22% have prostate cancer
![Page 54: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
PSA SCREENING: TEST ISSUES
Levels of 4.0 ng/ml or less have typically been considered to be normal
Recent results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial show that prostate cancer is not rare even in these men– 27% cancer in those with PSA 3.1 to 4.0 – 24% in those with PSA 2.1 to 3.0– 17% in those with PSA 1.1 to 2.0– 10% in those with PSA 0.6 to 1.0– 7% in those with PSA up to 0.5
How many cancers would be clinically important?
![Page 55: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
PSA SCREENING:MODIFICATIONS
PSA Density PSA Velocity Free and complexed PSA
So far, none of these modifications have proven superior to PSA alone
![Page 56: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING:
RECOMMENDATIONS
USPSTF: insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for prostate cancer using PSA or DRE– PSA can detect early prostate cancer, but
inconclusive evidence about whether early detection improves health outcomes
ACP: individualize the decision to screen after discussion with patient about potential benefits and harms
![Page 57: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Colon cancer: any screening is better than no screening, use commonly available tests
Breast cancer: – women aged 50 to 69 should undergo
mammography every 1-2 years– discuss the pros and cons of mammography
screening with women aged 40-49 and over age 70
– MRI screening may be useful in high risk women
Prostate cancer: discuss pros and cons of PSA with eligible men; await PLCO trial
![Page 58: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Cervical cancer:– Begin screening w/in 3 years of onset of sexual activity or at
age 21;– Screen at least every 3 years;– Stop screening at age 65 in low risk women with adequate
screening history (USPSTF 2003)– ‘reflex’ HPV testing on pap smears read as ASCUS (ACOG
2003) Ovarian cancer:
– maybe in high risk women only; await PLCO trial– women at high risk should consider oral contraceptives
(37% reduction in incidence) Lung cancer: do not screen; await PLCO trial
– Smoking Cessation!
![Page 59: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
WHERE TO GO FOR THE EVIDENCE
U.S. Preventive Services Task Forcehttp://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm Technology Evaluation Center / Blue Cross
- Blue Shield Associationhttp://www.bcbs.com/tec/whatistec.html California Technology Assessment Forum /
Blue Shield of California Foundationhttp://www.ctaf.org/
![Page 60: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
OVARIAN AND LUNG CANCER SCREENING
![Page 61: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
OVARIAN CANCER: SHOULD WE SCREEN?
Lifetime risk of ovarian cancer– No affected relatives 1.2%– One affected relative 5%– 2 affected relatives 7%– Hereditary syndrome 40%
Ovarian cancer limited to the ovaries is associated with a much higher survival rate
![Page 62: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
OVARIAN CANCER: SCREENING TECHNIQUES
Serum CA-125 assay Trans-vaginal ultrasound Serum CA-125 plus ultrasound
![Page 63: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
OVARIAN CANCER SCREENING: CLINICAL
TRIAL
22,000 U.K. women Annual screening vs no screening for 3
years with 7 year follow-up Screening
– CA-125– Ultrasound if elevated CA-125– Surgical evaluation if ultrasound abnormal
Slight increase in mean survival No difference in mortality
» Jacobs et al, Lancet 1999
![Page 64: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
OVARIAN CANCER SCREENING:
CONCLUSIONS
Many women must be screened to detect a few cases
Small increase in survival:– Is it worth it?
Low disease prevalence limits utility of the tests despite high sensitivity and specificity
![Page 65: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS
USPSTF: potential harms outweigh potential benefits
NIH Consensus Conference: Insufficient evidence Many organizations recommend annual pelvic
examination– No evidence
Although there are no data regarding screening in high risk women, experts recommend:– annual screening with rectovaginal pelvic
examination, CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound
![Page 66: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
PLCO Trial– 74,000 women aged 55-74– CA-125 at entry and annually for 5 years– Annual transvaginal ultrasound – 13 year follow-up
United Kingdom Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening– 200,000 women with 7 year follow-up
Lysophosphatidic Acid (LPA)– Tumor marker which shows promise
![Page 67: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
LUNG CANCER: SHOULD WE SCREEN?
Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer mortality in both men and women
If screening works for so many other cancers, why don’t we screen for lung cancer?
![Page 68: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
LUNG CANCER SCREENING: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Does screening for lung cancer reduce lung cancer mortality
Included 7 trials of lung cancer screening Frequent screening with chest x-rays was
associated with an increase in mortality– RR 1.11 (95% C.I. 1.00-1.23)
No difference in chest X-ray plus cytology vs chest X-ray alone
![Page 69: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
ROLE OF CT
No evidence that screening CT reduces mortality
Lung Cancer Screening Study – NCI sponsored– High risk patients– CT or chest X-ray– Results available soon
At this time, spiral CT should not be routinely used in clinical practice
![Page 70: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
USPSTF RECOMMENDATIONS
Evidence is insufficient Screening with x-ray, low dose CT, sputum
cytology or combination can detect lung cancer early, but there is no evidence that any screening strategy reduces lung cancer mortality.
![Page 71: CANCER SCREENING TESTS: EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE Leah Karliner, MD, MAS Department of Medicine UCSF.](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013100/55146ad4550346284e8b5d50/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
PRIMARY PREVENTION OF LUNG CANCER
Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation Smoking cessation!!!!!