全球针对家族史高危人群的结直肠癌筛查指南推荐意见的系统综述

目的 对全球现有结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查指南的更新进展及推荐意见进行系统总结和评价。方法 以“结直肠癌”“筛查”“指南”“共识”“推荐”“家族史”以及“colorectal cancer”“screening”“guideline”“recommendation”“family history”为关键词,并补充其自由词,系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science,并且同时检索官网刊登的结直肠癌筛查指南/共识作为补充,语种限定为中文和英文。截至2022年5月24日,共20篇有效文献。对纳入文献的基本信息、针对家族史人群的推荐意见等进行摘录整理及汇总描述。结果 在20篇文献中,大多数国家/地区/机构根据结直肠癌家族史人群的亲属关系等级,对筛查起止年龄、筛查方式及筛查周期提出建议。多数指南针对有1例60岁前患结直肠癌一级亲属的人群,推荐筛查起始年龄为40岁或比患病亲属诊断年龄提前10年,推荐的筛查方式多为结肠镜。结论 目前全球多数结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查指南主要针对一级亲属家族史、以结肠镜作为主要筛查方式。本文将为我国针对结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查策略的更新提供参考依据,进而完善结直肠癌筛查与早诊早治实践。     

全球肝癌筛查指南制订现状的系统综述

目的 使用系统综述的方法对全球范围内肝癌筛查指南进行系统梳理,并根据权威机构的癌症筛查指南制订框架,对肝癌筛查制订现状进行总结和评价,从而为后续制订肝癌筛查的循证指南提供重要参考。方法 系统检索多个中英文数据库和相关网站,2019年1月3日前发布的肝癌筛查指南。根据预先制订的纳入排除标准双人独立筛选文献、提取信息。对肝癌筛查指南基本信息、筛查推荐意见、证据来源等情况进行汇总描述和总结。结果 目前国内外均无独立的肝癌筛查指南,只有17部肝癌临床实践指南（Clinical practice guidelines,CPG）中简要提到肝癌筛查推荐意见。各国肝癌CPG仅推荐对乙肝、丙肝、肝硬化等肝癌高危人群进行筛查;大部分肝癌CPG推荐筛查间隔为6个月;欧美最新指南均推荐使用超声进行筛查,而亚洲则推荐使用US和甲胎蛋白联合使用。目前肝癌CPG主要基于筛查人群患肝癌风险、筛查工具准确性、筛查成本等要素推荐相应筛查策略,尚未综合考虑筛查有效性、安全性等关键要素。结论 目前尚无独立的肝癌筛查指南,仅在肝癌CPG中描述了筛查推荐意见。目前指南仅推荐对肝癌高危人群进行筛查,筛查间隔为6个月;欧美和亚洲指南推荐的肝癌筛查措施有所差异。建议相关机构参考国际公认的其他癌症筛查指南制订的理论框架,考虑肝癌筛查的各个环节和关键要素的特殊性,制订专用的肝癌筛查循证指南。     

基于筛查干预角度的中国人群结直肠癌所致伤残调整寿命年负担分析

目的 基于筛查干预视角,分析中国人群结直肠癌所致伤残调整寿命年（DALY）负担的现况、既往与未来,并行国际比较,为中国人群结直肠癌疾病负担及其筛查干预提供参考。方法 基于全球疾病负担研究（GBD）平台摘录数据,描述中国2019年结直肠癌所致DALY数、世标率及不同亚组值;通过Joinpoint回归模型,分析1990-2019年变化趋势,结合人群筛查情况行国际比较。进一步预测中国结直肠癌所致DALY负担未来变化趋势。结果 中国2019年结直肠癌所致DALY总数为639.5万人年,占全球结直肠癌负担的26.3%,占中国全部癌种负担的9.5%;其中男性DALY数占65.2%,≥65岁者占44.8%,与本土结直肠癌筛查指南推荐接近的年龄段（40~74岁）人群占73.7%,伤残损失寿命年（YLD）数占4.8%。相比1990年,2019年中国结直肠癌所致DALY总数增长了181.5%,有明确归因占比上升幅度最大的因素是高BMI、红肉摄入过量和加工肉制品摄入过量等（增幅依次为151.1%、86.4%和78.8%）。就结直肠癌所致DALY率,中国1990年为245.6/10万,2019年为320.6/10万,增幅达30.5%;作为参照,已开展全人群结直肠癌筛查的澳大利亚（2006年启动）、英国（2006年）和日本（1992年）,DALY率降幅分别为36.0%、28.6%和17.8%。预测提示,若无继续扩大范围的人群筛查,2030年中国结直肠癌所致DALY总数将达766.6万人年~906.6万人年,较2019年将增加19.9%~41.8%。结论 中国结直肠癌所致DALY负担近30年持续增加,人口老龄化及伴随失能会使负担更重。目前本土推荐筛查年龄可覆盖七成DALY负担来源人群,但人群的实际筛查覆盖有限。其他国家结直肠癌所致DALY负担的下降与筛查开展密不可分,提示尽快扩大本土结直肠癌有效筛查覆盖率的重要性。     

浙江省2013－2018年城市居民结直肠癌筛查结果及成本效果分析

目的 综合评价浙江省城市居民结直肠癌筛查的结果和成本效果,为结直肠癌筛查策略的优化提供参考依据。方法 基于2013－2018年浙江省开展的城市癌症早诊早治项目,分析40~74岁城市居民结直肠癌筛查参与率和病变检出率,采用χ²检验比较不同组间率的差异,采用logistic回归分析其影响因素。测算以检出1例病变的成本为指标的成本效果比。结果 共完成问卷调查166 285名,评估为结直肠癌高危人群21 975名（13.2%）,其中4 389名接受了结肠镜检查,依从率为20.0%,共检出结直肠癌11例（检出率为0.3%）、进展期腺瘤119例（2.7%）和非进展期腺瘤229例（5.2%）。多因素logistic回归分析显示,性别、年龄、文化程度、吸烟、饮酒、类便隐血检测史、肠息肉疾病史和结直肠癌家族史与肠镜依从率显著相关;年龄、吸烟史、肠息肉病史与结直肠进展期病变（癌和进展期腺瘤）检出率有关。成本效果分析结果显示,筛查检出1例进展期病变的成本为22 355.74元,其中检出1例结直肠癌的成本达264 204.18元;年龄组越大,成本效果比越小;敏感性分析提示提高肠镜依从率可降低成本效果比。结论 当前筛查项目有助于发现结直肠癌前病变,但结肠镜依从性相对较低,限制了筛查整体效果和经济学收益,应进一步加强高危人群肠镜检查的组织动员工作。     

全球肺癌筛查指南及共识质量评价

目的 了解国内外肺癌筛查指南/共识的研究进展和质量，为我国制定高质量的肺癌筛查指南/共识提供参考依据。方法 检索PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、维普网和万方数据知识服务平台共9个数据库和相关网站关于肺癌筛查指南/共识的文献，采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）评价工具对新发布或更新的指南/共识进行质量评价。结果 共纳入2015-2020年的9部指南/共识，发布的国家包括美国、中国、加拿大、沙特阿拉伯和南非；AGREE Ⅱ评价结果显示，范围和目的及清晰性得分较高，严谨性和应用性得分较低；5部指南被判定为A级，均为国外发布的指南，其余4部为B级，包括中国发布的3部指南/共识以及1部南非发布的指南；RIGHT评价结果显示，基本信息和背景报告率较高，评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突报告率较低，其中，报告水平良好的指南5部，报告水平中等的指南/共识4部。综合质量较高的是美国胸科医师学会2018年发布的指南和加拿大预防保健工作组2016年发布的指南。结论 肺癌筛查指南/共识的发布国家和机构数量逐渐增加，我国的肺癌筛查指南/共识的质量偏低，需结合循证方法制订出适合我国国情的高质量的肺癌筛查指南/共识，以指导实践。     

结肠镜、免疫法粪便隐血试验和新型风险评估筛查方案在人群结直肠癌筛查中的参与率比较及其影响因素分析

目的 探讨结肠镜、免疫法粪便隐血试验（FIT）和新型风险评估筛查方案的人群筛查参与率及其影响因素。方法 基于在全国6个中心开展的人群结直肠癌筛查随机对照试验（2018年5月至今）,纳入基线招募的符合条件受试者,按照1：2：2比例随机分配至以下3组：结肠镜组、FIT组和新型风险评估筛查方案组（受试者经过风险评估,高风险者接受结肠镜检查,低风险者接受FIT检测）。收集受试者流行病学调查问卷和临床检查等信息。计算不同筛查方案的参与率,采用多因素logistic回归模型分析探讨筛查参与率的影响因素。结果 共纳入19 546例符合研究条件的受试者,经过随机化分组,分配至结肠镜组3 916例、FIT组7 854例、新型风险评估筛查方案组7 776例。在19 546例受试者中,男性为8 154例（41.7%）,年龄为（60.5±6.5）岁。结肠镜组、FIT组和新型风险评估筛查方案组的参与率分别为42.5%、94.0%和85.2%,其中在新型风险评估筛查方案组中,高风险者接受结肠镜检查的参与率为49.2%,低风险者接受FIT检测的参与率为94.0%。多因素分析提示年龄、文化程度、吸烟史、既往结肠镜检查史、慢性结肠炎史和一级亲属结直肠癌家族史与筛查参与率相关。结论 FIT和新型风险评估筛查方案组参与率显著优于结肠镜筛查。在未来需对特定人群开展健康宣教以提高结直肠癌筛查人群参与率,从而保证人群结直肠癌筛查效果和效益。     

肠镜检查对结直肠癌发病风险影响的前瞻性评价研究

目的 评价肠镜检查对人群结直肠癌发病风险的影响。方法 基于浙江省嘉善县结直肠癌早诊早治筛查项目,以2007年1月至2015年12月初筛阳性需要进一步接受肠镜检查的人群为研究对象,分析中剔除基线信息不完整者、参加筛查前已患结直肠癌者和基线时发现的结直肠癌、肠炎或肠道溃疡患者,最终纳入25 894例。使用Cox比例风险回归模型分析肠镜检查与结直肠癌发病风险的关联。结果 研究累计随访160 113人年,中位随访期为5.67年,期间观察到结直肠癌新发病例127例。未接受检查组、未发现病变组和发现病变组的结直肠癌发病密度分别为202.35/10万人年、40.93/10万人年和63.62/10万人年,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。调整潜在的混杂因素后,与未接受肠镜检查者相比,接受肠镜检查未发现病变者和发现病变者发生结直肠癌的HR值（95% CI）分别为0.24（0.16~0.36）和0.29（0.17~0.49）。对病理部位开展的亚组分析和以年龄、性别为分层因素的分析结果均显示肠镜检查与结直肠癌发病呈负关联。结论 肠镜检查能有效降低高危人群结直肠癌的发病风险。     

定量免疫粪便隐血试验对进展期结直肠肿瘤筛检效能的评价

目的 评价定量免疫粪便隐血试验（FIT）对进展期结直肠肿瘤（结直肠癌和进展期腺瘤）的筛检效能,为进一步优化中国人群结直肠癌筛查策略提供理论参考。方法 基于1项正在开展的人群结直肠癌筛查随机对照试验,选取3 407例已完成结肠镜检查的50~74岁受试者作为研究对象。所有受试者在结肠镜检查前均提供粪便标本。采用定量FIT通过标准化操作流程对所有粪便标本进行检测。以结肠镜和病理结果作为金标准,计算定量FIT对进展期结直肠肿瘤的筛检效能指标。结果 3 407例受试者中男性占51.5%（n=1 753）,年龄为（60.5±6.3）岁,共包括结直肠癌28例（0.8%）、进展期腺瘤255例（7.5%）、非进展期腺瘤677例（19.9%）、良性病变和正常者2 447例（71.8%）。当采用厂家推荐阳性截断值（20 μg Hb/g）时,总体FIT阳性率为2.8%（96/3 407）,对于结直肠癌和进展期腺瘤的灵敏度分别为57.1%（95% CI：37.2%~75.5%）和11.0%（95% CI：7.4%~15.5%）,特异度为98.4%（95% CI：97.8%~98.8%）。当阳性截断值调整至5 μg Hb/g时,定量FIT对于结直肠癌和进展期腺瘤的灵敏度分别增加至64.3%（95% CI：44.1%~81.4%）和16.5%（95% CI：12.1%~21.6%）,特异度降低至95.2%（95% CI：94.4%~95.9%）。受试者工作曲线分析结果显示,FIT对于结直肠癌和进展期腺瘤的曲线下面积分别为0.908（95% CI：0.842~0.973）、0.657（95% CI：0.621~0.692）,且在不同性别、年龄组人群中筛检效能较为一致。结论 在本研究中,定量FIT对结直肠癌诊断灵敏度尚可,但对进展期腺瘤的诊断灵敏度较低。在人群结直肠癌筛查中,定量FIT的阳性截断值可以根据预设检出率及结肠镜检查负荷灵活调整,具有一定优势。     

基于人群筛查的生活方式相关因素与结直肠腺瘤的关系研究

目的 探讨生活方式相关因素与结直肠腺瘤之间的关系。方法 基于浙江省嘉善县结直肠癌早诊早治筛查项目，收集2012年8月至2018年3月初筛阳性的结直肠癌高危人群的问卷信息和结直肠镜检查结果。根据肠镜检查结果，纳入11 232例无病变健康对照和3 895例结直肠腺瘤患者，采用多因素logistic回归模型分析各生活方式相关因素与结直肠腺瘤之间的联系。结果 调整潜在的混杂因素后，吸烟、饮酒、肥胖与结直肠腺瘤患病风险呈正相关，OR值（95% CI）分别为1.38（1.24~1.54）、1.37（1.24~1.51）和1.38（1.20~1.59）；规律服用阿司匹林与结直肠腺瘤患病风险呈负相关，OR值（95% CI）为0.65（0.53~0.80）。以性别和年龄为分层因素的分析发现，吸烟、饮酒与结直肠腺瘤的关联效应仅在男性中具有统计学意义，规律服用阿司匹林与结直肠腺瘤的关联效应则在老年人（≥60岁）中更强。结论 吸烟、饮酒、规律服用阿司匹林、肥胖等生活方式相关因素与结直肠腺瘤患病风险相关。     

全球上消化道癌筛查指南的质量评价

目的 系统评价国内外现有上消化道癌（包括食管癌和胃癌）筛查指南的方法学质量，为今后同类指南的制定和更新提供标准和参考依据。方法 本研究系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国临床指南文库、PubMed、The Cochrane Library和Embase等数据平台建库至2020年8月发表的文献，并同时检索国际癌症研究机构、国际指南协作网的机构官网刊登的指南作为补充。纳入标准为食管癌或胃癌筛查的独立指南，且符合美国医学研究所对指南的定义；排除标准包括指南的摘要、解读及评价类文献、重复发表、已更新的原始版指南以及食管癌或胃癌临床治疗或实践指南。采用指南研究和评估工具（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）对上消化道癌筛查指南的质量和报告规范程度进行比较和评价。结果 共纳入6篇食管癌筛查指南，5篇胃癌筛查指南。AGREE Ⅱ质量评价结果显示，11篇指南整体质量参差不齐，其中推荐等级为"A"的有2篇、等级为"B"的有1篇、等级为"C"的有5篇、等级为"D"的有3篇；各指南在范围和目的、清晰性领域得分较高，食管癌筛查指南在严谨性、独立性领域得分差异较大，胃癌筛查指南在参与人员、应用性领域得分普遍较低。RIGHT评价结果显示，11篇指南报告质量有待提高，报告质量较差的6个条目分别为背景、证据、推荐意见、评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突以及其他方面。结论 纳入的上消化道癌筛查指南的质量整体一般，规范性有待加强。     

全球肝癌筛查指南及共识质量评价

目的系统评价全球肝癌筛查指南/共识的方法学质量,为我国肝癌筛查循证指南的制定提供参考依据。方法系统检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献服务系统等中、英文数据库中肝癌筛查指南/共识,同时搜集相关指南制订机构作为补充。检索时间截至2020年6月30日。由2名研究人员独立进行文献筛选和信息提取。采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ)和国际实践指南报告标准(RIGHT)对纳入的指南进行质量评价。结果共纳入19部肝癌筛查指南/共识,发布时间为2003-2019年。AGREEⅡ评价结果显示,纳入指南的质量较高,其中9部指南推荐为A级,5部指南推荐为B级。各指南在范围和目的、参与人员、清晰性领域得分较高。RIGHT评价结果中以基本信息报告率最高(56.1%),背景(37.5%)和推荐意见(39.8%)报告质量尚可。证据(35.8%)、评审和质量保证(18.4%)、资金资助和利益冲突(22.4%)以及其他方面(21.0%)4个领域的质量待改善。结论肝癌筛查指南质量尚可,但在证据、评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突方面仍有待加强。我国尚缺乏肝癌筛查的独立的循证医学指南。     

Are U.S. cancer screening test patterns consistent with guideline recommendations with respect to the age of screening initiation?

Background  

U.S. cancer screening guidelines communicate important information regarding the ages for which screening tests are appropriate. Little attention has been given to whether breast, colorectal and prostate cancer screening test use is responsive to guideline age information regarding the age of screening initiation.     

Peer Reviewed: Evidence-Based Interventions and Screening Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer in Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans: A Content Analysis

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The extent to which Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) programs in states, tribal governments and organizations, territories, and Pacific Island jurisdictions address evidence-based recommendations and interventions for colorectal cancer in their CCC plans is largely unknown.

Methods

We downloaded CCC plans posted on the Cancer Control PLANET Web site for review. We searched the plans for key terms, identifying potential evidence-based content surrounding colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Content was abstracted for further review and classification.

Results

Of 55 plans reviewed, 54 (98%) referred to evidence-based recommendations or interventions for colorectal cancer or indicated they intended to refer to the evidence base when developing programs. More than 57% (n = 31) of programs referred to the American Cancer Society guidelines, 41% (n = 22) referred to the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and 11% (n = 6) referred to the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Few programs mentioned Research Tested Intervention Programs (n = 1), National Cancer Institute''s Physician Data Query (n = 4), Cochrane Reviews (n = 2), or Put Prevention Into Practice (n = 2) in reference to evidence-based interventions for colorectal cancer prevention.

Conclusion

Most CCC programs discussed either evidence-based screening guidelines or interventions in their cancer plans, although many mentioned this information exclusively as background information. We recommend that program planners be trained to locate evidence-based interventions and use consistent common language to describe them in their plans. CCC program planners should be encouraged to conduct and publish intervention studies.     

Developing a new perspective to study the health of survivors of Sichuan earthquakes in China: a study on the effect of post-earthquake rescue policies on survivors’ health-related quality of life

China is experiencing increased health care use and expenditures, without sufficient controls to ensure quality and value. Transparent, cost-conscious and patient-centered guidelines based on the best available evidence could help establishing these quality and practice measures. We examined how guidelines could support the Chinese health reform. Specifically, we summarized the current state of the art and related challenges in guideline development and explored possible solutions in the context of the Chinese health reform. China currently lacks capacity for evidence-based guideline development and coordination by a central agency. Most Chinese guideline users rely on recommendations developed by professional groups that lack demonstration of transparency (including conflict of interest management and evidence synthesis) and quality. These deficiencies appear larger than in other regions of the world. In addition, misperceptions about the role of guidelines in assisting practitioners as opposed to providing rules requiring adherence, and a perception that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) cannot be appropriately incorporated in guidelines are present. China’s capacity could be strengthened by a central guideline agency to provide or coordinate evidence synthesis for guideline development and to oversee the work of guideline developers. China can build on what is known and work with the international community to develop methods to meet the challenges of evidence-based guideline development.     

Rural disparities in receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults ages 50–64 with disabilities

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Early detection can reduce mortality; however, only 59% of U.S. adults age 50 and over meet recommended colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Studies in the general population have observed that rural residents are less likely to have received colorectal cancer screening than residents of urban areas.ObjectiveTo determine whether urban/rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening exist among people with disabilities, similar to the disparities found in the general population.MethodsWe analyzed Medical Expenditure Panel Survey annual data files from 2002 to 2008. We conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the relationship between urban/rural residence and ever having received screening for colorectal cancer (via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test).ResultsAmong U.S. adults ages 50–64 with disabilities, those living in rural areas were significantly less likely to have ever received any type of screening for colorectal cancer. The urban/rural difference was statistically significant regardless of whether or not we controlled for demographic, socioeconomic, health, and health care access variables.ConclusionsDisparity in screening for colorectal cancer places rural residents with disabilities at greater risk for late stage diagnosis and mortality relative to people with disabilities in urban areas. Thus, there is a need for strategies to improve screening among people with disabilities in rural areas.     

The significantly lower risk of cervical cancer at and after the recommended age to begin and end screening compared to breast and colorectal cancer

ObjectiveWe compare risk of cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer (and two pre-cancers: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2–3 and colorectal adenomas) at and after the recommended ages to begin and end screening in the United States.MethodsSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data were used with Monte Carlo simulations to estimate risk at and after the ages to screen.ResultsAt the age to begin screening, absolute risk of breast and colorectal cancer was 381 and 53 times higher, respectively, than cervical cancer (0.0122, 95% CI: 0.0089–0.0162 and 0.0017, 95% CI: 0.0012–0.0023 vs. 3.2e^− 5, 95% CI: 2.3e^− 5–4.3e^− 5). Risk of colorectal adenomas and breast cancer was 45 and 2.4 times higher than CIN 2–3 (0.2319, 95% CI: 0.1287–0.3624 and 0.0122, 95% CI: 0.0089–0.0017 vs. 0.0051, 95% CI: 0.0029–0.0081). After the age to end screening, breast and colorectal cancer risk was 17 and 11 times higher, respectively, than cervical cancer.ConclusionsRisk of cervical cancer at and after the recommended ages for screening is significantly lower than that of breast and colorectal cancer. Differences may become more pronounced in the era of HPV vaccines. Comparison of risk between cancers provides a novel perspective to inform future guideline development.     

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients’ Primary Care Contacts and Costs

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs.MethodsParticipants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls (“old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]”) or “new NICE” if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as “old NICE.” For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden.ResultsMedian contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to −£28.05, −£50.43 to −£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision.ConclusionsThe main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.     

Cancer Screening and Haitian Immigrants: The Primary Care Provider Factor

Background: Haitian immigrants, among the fastest growing immigrant communities in the United States, have low cancer screening rates. Several patient barriers have been identified and associated with low screening rates but little is known on provider barriers for cancer screening. To address this gap, we assessed the cancer screening practices, attitudes, and beliefs of primary care providers serving the Haitian community. Methods: We surveyed a random sample of physicians serving first generation Haitian immigrants in New York City, identified through their zip codes of practice. Participants completed a questionnaire to assess their beliefs, attitudes and practices surrounding cancer screening, and their perceptions of patient barriers to screening. Results: 50 of 87 physicians (58%) consented to participate in the study. Cancer site-specific and overall cancer screening scores were created for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. 75% of providers followed breast cancer screening guidelines, 16% for cervical cancer, and 30% for colorectal cancer. None of the providers in the sample were following guidelines for all three cancer sites. Additionally, 97% reported recommending digital rectal exam and PSA annually to patients 50 years or older with no family history, and 100% to patients over 50 years old with family history. Conclusions: The reported practices of providers serving the Haitian immigrant community in New York City are not fully consistent with practice guidelines. Efforts should be made to reinforce screening guideline knowledge in physicians serving the Haitian immigrant community, to increase the utilization of systems that increase cancer screening, and to implement strategies to overcome patient barriers.