Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines are summarized, and the most current data from the National Health Interview Survey are provided on the utilization of cancer screening for men and women and on the adherence of men and women to multiple recommended screening tests.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current ACS cancer screening guidelines, including the update of the breast cancer screening guideline, discuss quality issues in colorectal cancer screening and new developments in lung cancer screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:95–114. © 2016 American Cancer Society.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, the authors summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines, describe an update of their guideline for using human papillomavirus vaccination for cancer prevention, describe updates in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening, discuss interim findings from the UK Collaborative Trial on Ovarian Cancer Screening, and provide the latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:100–121. © 2017 American Cancer Society.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection along with a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current ACS cancer screening guidelines. The latest data on utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) also is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:30–54. © 2015 American Cancer Society.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, we summarize current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines. In addition, the latest data on the use of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey is described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the expansion of the Medicaid program. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:30–51. ^© 2014 American Cancer Society, Inc.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2013

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this issue of the journal, current ACS cancer screening guidelines are summarized, as are updated guidelines on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening with low‐dose helical computed tomography. The latest data on the use of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey also are described, as are several issues related to screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;. © 2013 American Cancer Society.     

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening

Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early cancer detection, a report on data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. This article summarizes the current ACS guidelines, describes the anticipated impact of new health care reform legislation on cancer screening, and discusses recent public debates over the comparative effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening tests. The latest data on the utilization of cancer screening from the National Health Interview Survey is described, as well as several recent reports on the role of health care professionals in adult utilization of cancer screening.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening

Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a report summarizing its recommendations for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In 2008, the ACS, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, the Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American College of Radiology issued a joint update of guidelines for colorectal cancer screening in average‐risk adults. In this issue, the current ACS guidelines and recent issues are summarized, updates of testing guidelines for early prostate cancer detection and colorectal cancer screening by the United States Preventive Services Task Force are discussed, and the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to participation rates in cancer screening are described. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:27–41. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Cancer screening in the United States, 2008: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and cancer screening issues

Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early cancer detection and a summary of the most current data on cancer screening rates and trends in US adults. In 2007, the ACS updated its colorectal cancer screening guidelines in a collaborative effort with the US Multi-Society Task Force and the American College of Radiology. In this issue of the journal, we summarize the current ACS guidelines, provide an update of the most recent data pertaining to participation rates in cancer screening from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health Interview Survey, and address some issues related to access to care.     

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high‐risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low‐dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high‐volume, high‐quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30–pack‐year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision‐making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low‐dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;. © 2013 American Cancer Society.     

Prostate cancer screening and mortality: A case-control study (United States)

OBJECTIVE: We performed a case-control study at Kaiser Permanente Northwest to assess the association between digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, separately and together, and prostate cancer mortality. METHODS: We identified 171 KPNW members who died as a result of prostate cancer from 1992 to 1999 and 342 randomly-selected KPNW members matched to the cases on age, sex, and length of plan membership. History of screening was determined from medical records and laboratory databases for cases and controls. RESULTS: DRE and/or PSA screening at any time up to and including the case diagnosis date had taken place among 69.0% of cases and 74.6% of controls. After using logistic regression analysis to adjust for matching variables and a provider diagnosis of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), we found an inverse association between receipt of a prostate cancer screening test and prostate cancer mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46 - 1.1). Most of the screening tests were DREs, and it was not possible to assess the separate influence of PSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that men who have been screened for prostate cancer have a reduced risk of dying as a result of this disease.     

Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model‐recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high‐sensitivity stool‐based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average‐risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high‐sensitivity, guaiac‐based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250–281 . © 2018 American Cancer Society .     

Population‐based programs for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Screening to detect polyps or cancer at an early stage has been shown to produce better outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Programs with a population‐based approach can reach a large majority of the eligible population and can offer cost‐effective interventions with the potential benefit of maximizing early cancer detection and prevention using a complete follow‐up plan. The purpose of this review was to summarize the key features of population‐based programs to increase CRC screening in the United States. A search was conducted in the SCOPUS, OvidSP, and PubMed databases. The authors selected published reports of population‐based programs that met at least 5 of the 6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for cancer prevention and were known to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Interventions at the level of individual practices were not included in this review. IARC cancer prevention criteria served as a framework to assess the effective processes and elements of a population‐based program. Eight programs were included in this review. Half of the programs met all IARC criteria, and all programs led to improvements in screening rates. The rate of colonoscopy after a positive stool test was heterogeneous among programs. Different population‐based strategies were used to promote these screening programs, including system‐based, provider‐based, patient‐based, and media‐based strategies. Treatment of identified cancer cases was not included explicitly in 4 programs but was offered through routine medical care. Evidence‐based methods for promoting CRC screening at a population level can guide the development of future approaches in health care prevention. The key elements of a successful population‐based approach include adherence to the 6 IARC criteria and 4 additional elements (an identified external funding source, a structured policy for positive fecal occult blood test results and confirmed cancer cases, outreach activities for recruitment and patient education, and an established rescreening process). CA Cancer J Clin 2015. © 2015 American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:496–510 . © 2015 American Cancer Society.     

Breast cancer screening

Radiographic imaging of the breast began in the early years of the twentieth century. Continuous advances in film quality, energy sources, targets, grids, and filters have all contributed to superior image resolution. Federal quality standards now regulate screening mammography, and mass screening for breast cancer has become widely accepted in the United States. Wider application of screening has resulted in a dramatic apparent increase in incidence rates of breast cancer; a large proportion of this increase is in ductal carcinoma in situ. During the past 30 years, nine prospective, randomized trials to evaluate the ability of screening mammography to reduce mortality from breast cancer have been completed. These trials show a 30% reduction in mortality for women ages 50–69 years, but the benefit to women aged 40–49 years remains uncertain. This uncertainty is largely attributable to the lack of properly designed and conducted studies to evaluate screening efficacy in younger women. Although there is no biological reason to predict poor screening performance in the younger age groups, the sensitivity of screening mammography is lower in younger women. Additional data suggest that screening intervals longer than 12 months are ineffective in women younger than 50 years. With shorter screening intervals, the cost associated with screening mammography is comparable to other life-saving measures widely applied in the population. New breast imaging techniques hold promise for superior image quality, but they remain investigational as tools for mass screening. Until primary prevention of breast cancer is a reality, mass screening remains available to reduce mortality from breast cancer.     

Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States

BACKGROUND:

This paper examines the prevalence of cancer screening use as reported in 2005 among US adults, focusing on differences among historically underserved subgroups. We also examine trends from 1992 through 2005 to determine whether differences in screening use are increasing, staying the same, or decreasing.

METHODS:

Data from the National Health Interview Surveys between 1992 and 2005 were analyzed to describe patterns and trends in cancer screening practices, including Papanicolaou test, mammography, prostate‐specific antigen, and colorectal screening. Logistic regression was used to report 2005 data for population subgroups defined by several demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

RESULTS:

Rates of use for cancer tests are rising only for colorectal cancer, due largely to the increase in colorectal endoscopy screening. Use of all the modalities was strongly influenced by contact with a physician and by having health insurance coverage.

CONCLUSIONS:

There remain large gaps in use for all screening modalities by education, income, usual source of care, health insurance, and recent physician contact. These specific populations would benefit from interventions to overcome these barriers to screening. Cancer 2010. Published 2010 by the American Cancer Society.     

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening’s contribution to cancer control

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.     

Breast cancer screening practices among women in the United States, 2000

Results from recent studies indicate that many women in the US undergo routine screening for breast cancer, but some groups of women are under-screened. In this study, we examined the breast cancer screening practices of white and black women in the United States, according to Hispanic ethnicity and other factors, using data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Among women aged > or =40 years, 71.2% (95% confidence interval, CI: 70.0-72.4%) of the 8201 white women and 67.6% (95% CI: 64.5-70.6%) of the 1474 black women in this sample reported having a mammogram in the past two years. About 60.3% (95% CI: 56.7-70.3%) of 970 Hispanic women (including those who reported they were white or black) and 71.5% (95% CI: 70.3-72.7%) of 8705 non-Hispanic women reported having a mammogram in the past two years. About 74.8% (95% CI: 73.8-76.8%) of 8176 white women and 73.8% (95% CI: 71.1-76.6%) of 1471 black women aged > or =40 years had received a clinical breast examination in the past two years. About 60.1% (95% CI: 56.1-64.0%) of 969 Hispanic women (including those who reported they were white or black) and 75.6% (95% CI: 74.6-76.6%) of 8678 non-Hispanic women had received a clinical breast examination in the past two years. Women with lower incomes, those with less education, and recent immigrants were less likely to be screened. Women who had a usual source of health care and those with health insurance coverage were more likely to have been screened. These results underscore the need for continued efforts to ensure that uninsured women and those who are medically underserved have access to cancer screening services.     

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.