Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England

Objectives: The introduction of primary HPV testing in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England means the screening interval for 25-49-year-olds can be extended from 3 to 5 years. We explored womens responses to the proposed interval extension. Methods: We conducted semi-structured phone/video interviews with 22 women aged 25-49 years. Participants were selected to vary in age, socioeconomics, and screening history. We explored attitudes to the current 3-year interval, then acceptability of a 5-year interval. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. Results: Attitudes to the current 3-year interval varied; some wanted more frequent screening, believing cancer develops quickly. Some participants worried about the proposed change; others trusted it was evidence-based. Frequent questions concerned the rationale and safety of longer intervals, speed of cancer development, the possibility of HPV being missed or cell changes occurring between screens. Many participants felt reassured when the interval change was explained alongside the move to HPV primary screening, of which most had previously been unaware. Conclusions: Communication of the interval change should be done in the context of broader information about HPV primary screening, emphasising that people who test negative for HPV are at lower risk of cell changes so can safely be screened every 5 years. The long time needed for HPV to develop into cervical cancer provides reassurance about safety, but it is important to be transparent that no screening test is perfect.

Sensitivity and reliability of screening measures for paternal postpartum depression: an integrative review

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends screening mothers for Postpartum Depression (PPD) during the postpartum period. Research shows depression in parents is associated with impaired growth and development in their children. The National Perinatal Association (NPA) encourages screening fathers for depression at least twice during the first postpartum year, however a preferred screening tool has yet to be determined. To promote optimal outcomes for children, providers must assess the mental health of all new parents, regardless of gender. Therefore, the purpose of this integrative review is to examine previous scientific evidence regarding the sensitivity of screening measures for postpartum depression in fathers. Future research should be directed towards describing the psychometric properties of a tool to assess postpartum mood disorders in American fathers while analyzing appropriate screening intervals during the postpartum period.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC)

Background Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50–69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45–49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50–69. In women 70–74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. Conclusions In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50–69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70–74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Estimates of stage-specific preclinical sojourn time across 21 cancer types.

e18584 Background: Cancer progression rates following diagnosis are readily measured. However, the progression rate of cancer during the preclinical sojourn time is generally unobserved. Understanding the duration of preclinical stages (“dwell time”) would allow clinicians to better identify appropriate screening intervals for cancer. We therefore elicited estimates of progression rate during the preclinical sojourn time for a wide variety of malignancies from a panel of clinical experts. Methods: We used a validated consensus methodology (RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method) to elicit per-stage dwell time estimates for 20 solid cancers and lymphoma from experts. Eleven experienced oncologists (general and subspecialists) from community and academic centers reviewed literature on the natural history of disease and estimated in number of years (<1 to 9+ years) how long it would take each cancer to progress from the beginning of clinically detectable Stage I/II/III to the beginning of the next stage in untreated adults. Cancer histological subtypes were grouped and experts were asked to provide an overall rating. Ratings were completed before and after a discussion of areas of disagreement. Results: Expert estimates and range of dwell time for 21 cancer types are provided in Table. Prostate and thyroid cancer were estimated to be the slowest growing, taking approximately 7 and 5 years respectively to progress through Stage I (range 4-8), 5 years to progress through Stage II (range 3-7), and 3 and 4 (range 2-5) years respectively to progress through Stage III. Esophageal, lung, liver/intrahepatic bile-duct, gallbladder, and pancreatic cancers were estimated to progress quickly through all three stages (1-2 years per stage). Conclusions: These findings summarize practicing oncologists’ estimates of dwell time in preclinical disease. Experts agreed on dwell times although ranges were large and differences in cancer subtypes were not captured. Generally, estimates trend with published data on survival with treatment: cancers with higher survival (e.g., prostate, thyroid) were estimated to grow slower, while cancers with lower survival (e.g., pancreatic, liver/intrahepatic bile-duct, gallbladder) were estimated to grow faster. These estimates could be useful when determining screening intervals for these or any subset of these cancers. [Table: see text]