#FIRMday Oct 22nd London 2015 - Best practice in people screening programmes
Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes
Transcript of Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes
![Page 1: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Possibilities of New
Cancer Screening
ProgrammesProf. Bob Steele
University of Dundee and UK NSC
![Page 2: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
UK National Screening
Committee (NSC)
• Advises ministers and NHS
• Keeps abreast of new evidence
• Is accountable to the 4 CMOs
![Page 3: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Advising on Screening Policy
(UK NSC)
• Starting screening
• Modifying screening
• Stopping screening
• Stopping screening starting
![Page 4: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Screening is Popular
• Most people have a negative test
• A few people have screen-detected disease
and are cured
• A few people have a false +ve test
• A few people are harmed by false
reassurance, investigations or treatment
![Page 5: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Screening RCTsPopulation
No screening
offered
Screening
Offered(including those who
choose not to participate
and those developing
interval disease)
Compare numbers of deaths or adverse
outcomes from disease
![Page 6: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Benefit to
people
with disease
Harm to people
with disease
and
HARM TO THE
HEALTHY
POPULATION
![Page 7: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Possible Future Population Cancer
Screening Programmes
• Prostate
• Ovary
• Lung
![Page 8: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Prostate Cancer Screening
![Page 9: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RCTs of PSA Screening
21% reduction in prostate cancer deaths
but…
28 patients needed to treat to prevent 1
cancer death
1 cancer death avoided for 1000 men
screened over 10 years
![Page 10: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Harm
• Biopsy induced sepsis
– 1/1000 screened
• Side effects of Surgery
– Incontinence - 3/1000 screened
– Impotence – 25/1000 screened
![Page 11: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ProtecT Study
• PSA-detected early prostate cancer
• Three-way randomisation
– Active monitoring
– Conformal RT + NA androgen suppression
– Radical Prostatectomy
![Page 12: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ProtecT Study Results
• No difference in prostate cancer deaths
at 10 years
• But – higher rates of metastatic disease
in the active monitoring group.
![Page 13: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
ProtecT Study @ 10 years
Surgery
n=533
Radiotherapy
n=545
Monitoring
n=545
Recurrence
Deaths 5
331613
84
![Page 14: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
CAP Trial2001-2009 (FU until 2016)
• Cluster RCT of PSA Testing
• Random assignment of primary care
centres
– Standard Care (no routine PSA testing)
– ProtecT (written invitation to PSA testing to
228,966 men in 337 practices)
![Page 15: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CAP Trial
Martin et al
JAMA
2018
Incidence
Mortality
![Page 16: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Where now?
• More discriminatory biomarkers?
• PSA trajectory?
• Multiparametric MRI?
• PET/CT/MRI?
![Page 17: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Ovarian Cancer
![Page 18: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
UKCTOCS RCT
• 202638 women aged 50-74 randomised
between 2001-2005
• No screening
• Annual transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)
• Annual CA125 with TVU if indicated by
ROCA (MMS)
![Page 20: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
UKCTOCS – 14 yr FU
Arm Sensitivity
%
Specificity
%
PPV %
MSS 89.4 99.8 43.3
TVU 84.9 98.2 5.3
Disease specific mortality reduction over 14 years:
MMS – 15%
TVU – 11%Not significant – Longer term follow up needed
![Page 21: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lung Cancer Screening
![Page 22: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
NELSON2003-2015
• High risk group identified by
questionnaire to 50-75 age range
• Current or former smokers aged 50-75
(n=15600) recruited into trial
• CT vs. No screening
• 26% reduction in LC death
![Page 23: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
What does the evidence tell
us?
• LDCT in engaged, high-risk people
prevents lung cancer death
• Therefore, those at risk should have
the opportunity to request LDCT
screening
![Page 24: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
What does this not tell us?
That population screening for lung
cancer is necessarily a good thing.
![Page 25: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
NELSON
606406
150920 (24.9%)
30959 (20.5%)
Age + SH
15822 (51.1%)
7557 had CT
70 (0.9%)
1500 (19.8%)
70 (0.01%)
Population
Responded
Agreed to RCT
Cancers
Population CDR
Eligible
False positives
![Page 26: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
So…
• 2.6% of whole population entered trial
• But ~ 26% of adults in Belgium and the
Netherlands were smoking daily in 2015
• 10% of the target population entered the
trial
![Page 27: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Why does this matter?
A - high risk in trial
B - high risk not in trial
C – not high risk A is not the same as B
![Page 28: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Can B be identified?
• Questionnaires don’t work
• GP records
– How complete?
– How feasible?
• May introduce inequalities
![Page 29: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
If B is identified and invited:
• They may not attend
– More likely in those of lower SES
• They are likely to be heavier smokers
with more co-morbidity
• Therefore may
– Be less able to withstand treatment
– Have more false positives
– Have more aggressive disease
![Page 30: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Harm to the “Healthy” Population ?
• False positives leading to invasive
investigation
• False positives leading to early repeat LDCT
– psychological morbidity
• Use of radiology resource
• Effect on quit rates?
![Page 31: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Where now?
• Can we recommend screening for lung
cancer?
– Yes, for those that are engaged
• Can we recommend population
screening for lung cancer?
– Not yet
![Page 32: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Way forward for targeted Lung
Cancer Screening
• Information aimed at the general population
and general practice
– Current and past smokers should be considered for
LDCT screening and smoking cessation
• Clear process for a targeted screening
programme with managed and efficient recall
(surveillance) and strict quality assurance
![Page 33: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
• Reliable method of identifying the whole at-risk
population
• Evidence from randomisation at the point of
invitation
What is needed for a population
screening programme?
![Page 34: Possibilities of New Cancer Screening Programmes](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012207/61deaad8e80436447200798f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
“All screening programmes do harm. Some do good as well
and, of these, some do more good than harm at reasonable
cost. It is the responsibility of policy-makers, public health
practitioners, managers and clinicians to ensure that only
programmes that do more good than harm at reasonable cost
are implemented and, when they are implemented, that they
are managed in such a way as to achieve a level of quality
which will ensure that the balance of good and harm
demonstrated in research is reproduced in real life.”
Muir Gray, 2007