Screening for ALK in non-small cell lung carcinomas: 5A4 and D5F3 antibodies perform equally well, but combined use with FISH is recommended.

OBJECTIVES: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become a promising method for pre-screening ALK-rearrangements in non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). Various ALK antibodies, detection systems and automated immunostainers are available. We therefore aimed to compare the performance of the monoclonal 5A4 (Novocastra, Leica) and D5F3 (Cell Signaling, Ventana) antibodies using two different immunostainers. Additionally we analyzed the accuracy of prospective ALK IHC-testing in routine diagnostics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two NSCLC with available ALK FISH results and enriched for FISH-positive carcinomas were retrospectively analyzed. IHC was performed on BenchMarkXT (Ventana) using 5A4 and D5F3, respectively, and additionally with 5A4 on Bond-MAX (Leica). Data from our routine diagnostics on prospective ALK-testing with parallel IHC, using 5A4, and FISH were available from 303 NSCLC. RESULTS: All three IHC protocols showed congruent results. Only 1/25 FISH-positive NSCLC (4%) was false negative by IHC. For all three IHC protocols the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) compared to FISH were 96%, 100%, 100% and 97.8%, respectively. In the prospective cohort 3/32 FISH-positive (9.4%) and 2/271 FISH-negative (0.7%) NSCLC were false negative and false positive by IHC, respectively. In routine diagnostics the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of IHC compared to FISH were 90.6%, 99.3%, 93.5% and 98.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 5A4 and D5F3 are equally well suited for detecting ALK-rearranged NSCLC. BenchMark and BOND-MAX immunostainers can be used for IHC with 5A4. True discrepancies between IHC and FISH results do exist and need to be addressed when implementing IHC in an ALK-testing algorithm.

Training primary care physicians in shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening : Insights from the first statewide colorectal cancer screening program in Switzerland

Background: The State of Vaud has launched the first population-based, organized, colorectal cancer screening program in Switzerland for the population aged 50 to 69. Each primary care physician (PCP) has been invited to participate in an interactive session preparing them to enroll patients in the screening program. We aimed at testing the impact of an interactive seminar for PCPs on their intention to discuss the options of no screening, screening with the fecal-immunological test (FIT) and colonoscopy. We measured attitude, intentions and knowledge through questionnaires filled by PCPs before and after a 2.5 hour-long interactive seminar. The main outcome was the proportion of physicians foreseeing to offer coloscopy vs FIT on an equal basis. Physicians estimated the proportion of their patients prescribed a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) vs coloscopy over the months before the seminar and after the interactive seminar. We used a clinical vignette to test for knowledge about screening indications. The interactive seminar included powerpoint presentations with quizzes and clickers, an 8-minute video presenting a shared decision making (SDM) consultation around CRC screening and distribution of educational materials such as a SDM decision aid and background epidemiological information.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Trends (2007-2012) in Socioeconomic Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Despite universal health care coverage, disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by income in Switzerland have been reported. However, it is not known if these disparities have changed over time. This study examines the association between socioeconomic position and CRC screening in Switzerland between 2007 and 2012. METHODS: Data from the 2007 (n = 5,946) and 2012 (n = 7,224) population-based Swiss Health Interview Survey data (SHIS) were used to evaluate the association between monthly household income, education, and employment with CRC screening, defined as endoscopy in the past 10 years or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in the past 2 years. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) adjusting for demographics, health status, and health utilization. RESULTS: CRC screening increased from 18.9% in 2007 to 22.2% in 2012 (padjusted: = 0.036). During the corresponding time period, endoscopy increased (8.2% vs. 15.0%, padjusted:<0.001) and FOBT decreased (13.0% vs. 9.8%, padjusted:0.002). CRC screening prevalence was greater in the highest income (>$6,000) vs. lowest income (≤$2,000) group in 2007 (24.5% vs. 10.5%, PR:1.37, 95%CI: 0.96-1.96) and in 2012 (28.6% vs. 16.0%, PR:1.45, 95%CI: 1.09-1.92); this disparity did not significantly change over time. CONCLUSIONS: While CRC screening prevalence in Switzerland increased from 2007 to 2012, CRC screening coverage remains low and disparities in CRC screening by income persisted over time. These findings highlight the need for increased access to CRC screening as well as enhanced awareness of the benefits of CRC screening in the Swiss population, particularly among low-income residents.

Participation rates for organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: an international comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Participation, an indicator of screening programme acceptance and effectiveness, varies widely in clinical trials and population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to assess whether CRC screening participation rates can be compared across organized guaiac fecal occult blood test (G-FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based programmes, and what factors influence these rates. METHODS: Programme representatives from countries participating in the International Cancer Screening Network were surveyed to describe their G-FOBT/FIT-based CRC screening programmes, how screening participation is defined and measured, and to provide participation data for their most recent completed screening round. RESULTS: Information was obtained from 15 programmes in 12 countries. Programmes varied in size, reach, maturity, target age groups, exclusions, type of test kit, method of providing test kits and use, and frequency of reminders. Coverage by invitation ranged from 30-100%, coverage by the screening programme from 7-67.7%, overall uptake/participation rate from 7-67.7%, and first invitation participation from 7-64.3%. Participation rates generally increased with age and were higher among women than men and for subsequent compared with first invitation participation. CONCLUSION: Comparisons among CRC screening programmes should be made cautiously, given differences in organization, target populations, and interpretation of indicators. More meaningful comparisons are possible if rates are calculated across a uniform age range, by gender, and separately for people invited for the first time vs. previously.

Dépistage du risque d'allergie et prévention en maternité : enquête des pratiques AllerNaiss [Screening for the risk of allergy and prevention in French maternity units: A survey].

Allergy has been on the rise for half a century and concerns nearly 30% of children; it has now become a real public health problem. The guidelines on prevention of allergy set up by the French Society of Paediatrics (SFP) and the European Society of Paediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ESPACI) are based on screening children at risk through a systematic search of the family history and recommend, for children at risk, exclusive breastfeeding whenever possible or otherwise utilization of hypoallergenic infant formula, which has demonstrated efficacy. The AllerNaiss practice survey assessed the modes of screening and prevention of allergy in French maternity units in 2012. The SFP guidelines are known by 82% of the maternity units that took part in the survey, and the ESPACI guidelines by 55% of them. A screening strategy is in place in 59% of the participating maternity wards, based on local consensus for 36% of them, 13% of the units having a written screening procedure. Screening is based on the search for a history of allergy in first-degree relatives (99%) during pregnancy (51%), in the delivery room (50%), and after delivery (89%). A mode of prevention of the risk of allergy exists in 62% of the maternity units, most often in writing (49%). A hypoallergenic infant formula is prescribed for non-breastfed children in 90% of the units. The survey shows that there is a real need for formalization of allergy risk screening and prevention of allergy in newborns in French maternity units.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: What About Screening?

The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in general population is 4-9% with a high mortality rate when ruptured. Therefore, screening programs were developed in many countries to detect small and large AAA in selected patients. Indeed, prevalence of AAA increases in patients over 65 years old with cigarette smoking history. This paper reviews recent literature related to AAA screening focusing on epidemiology, screening tests and evidence based medicine to highlight not only advantages but also disadvantages of screening programs among population.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0·52, CI 0·28 to 0·96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0·66, CI 0·46 to 0·96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0·40, CI 0·20 to 0·80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.

Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?

For decades, lung cancer has been the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality. There has been very little improvement in the prognosis of lung cancer. Early treatment following early diagnosis is considered to have potential for development. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large, well-designed randomized controlled trial, evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a screening tool for lung cancer. Compared with chest X-ray, annual LDCT screening reduced death from lung cancer and overall mortality by 20 and 6.7 %, respectively, in high-risk people aged 55-74 years. Several smaller trials of LDCT screening are under way, but none are sufficiently powered to detect a 20 % reduction in lung cancer death. Thus, it is very unlikely that the NLST results will be replicated. In addition, the NLST raises several issues related to screening, such as the high false-positive rate, overdiagnosis and cost. Healthcare providers and systems are now left with the question of whether the available findings should be translated into practice. We present the main reasons for implementing lung cancer screening in high-risk adults and discuss the main issues related to lung cancer screening. We stress the importance of eligibility criteria, smoking cessation programs, primary care physicians, and informed-decision making should lung cancer screening be implemented. Seven years ago, we were waiting for the results of trials. Such evidence is now available. Similar to almost all other cancer screens, uncertainties exist and persist even after recent scientific efforts and data. We believe that by staying within the characteristics of the original trial and appropriately sharing the evidence as well as the uncertainties, it is reasonable to implement a LDCT lung cancer screening program for smokers and former smokers.

On the rationale of population screening for chronic kidney disease : a public health perspective

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its complications represent an enormous and increasing public health burden worldwide [1]. More than one in ten adults suffers from CKD in the general population [2], with a majority of people being in its early stages (i.e. 1 to 3) [2]. In the general population, the prevalence of CKD sharply increases with age [3]. CKD can be considered as a condition associated with premature ageing with accelerated vascular disease [4]. The large number of people with CKD, or at high risk of CKD (i.e. patients with hypertension, diabetes and/or CVD), implies that primary care providers and specialists other than nephrologists frequently encounter patients with CKD [5], a situation in which most CKD cases are diagnosed via opportunistic kidney function screening or automated eGFR reporting. The aim of this review is to discuss the rationale and currently available evidence for, or against, population-based screening for CKD. The focus will be on the situation of screening asymptomatic individuals at early stages of CKD regardless of the presence or absence of CKD risk factors.