How to prevent overdiagnosis

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of an abnormality that is not associated with a substantial health hazard and that patients have no benefit to be aware of. It is neither a misdiagnosis (diagnostic error), nor a false positive result (positive test in the absence of a real abnormality). It mainly results from screening, use of increasingly sensitive diagnostic tests, incidental findings on routine examinations, and widening diagnostic criteria to define a condition requiring an intervention. The blurring boundaries between risk and disease, physicians' fear of missing a diagnosis and patients' need for reassurance are further causes of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis often implies procedures to confirm or exclude the presence of the condition and is by definition associated with useless treatments and interventions, generating harm and costs without any benefit. Overdiagnosis also diverts healthcare professionals from caring about other health issues. Preventing overdiagnosis requires increasing awareness of healthcare professionals and patients about its occurrence, the avoidance of unnecessary and untargeted diagnostic tests, and the avoidance of screening without demonstrated benefits. Furthermore, accounting systematically for the harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic tests and determining risk factor thresholds based on the expected absolute risk reduction would also help prevent overdiagnosis.

Causes and implications of overdiagnosis

Background: Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of a condition not associated with a substantial risk for health in an asymptomatic person. There are several causes of overdiagnosis. Clinical and public health implications of overdiagnosis are underappreciated. Objective: To review the causes of overdiagnosis, and its clinical and public health implications Method: Narrative review Results: Overdiagnosis results from some screening activities, increasingly sensitive diagnostic test procedures, incidental findings on routine exams, and widening diagnostic criteria to define a condition requiring an intervention. The fear of missing a diagnosis and the patients' requests for reassurance are further causes of overdiagnosis. Examples of overdiagnosis include some cases of breast and prostate cancers found by screening, pulmonary emboli identified on highly sensitive CT-scans, and kidney cancers found incidentally following abdominal CTscans. Lowering the critical levels of blood pressure, glycemia, and cholesterol to define hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia, respectively, is also the causes of overdiagnosis. An overdiagnosed condition implies unnecessary procedures to confirm or exclude the presence of the disease and unnecessary treatments, both having potential adverse effects. Overdiagnosis also diverts health professionals from caring about other health issues and generates costs without any benefit. Measures to prevent overdiagnosis are notably 1) to increase awareness of health professionals and the population about its occurrence, 2) to account systematically for the risks and benefits of screening and diagnostic procedures using an evidence-based framework, and 3) to decide at which risk level to intervene based on the absolute risk of health events and the absolute risk reduction expected from an intervention. Conclusion: Overdiagnosis has major clinical and public health implications. Increasing awareness of its causes and implications is a step toward its prevention.

May increasing incidence of breast cancer be related to overdiagnosis? : a population-based study

Background: Breast cancer is the first cause of cancer in women in Switzerland. While breast cancer mortality has sharply decreased in the two last decades in Switzerland, the incidence of breast cancer has increased during the same period. Various reasons for this increase have been hypothesized, such as the increase in the prevalence of obesity, the use of postmenauposal hormone replacement therapy, or a later age for having a first child. Overdiagnosis secondary to screening and any other forms of early detection procedures could be also involved. Analyses of breast cancer by stage can help evaluate if overdiagnosis could have contributed to the increase in the incidence of breast cancer. Methods: We used data from the Valais cancer registry at the Observatoire valaisan de la santé (www.ovs.ch). This population based registry collects data on all new (incident) cases of cancer diagnosed in women living in one canton of Switzerland, Valais. Cancers are coded according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O-3) and the stages are coded according to the TNM classification. Information on breast cancer stage (in situ: 0; invasive: I, II, III, IV) was available for all cases recorded between 1993 and 2011 (N=4246). Standardized rates of breast cancer were computed (direct standardization on European population).

Screening and overdiagnosis : public health implications

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of an abnormality that bears no substantial health hazard and no benefit for patients to be aware of. Resulting mainly from the use of increasingly sensitive screening and diagnostic tests, as well as broadened definitions of conditions requiring an intervention, overdiagnosis is a growing but still largely misunderstood public health issue. Fear of missing a diagnosis or of litigation, financial incentives or patient's need of reassurance are further causes of overdiagnosis. The main consequence of overdiagnosis is overtreatment. Treating an overdiagnosed condition bears no benefit but can cause harms and generates costs. Overtreatment also diverts health professionals from caring for those most severely ill. Recognition of overdiagnosis due to screening is challenging since it is rarely identifiable at the individual level and difficult to quantify precisely at the population level. Overdiagnosis exists even for screening of proven efficacy and efficiency. Measures to reduce overdiagnosis due to screening include heightened sensitization of health professionals and patients, active surveillance and deferred treatment until early signs of disease progression and prognosis estimation through biomarkers (including molecular) profiling. Targeted screening and balanced information on its risk and benefits would also help limit overdiagnosis. Research is needed to assess the the public health burden and implications of overdiagnosis due to screening activity.

Dépistage du cancer pulmonaire par scanner thoracique [Computed tomography screening for lung cancer].

Lung cancer screening has been the focus of intense interest since the publication in 2011 of the NLST trial (National Lung Screening Trial) showing a mortality reduction in smokers undergoing 3-year screening by chest computed tomography. Although these data appear promising, many issues remain to be resolved, such as high rate of false positive cases, risk of overdiagnosis, optimal intervals between screens, duration of the screening process, feasibility, and cost. Structured screening programs appear crucial to guarantee patient information, technical quality, and multidisciplinary management. Despite these uncertainties, several guidelines already state that screening should be performed in patients at risk, whereas investigators stress that more data are needed. How should the primary care physician deal with individual patients requests? This review provides some clues on this complex issue.

Lessons From the Swiss Medical Board Recommendation Against Mammography Screening Programs

When the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009 recommended against universal breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years, some scientists, radiologists, politicians, and patients strongly objected. The controversy has been called the "mammography wars." The latest chapter in these wars comes from the Swiss Medical Board, which is mandated by the Conference of Health Ministers of the Swiss Cantons, the Swiss Medical Association, and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences to conduct health technology assessments. In a February 2014 report, the Swiss Medical Board stated that new systematic mammography screening programs should not be introduced, irrespective of the age of the women, and that existing programs should be discontinued. The board's main argument was that the absolute reduction in breast cancer mortality was low and that the adverse consequences of the screening were substantial. The absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality has been estimated by the board at 0.16% for women screened during 6.2 years and followed-up over 13 years, based on the results of a recent Cochrane Review. The adverse consequences include falsepositive test results, overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients, and high costs, including the expense of follow-up testing and procedures.

Refining abacavir hypersensitivity diagnoses using a structured clinical assessment and genetic testing in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the value of a structured clinical assessment and genetic testing for refining the diagnosis of abacavir hypersensitivity reactions (ABC-HSRs) in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: We performed a diagnostic reassessment using a structured patient chart review in individuals who had stopped ABC because of suspected HSR. Two HIV physicians blinded to the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing results independently classified these individuals on a scale between 3 (ABC-HSR highly likely) and -3 (ABC-HSR highly unlikely). Scoring was based on symptoms, onset of symptoms and comedication use. Patients were classified as clinically likely (mean score > or =2), uncertain (mean score > or = -1 and < or = 1) and unlikely (mean score < or = -2). HLA typing was performed using sequence-based methods. RESULTS: From 131 reassessed individuals, 27 (21%) were classified as likely, 43 (33%) as unlikely and 61 (47%) as uncertain ABC-HSR. Of the 131 individuals with suspected ABC-HSR, 31% were HLA-B*5701-positive compared with 1% of 140 ABC-tolerant controls (P < 0.001). HLA-B*5701 carriage rate was higher in individuals with likely ABC-HSR compared with those with uncertain or unlikely ABC-HSR (78%, 30% and 5%, respectively, P < 0.001). Only six (7%) HLA-B*5701-negative individuals were classified as likely HSR after reassessment. CONCLUSIONS: HLA-B*5701 carriage is highly predictive of clinically diagnosed ABC-HSR. The high proportion of HLA-B*5701-negative individuals with minor symptoms among individuals with suspected HSR indicates overdiagnosis of ABC-HSR in the era preceding genetic screening. A structured clinical assessment and genetic testing could reduce the rate of inappropriate ABC discontinuation and identify individuals at high risk for ABC-HSR.

Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images.

STUDY DESIGN.: Retrospective radiologic study on a prospective patient cohort. OBJECTIVE.: To devise a qualitative grading of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), study its reliability and clinical relevance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Radiologic stenosis is assessed commonly by measuring dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA). Great variation is observed though in surfaces recorded between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. METHODS.: We describe a 7-grade classification based on the morphology of the dural sac as observed on T2 axial magnetic resonance images based on the rootlet/cerebrospinal fluid ratio. Grades A and B show cerebrospinal fluid presence while grades C and D show none at all. The grading was applied to magnetic resonance images of 95 subjects divided in 3 groups as follows: 37 symptomatic LSS surgically treated patients; 31 symptomatic LSS conservatively treated patients (average follow-up, 2.5 and 3.1 years); and 27 low back pain (LBP) sufferers. DSCA was also digitally measured. We studied intra- and interobserver reliability, distribution of grades, relation between morphologic grading and DSCA, as well relation between grades, DSCA, and Oswestry Disability Index. RESULTS.: Average intra- and interobserver agreement was substantial and moderate, respectively (k = 0.65 and 0.44), whereas they were substantial for physicians working in the study originating unit. Surgical patients had the smallest DSCA. A larger proportion of C and D grades was observed in the surgical group. Surface measurementsresulted in overdiagnosis of stenosis in 35 patients and under diagnosis in 12. No relation could be found between stenosis grade or DSCA and baseline Oswestry Disability Index or surgical result. C and D grade patients were more likely to fail conservative treatment, whereas grades A and B were less likely to warrant surgery. CONCLUSION.: The grading defines stenosis in different subjects than surface measurements alone. Since it mainly considers impingement of neural tissue it might be a more appropriate clinical and research tool as well as carrying a prognostic value.

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.

IRM dans le diagnostic des spondyloarthrites axiales: utilité et pièges diagnostiques [MRI of axial spondyloarthritis: diagnostic role and pitfalls].

MRI has become a major tool for the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis and provides objective signs based on which therapy can be initiated. In clinical practice, ASAS classification criteria are often applied for the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis at a pre-radiographic stage. However, MRI signs of spondyloarthritis as stated in ASAS criteria lack specificity, and can be encountered in a wide array of diagnoses, in particular degenerative and mechanical conditions. In this article, we will review the role of MRI in the diagnosis and classification of spondyloarthritis, general technical considerations, the elementary MRI signs of axial spondyloarthritis, as well as diagnostic pitfalls. We also provide a practical approach on how to avoid overdiagnosis of spondyloarthritis and to improve the diagnostic value of MRI.