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.

[Approach to prostate cancer in men older than 75 years: active or passive?]

Based on the exponential aging of the population and the increasing life expectancy in industrialized western countries, prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is becoming a disease of increasing significance. Consensus exists that men over the age of 75 years should not be screened for PCa; however, higher age as a single parameter should not exclude men from being diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated accordingly. It is well-known that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are frequent in this age group. Competing mortality risks of men older than 75 years may supersede the risk of dying from PCa several fold. Both the treating physician and the patient himself should therefore balance the possible risks and benefits of diagnosing and treating prostate cancer concerning the impact on quality of life. This is of special importance when taking into account that the complication rates of curative treatment modalities are higher in older patients than in younger men and that hormonal treatment might have negative effects especially in older men.Age, existing comorbidities, cognitive and physical status in combination with specific tumor parameters are useful tools for an individualized treatment.Therapy should be considered for healthy, active men aged 75 years or older who present with high-risk PCa and/or with a PSA doubling time <12 months. Elderly men who are unfit or have low to intermediate risk PCa will most likely not benefit from treatment.

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.

Prostate cancer: to screen or not to screen?

Unfortunately, interim analyses of the long-awaited ERSPC and PLCO trial data have generated conflicting conclusions. Here, two European authors speculate as to the reasons underlying this contradiction, while highlighting clinically relevant points that are supported by both studies. Particular attention is paid to the potential consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Cancer screening - principles, evaluation and implementation

Screening for malignant disease aims to reduce the population risk of impaired health due to the tumor in question. Screening does not only entail testing but covers all steps required to achieve the intended reduction in risk, from the appropriate information of the population to a suitable therapy. Screening tests are performed in individuals free or unaware of any symptoms associated with the tumor. An essential condition is a recognizable pathological abnormality, which occurs without symptoms and represents a pre-clinical, early stage of the tumor. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment have only recently been recognized as important problems of screening for malignant disease. Overdiagnosis is defined as a screening-detected tumor that would never have led to symptoms. In prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer 50 % - 70 % of screening-detected cancers represent such overdiagnoses. Similarly, in the case of mammography screening 20 % - 30 % of screening-detected breast cancers are overdiagnoses. The evaluation of screening interventions is often affected by biases such as healthy screenee effects or length and lead time bias. Randomized controlled trials are therefore needed to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of screening interventions and to define the rate of adverse outcomes such as unnecessary diagnostic evaluations, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Unfortunately there is no independent Swiss body comparable to the National Screening Committee in the United Kingdom or the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which examines screening tests and programs and develops recommendations. Clearly defined goals, a central organization responsible for inviting eligible individuals, documentation and quality assurance and balanced information of the public are important attributes of successful screening programs. In Switzerland the establishment of such programs is hampered by the highly fragmented, Federal health system which allows patients to access specialists directly.

Mammografie-Screening

Nur wenige Vorsorgeuntersuchungen sind so umfassend in randomisiert-kon- trollierten Studien (RCTs) untersucht worden wie das Screening auf Brustkrebs mit Hilfe der Mammografie. Es liegen derzeit acht große randomisiert-kontrol- lierte Studien und mehrere Meta-Analysen vor. Letztere kommen mehrheitlich zum Schluss, dass sich die Brustkrebssterblichkeit durch Mammografie-Screening um etwa 20 % senken lässt. Dies bedeutet im Schweizer Kontext, dass etwa 1 von 1'000 Frauen weniger an Brustkrebs stirbt, wenn Frauen ab dem 50. Lebensjahr zehn Jahre lang gescreent werden. Andererseits führt das Screening auch zu Überdiagnosen und Übertherapien. So nimmt die Zahl der Brustkrebsdiagnosen um etwa 20 % zu, was zu einer entsprechenden Zunahme an chirurgischen Ein- griffen, Strahlen- und Chemotherapien führt. Über zehn Jahre gerechnet, erhal- ten etwa 4 von 1'000 Frauen eine Brustkrebsdiagnose, die sie ohne Screening nicht erhalten hätten. Etwa 200 von 1'000 Frauen sind im Verlaufe von zehn Jahren (fünf Screening-Runden) mit abklärungsbedürftigen Befunden konfron- tiert, wobei es sich dabei mehrheitlich um falsch positive Befunde handelt. Gleichzeitig werden auch mit einem Screening-Programm 20 bis 30 % der Brust- krebse nicht im Screening erfasst. Die Information der Bevölkerung bezüglich des Mammografie-Screenings ist derzeit noch mangelhaft. Dies führt dazu, dass der mögliche Nutzen von den betroffenen Frauen überschätzt und der Schaden unterschätzt wird. Die Aufklärung der Bevölkerung im Hinblick auf Nutzen und Risiken des Mammografie-Screenings muss daher verbessert werden, denn Frau- en haben einen Anspruch auf evidenzbasierte Informationen und eine „infor- mierte Entscheidung“.

Psychotische Störungen im DSM-5

This article provides an overview of the main changes in the chapter "Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders" from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5, which, once again, does not make allowance for potential characteristics of children and adolescents. Changes in the main text include abandoning the classical subtypes of Schizophrenia as well as of the special significance of Schneider's first-rank symptoms, resulting in the general requirement of two key features (one having to be a positive symptom) in the definition of Schizophrenia and the allowance for bizarre contents in Delusional Disorders. Further introduced are the diagnosis of a delusional obsessive-compulsive/body dysmorphic disorder exclusively as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, the specification of affective episodes in Schizoaffective Disorder, and the formulation of a distinct subchapter "Catatonia" for the assessment of catatonic features in the context of several disorders. In Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) there is a recommendation for a dimensional description of psychoses. A likely source of confusion lies in the double introduction of an "Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome." On the one hand, a vague description is provided among "Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders" in the main text; on the other hand, there is a precise definition in Section III as a "Condition for Further Study." There is some cause to worry that this vague introduction of the attenuated psychosis syndrome in the main text might indeed open the floodgates to an overdiagnosis of subthreshold psychotic symptoms and their early pharmacological treatment.