Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening.

The discussion about setting up a program for lung cancer screening was launched with the publication of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, which suggested reduced mortality in high-risk subjects undergoing CT screening. However, important questions about the benefit-harm balance and the details of a screening program and its cost-effectiveness remain unanswered. A panel of specialists in chest radiology, respiratory medicine, epidemiology, and thoracic surgery representing all Swiss university hospitals prepared this joint statement following several meetings. The panel argues that premature and uncontrolled introduction of a lung cancer screening program may cause substantial harm that may remain undetected without rigorous quality control. This position paper focuses on the requirements of running such a program with the objective of harmonizing efforts across the involved specialties and institutions and defining quality standards. The underlying statement includes information on current evidence for a reduction in mortality with lung cancer screening and the potential epidemiologic implications of such a program in Switzerland. Furthermore, requirements for lung cancer screening centers are defined, and recommendations for both the CT technique and the algorithm for lung nodule assessment are provided. In addition, related issues such as patient management, registry, and funding are addressed. Based on the current state of the knowledge, the panel concludes that lung cancer screening in Switzerland should be undertaken exclusively within a national observational study in order to provide answers to several critical questions before considering broad population-based screening for lung cancer.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. RESULTS: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on childhood cancer and nuclear power plants (NPPs) produced conflicting results. We used a cohort approach to examine whether residence near NPPs was associated with leukaemia or any childhood cancer in Switzerland. METHODS: We computed person-years at risk for children aged 0-15 years born in Switzerland from 1985 to 2009, based on the Swiss censuses 1990 and 2000 and identified cancer cases from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry. We geo-coded place of residence at birth and calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the risk of cancer in children born <5 km, 5-10 km and 10-15 km from the nearest NPP with children born >15 km away, using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: We included 2925 children diagnosed with cancer during 21 117 524 person-years of follow-up; 953 (32.6%) had leukaemia. Eight and 12 children diagnosed with leukaemia at ages 0-4 and 0-15 years, and 18 and 31 children diagnosed with any cancer were born <5 km from a NPP. Compared with children born >15 km away, the IRRs (95% CI) for leukaemia in 0-4 and 0-15 year olds were 1.20 (0.60-2.41) and 1.05 (0.60-1.86), respectively. For any cancer, corresponding IRRs were 0.97 (0.61-1.54) and 0.89 (0.63-1.27). There was no evidence of a dose-response relationship with distance (P > 0.30). Results were similar for residence at diagnosis and at birth, and when adjusted for potential confounders. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent with main results. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide cohort study found little evidence of an association between residence near NPPs and the risk of leukaemia or any childhood cancer.

RiskDiff: A web tool for the analysis of the difference due to risk and demographic factors for incidence or mortality data.

Background Analysing the observed differences for incidence or mortality of a particular disease between two different situations (such as time points, geographical areas, gender or other social characteristics) can be useful both for scientific or administrative purposes. From an epidemiological and public health point of view, it is of great interest to assess the effect of demographic factors in these observed differences in order to elucidate the effect of the risk of developing a disease or dying from it. The method proposed by Bashir and Estève, which splits the observed variation into three components: risk, population structure and population size is a common choice at practice. Results A web-based application, called RiskDiff has been implemented (available at http://rht.iconcologia.net/riskdiff.htm webcite), to perform this kind of statistical analyses, providing text and graphical summaries. Code from the implemented functions in R is also provided. An application to cancer mortality data from Catalonia is used for illustration. Conclusions Combining epidemiological with demographical factors is crucial for analysing incidence or mortality from a disease, especially if the population pyramids show substantial differences. The tool implemented may serve to promote and divulgate the use of this method to give advice for epidemiologic interpretation and decision making in public health.