Transcript Controversies in Screening Recommendations
Controversies in Screening Recommendations
George F. Sawaya, MD
Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. Member of the US Preventive Services Task Force from 2004-2008
Case
• A 40-year-old woman presents to your clinic for a periodic health examination. She is healthy and has no risk factors for any particular diseases. She does not smoke, is sexually active and is not pregnant. You note that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for the following diseases: cervical cancer, hypertension, alcohol misuse and obesity. Routine mammography is not recommended. She has read about the mammography controversy and wants to know more about the benefits and harms.
Introduction
• Recommendations for prevention strive to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
• Competing factors: US population highly enthusiastic about frequent cancer screening; medico-legal environment rewards vigilance from clinicians Sawaya GF
N Engl J Med
2009 361;26 2503-2505
Introduction
• Controversies common in determining: when to begin, when to end, screening frequency and use of newer screening technologies • USPSTF: widely recognized as setting the standard for evidence-based recommendations related to prevention Sawaya GF
N Engl J Med
2009 361;26 2503-2505
Introduction
• Devising recommendations for prevention can be complicated at all steps.
• Determining the appropriate balance between benefits and harms is challenging.
Sawaya GF
N Engl J Med
2009 361;26 2503-2505
• •
What is the US Preventive Services Task Force?
Congressionally mandated independent panel of non Federal experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine 16 primary care providers (e.g., internists, pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists/obstetricians, nurses and health behavior specialists) http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/about.htm
What is the US Preventive Services Task Force Mission?
“to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.” http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/about.htm
• •
Who Supports the US Preventive Services Task Force?
Administrative, research, technical and dissemination support provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Scientific support from Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EPCs) • 14 centers in the US and Canada • conduct systematic evidence reviews on topics in clinical prevention that serve as the scientific basis for USPSTF recommendations • products: evidence reports and technology assessments http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/about.htm
• •
What are US Preventive Services Task Force activities?
develops recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems on a broad range of clinical preventive health care services (e.g., screening, counseling, and preventive medications) does not consider costs, medical-legal issues or insurance coverage in deliberations http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/about.htm
• • •
What are US Preventive Services Task Force activities?
recommendations published in the form of ”recommendation statements”; opportunity for public comment provided Affordable Care Act (July 2010) singles out positive recommendations by the USPSTF (those deemed an “A” or “B”) for coverage recommendations graded to convey two major elements: certainty and magnitude of net benefit of the service http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/about.htm
USPSTF Grades of Recommendations
Certainty of Net Benefit Magnitude of Net Benefit Substantial Moderate Small Zero/negative High Moderate Low A B B B C C Insufficient D D
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm
Grade
A B C D I statement
What the Grades Mean: Suggestions for Practice
Suggestions for practice
Offer or provide this service.
Offer or provide this service.
Offer or provide this service only if other considerations support the offering or providing the service in an individual patient.
Discourage the use of this service.
Read the clinical considerations section of USPSTF Recommendation Statement. If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm
Case
• A 40-year-old woman presents to your clinic for a periodic health examination. She is healthy and has no risk factors for any particular diseases. She does not smoke, is sexually active and is not pregnant. Routine mammography is not recommended by the USPSTF. She has read about the mammography controversy and wants to know more about the benefits and harms.
Devising Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: The USPSTF Approach
Analytic Framework: Screening for Breast Cancer
2 major key questions (see next slide) http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanupappfig1.htm
Analytic Framework: Screening for Breast Cancer: Key questions
1a. Does screening with mammography (film and digital) or MRI decrease breast cancer mortality among women age 40–49 years and ≥70 years?
1b. Does clinical breast examination screening decrease breast cancer mortality? Alone or with mammography?
1c. Does breast self-examination practice decrease breast cancer mortality?
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanupappfig1.htm
Analytic Framework: Screening for Breast Cancer: Key questions
2a. What are the harms associated with screening with mammography (film and digital) and MRI?
2b. What are the harms associated with clinical breast examination ?
2c. What are the harms associated with breast self examination?
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanupappfig1.htm
Breast Cancer Screening: Benefits
• Decreased breast cancer mortality and total mortality • Decreased morbidity from breast cancer (reduction of late-stage breast cancer) http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanup.htm
Breast Cancer Screening: Harms
• Radiation exposure • Pain during procedures • Anxiety, distress, and other psychological responses • False-positive and false-negative mammography results, additional imaging, and biopsies http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanup.htm
Age
39-49 y
Evidence of Benefit: Mammography by Age Group
Trials included, n
8
RR for Breast Cancer Mortality (95% CrI)
0.85 (0.75-0.96)
NNI to Prevent 1 Breast Cancer Death (95% CrI)
1904 (929-6378) 50-59 y 60-69 y 70-74 y 6 2 1 0.86 (0.75-0.99) 1339 (322-7455) 0.68 (0.54-0.87) 377 (230-1050) 1.12 (073-1.72) Not available http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanup.htm#tab1
Evidence of Harms: Other Evidence Related to Mammography
• Data about harms often obtained from a variety of sources. • For breast cancer screening, data from 600,830 women aged 40+ years undergoing routine mammography screening at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) sites obtained • BCSC data intended to represent the experience of a cohort of regularly screened women http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanup.htm
Evidence of Harms: False Positive Testing with Mammography
• Estimated risk of false positive testing after 10 mammograms (all ages): 21-49% • Estimated risk of false positive testing after 10 mammograms in women aged 40-49: 56% http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanup.htm
Judging Evidence of Benefit of Mammography
There is convincing evidence that screening with film mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, with a greater absolute reduction for women aged 50 to 74 years than for women aged 40 to 49 years. The strongest evidence for the greatest benefit is among women aged 60 to 69 years.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Judging Evidence of Harm of Mammography
Adequate evidence that the overall harms associated with mammography are moderate for every age group considered… False-positive results are more common for women aged 40 to 49 years, whereas “overdiagnosis” is a greater concern for women in the older age groups.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Putting It All Together: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Mammography
Decision analysis: a method by which the balance of benefits and harms can be judged. USPSTF commissioned a decision analysis to assist in the determination of net benefit (benefit minus harms).
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Decision Analysis
• Estimates the outcomes of different clinical decisions • Breaks down problem into components: treatment options, outcome probabilities with each option (both benefits and harms) • Uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses • Applies to large, theoretic cohorts of individuals going forward in time (effectiveness) • Estimates both benefits and harms
Putting It All Together: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Mammography Benefits
: Percentage of mortality reduction Cancer deaths averted per 1000 women Life years gained • “life-year”: a measure of the quantity of life lived • may be expressed as “life years expected per 1000 people” for an intervention strategy http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanart.htm
Putting It All Together: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Mammography Harms:
False-positive results per 1000 women Unnecessary biopsies per 1000 women http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanart.htm
Putting It All Together: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Mammography
Conclusions (all ages): biennial screening produced 70% to 99% of the benefit of annual screening, with a significant reduction in the number of mammograms required and therefore a decreased risk for harms. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Putting It All Together: Balancing Benefits and Harms of Mammography
Screening between the ages of 50 and 69 years produced a projected 17% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in mortality (compared with no screening) Extending the age range produced only minor improvements (additional 3% reduction from starting at age 40 years and 7% from extending to age 79). http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Estimation of Certainty and Magnitude of Evidence of Net Benefit of Mammography (Benefit Minus Harm)
• For biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years, there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is small . http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Estimation of Certainty and Magnitude of Evidence of Net Benefit of Mammography (Benefit Minus Harm)
• The USPSTF emphasizes the adverse consequences for most women—who will not develop breast cancer—and therefore use the number needed to screen to save 1 life as its metric. By this metric, the USPSTF concludes that there is moderate evidence that the net benefit is small for women aged 40 to 49 years.
• For biennial screening mammography in women aged 50 to 74 years, there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate .
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Further
“the additional benefit gained by starting screening at age 40 years rather than at age 50 years is small , and that moderate harms from screening remain at any age. This leads to the ‘C’ recommendation.
“a ‘C’ grade is a recommendation against making about when to start…”
routine
screening of women aged 40 to 49 years. The Task Force encourages individualized, informed decision http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Back to the Case: Talking to Patients About Mammography
• “The precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences .” • “Clinicians should inform women about the potential benefits (reduced chance of dying from breast cancer), potential harms (for example, false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies), and limitations of the test that apply to women their age.” http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
Summary
• Devising recommendations for prevention can be complicated at all steps.
• While screening benefits are often cited and widely promulgated, the USPSTF gives equal attention to screening harms.
• Determining the appropriate balance between benefits and harms is challenging.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf07/methods/benefit.htm
Summary
• Different groups may evaluate the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions.
• The USPSTF method of devising recommendations involves judgment at all steps but strives for transparency.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf07/methods/benefit.htm