METHODS: The review was conducted according to a predefined protocol. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched in September 2017, and data extraction and rating of methodologic study quality (according to Joanna Briggs Institute rating procedures) were performed independently by reviewers.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (reported across 24 papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 21) were conducted in high or upper-middle income countries; targeted breast (n = 11), cervical (n = 7), colorectal (n = 3), or oral (n = 2) cancer; and used small media either alone (n = 15) or in combination with mass media and other components (n = 5). Studies regarding cancer screening uptake were of medium to high quality and mainly reported positive outcomes for cervical cancer and mixed results for breast and colorectal cancer. The methodologic strength of research that investigated change in cancer-related knowledge and the cost effectiveness of interventions, respectively, were weak and inconclusive.
CONCLUSION: Evidence indicated that small media campaigns seemed to be effective in terms of increasing screening uptake in Asia, in particular cervical cancer screening. Because of the limited number of studies in Asia, it was not possible to be certain about the effectiveness of mass media in improving screening uptake and the effectiveness of campaigns in improving cancer-related knowledge.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
OBJECTIVES: This study analysed the knowledge, attitudes and practices of working women in Kedah state, Malaysia, about cervical cancer and Pap smear tests and the associations of knowledge, attitudes and practices with socio-demographic factors.
METHODS: This cross-sectional questionnaire study analysed knowledge, attitudes and practices among 210 female entrepreneurs who received funding from Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) in Kedah state. Women were included if they were married or previously married, aged 20-65 years and had not been diagnosed with cervical cancer.
RESULTS: Most subjects could not recall common symptoms of cervical cancer, such as bleeding between periods, and did not know or were unsure of the suitable age for Pap smear tests and the interval between tests. Although most subjects agreed that Pap smear tests were necessary, some gave priority to other issues. About half (55.2%) had undergone Pap smear tests, but only 38.6% had been tested within the previous five years. Use of hormonal contraceptives, higher knowledge score, and higher attitude score were associated with Pap smear testing within the previous 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge regarding cervical cancer and Pap smear testing and attitudes toward testing were poor among most participants. These factors were significantly associated with lack of actual testing.