Public cervical cancer screening recommendations from US cancer centers: Assessing adherence to national guidelines.

Though widespread adoption of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the US has been associated with a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, screening also carries with it potential risks. Newer national guidelines recommend decreased screening frequency to optimize the benefit/risk balance and to prevent over-screening. Here, we examined the alignment of US cancer center websites' public recommendations on CCS with national guidelines. We reviewed the websites of 1024 cancer centers accredited by the US Commission on Cancer during January-August 2022. We recorded the recommended frequency and type of CCS and any screening risks mentioned, comparing against national US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Of 1024 US cancer centers, 60% (610) provided CCS recommendations. Most centers are in alignment with the screening starting age (96%, 544/565) and stopping age (94%, 440/470) recommended by national guidelines. Of 508 centers specifying the frequency of standalone cervical cytology, 83% (419) recommended a screening interval of three years; however, 14% (73) recommended cervical cytology more frequently than the three-year interval recommended by the ACS/USPSTF. Screening risks were mentioned by 20% (124/610) of centers. Our findings highlight the importance of education on screening benefits and risks for physicians and patients to enable shared decision making based on evidence-based guidelines.

The progesterone-receptor modulator, ulipristal acetate, drastically lowers breast cell proliferation.

PURPOSE: The proliferation of breast epithelial cells increases during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, when they are exposed to progesterone, suggesting that ulipristal acetate, a selective progestin-receptor modulator (SPRM), may reduce breast cell proliferation with potential use in breast cancer chemoprevention. METHODS: Women aged 18-39 were randomized 1:1 to ulipristal 10-mg daily or to a combination oral contraceptive (COC) for 84 days. Participants underwent a breast biopsy and breast MRI at baseline and at end of study treatment. Proliferation of breast TDLU cells was evaluated by Ki67 immunohistochemical stain. We evaluated the breast MRIs for background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). All slides and images were masked for outcome evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight treatment-compliant participants completed the study; 25 of whom had evaluable Ki67 results at baseline and on-treatment. From baseline to end of treatment, Ki67 % positivity (Ki67%+) decreased a median of 84% in the ulipristal group (N = 13; 2-sided p (2p) = 0.040) versus a median increase of 8% in the COC group (N = 12; 2p = 0.85). Median BPE scores decreased from 3 to 1 in the ulipristal group (p = 0.008) and did not decrease in the COC group. CONCLUSION: Ulipristal was associated with a major decrease in Ki67%+ and BPE. Ulipristal would warrant further investigation for breast cancer chemoprevention were it not for concerns about its liver toxicity. Novel SPRMs without liver toxicity could provide a new approach to breast cancer chemoprevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02922127, 4 October 2016.

Facilitating informed decisions about breast cancer screening: development and evaluation of a web-based decision aid for women in their 40s.

BACKGROUND: Expert groups and national guidelines recommend individualized decision making about screening mammography for women in their 40s at low-to-average risk of breast cancer. We created Breast Screening Decisions (BSD), a personalized, web-based decision aid, to help women decide when to start and how often to have routine screening mammograms. We evaluated BSD in a large, prospective pilot trial of women and their clinicians. METHODS: Women ages 40-49 were invited to use BSD before a scheduled preventive care visit. One month post-visit, users were asked about decisional conflict, knowledge, perceptions and worry about breast cancer and screening. They were also asked whether they had a screening mammogram since their visit, scheduled an appointment for a screening mammogram, or if they were planning to schedule an appointment within the next six months. Women who responded "no" to each of these successive questions were considered to have no plan for a screening mammogram within the next 6 months, unless they explicitly stated that they were unsure about screening mammography. Clinicians were surveyed regarding mammography discussions and perceived patient knowledge and anxiety. RESULTS: Of 1,100 women invited to use BSD, 253 accessed the website, and 168 were eligible to participate in the pilot study. One-fifth had a family history of breast cancer, and at least 76% had any prior mammogram. At follow-up, 88% of BSD users reported discussing mammography at their visit, and 77% said they had a screening mammogram since the visit or that they made or were planning to make a screening mammogram appointment. The average decisional conflict score was 22.5, within the threshold for implementing decisions. Decisional conflict scores were lowest in women who said that they had or planned to have a mammogram (mean 21.4, 95% CI 18.3-24.6), higher in those who did not (mean 24.8, 95% CI 19.2-30.5), and highest in those who were unsure (mean 31.5, 95% CI 13.9-49.1). Most BSD users expressed accurate perceptions of their breast cancer risk and the benefits and limitations of screening. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based decision aid may support informed, individualized decisions about screening mammography and facilitate discussions about screening between women in their 40s and their clinicians.