Articles related to IMAGING/SCREENING

The Clinician’s Roundtable on ReachMD podcast, sponsored by GRAIL, featured Dr. Vershalee Shukla, who discussed the implementation of multi-cancer early detection screening (MCED). Dr. Shukla highlighted the limitations of currently available cancer detection tools, including mammography, colonoscopy, and skin exams, which have low sensitivity and compliance rates. In contrast, MCED screening is a simple blood test that looks for DNA methylation patterns in the blood to detect cancers and indicate their origin. Patients who are at high risk, such as those with family histories of cancer, genetic predispositions, and patients over 50 years old, should consider MCED screening. Utilizing MCED screening has enriched Dr. Shukla’s program and improved early detection rates of rare and aggressive cancers. Dr. Shukla emphasized that education is a critical aspect of implementing MCED screening in clinical practice. Patients must understand that MCED screening is not a replacement for routine cancer screenings but rather an additive tool to detect rare and aggressive cancers. Staff must also be educated to counsel patients correctly and understand that a negative MCED result does not necessarily mean that the patient is cancer-free. The physical implementation of MCED screening is straightforward, requiring a simple blood draw, and the results can be […]

A 56-year-old man with no significant medical history, who previously refused colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, visited his primary care physician. Despite the physician’s recommendations, the patient declined colonoscopy and instead preferred a less invasive screening test. The patient had no symptoms of colorectal issues but had a family history of his father dying from colorectal cancer at age 80. The patient’s hemoglobin level was within the normal range at 13.7 g/dL.

The first version of the test, launched in November 2022, assesses chromosomal copy number changes in blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and the aqueous humor of the eye to aid in the clinical diagnosis of patients with solid tumors, brain tumors, and retinoblastoma, respectively. The next version of the clinical assay, which will be available in about six months, will detect mutations and gene fusions.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy (PC) CRC incidence risk in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, necessitating adequate colonoscopy quality monitoring in this situation. The likelihood of PCCRC may be considerably decreased by raising endoscopists’ ADR.

The Cancer Moonshot aims to enhance the lives of individuals and families dealing with and surviving cancer, lower the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the following 25 years, and ultimately put an end to cancer as we currently know it. In order to mobilize the federal government, the President established the first-ever Cancer Cabinet last year. He urged people, healthcare professionals, and leaders from various sectors to step up and take action in five key priority areas: (1) close the screening gap; (2) comprehend and address environmental exposure; (3) lessen the impact of preventable cancers; (4) bring cutting-edge research through the pipeline to patients and communities; and (5) support patients and their care. Here is the list of 13 more initiatives to go along with the already-introduced 25 programs, policies, and resources to address these five priority areas.

A group of UK researchers has created a novel prostate cancer (PaC) screening test (EpiSwitch) that, when combined with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, has a high degree of accuracy for detecting the cancer. The test is based on measurement of five chromosome conformations that were first discovered in association with advanced PaC. The EpiSwitch test has a high positive predictive value for the diagnosis of PaC (92%) and a high negative predictive value (94%) when used in conjunction with the PSA level as a continuous variable, according to the researchers. The study’s authors advocated for additional research to investigate the test’s efficacy in larger patient samples, even though it was based on a scant number of patient samples.