Update of the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for oral cancer.
The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on whether screening for oral cancer reduces morbidity or mortality and on the accuracy of the oral screening examination for identifying oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders that have a high likelihood of progression to oral cancer.
This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults aged 18 years or older who are seen by primary care providers. This recommendation focuses on screening of the oral cavity performed by primary care providers and not dental providers or otolaryngologists.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral cancer in asymptomatic adults.
"e ndings of this project demonstrate that there is much work to be done to optimize access to contraception for adolescents . Achieving compliance with current Pap screening guidelines is an important step in making contraception more Discussion ere is widespread agreement by multiple health organiza tions about when Pap screening should be initiated (ACOG, 2012; Moyer, 2012; Smith et al., 2013). e recommended age for initiation of Pap screening has been 21 years since 2009 when ACOG changed its recommendation to age 21 regardless of onset of sexual activity or contraceptive use (ACOG, 2012). "
"However, till date, the ability of screening to decrease overall mortality from ovarian cancer in populations at risk is not yet established  . The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) " recommends against screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women, except those with known genetic mutations that increase their risk for ovarian cancer (for example, BRCA mutations) " . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Context: Although there have been reports of increasing incidence of ovarian cancer in developing
countries, no developing country has been involved in current trials of ovarian cancer screening. Aim: To review the
evolution of the role and drawbacks of ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening and the feasibility of
implementing current potential screening strategies inlow resource settings. Methods: An electronic literature search
for all articles written in English language on ovarian cancer screening from 1960-2013. Information from
appropriate articles were collated and analysed for content. Results: Ultrasound was used as the first-line or secondline
test in the most popular multicentre multimodal trials of ovarian cancer screening. It has a high sensitivity but a
low specificity. The low specificity of ultrasound screening necessitates the use of further measures to aid the
triaging of ultrasound positive cases, which add to the overall cost of screening. There is yet scant evidence of the
cost effectiveness of multimodal screening for ovarian cancer. Current potential strategies for ultrasound-based
screening for ovarian cancer demand the training and employment of large numbers of highly skilled personnel as
well as the acquisition of high resolution scanners and technology for biochemical assay of tumour markers.
Conclusion: Transvaginal ultrasonographyhas evolved into a potentialtool for ovarian cancer screening and ovarian
cancer screening strategies based on CA125 assays and ultrasonography would demand substantial resources. If and
when reduction in mortality and cost-effectiveness of this approach to screening are proven, itmay not be feasible in
"Previously approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling for hrHPV testing included triage of equivocal cytology (i.e., atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or ASC-US) and as an adjunct to cytology when screening women 30 years and older (cotesting). These two uses are widely recommended by numerous stakeholder societies and organizations, as well as the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) . Triage via identification of specific high-risk types of HPV, including types 16 and 18, is also an FDA approved use of hrHPV testing in selected settings. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of AmericanPathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.