Methods, Detection Rates, and Survival Outcomes of Screening for Head and Neck Cancers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Head and neck cancers (HNCs) are often diagnosed at advanced clinical stages during their symptomatic phase, leading to a reduced treatment window and poor survival. Screening programs have been suggested as a mitigation strategy. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of current HNC screening programs in improving diagnosis and survival in adults. Evidence Review: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-guided systematic review involved use of peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between January 1, 2001, and July 15, 2022. Snowballing was applied to retrieve more studies. Eligible articles were original clinical trials and observational studies presenting a universal or risk-targeted screening program of primary HNC in the adult population. Reporting quality was assessed using the JBI's critical appraisal tools. Findings: Database searches yielded 3646 unique citations with an additional 8 studies found via snowballing. Five reviewers assessed the full text of 106 studies. Sixteen articles were ultimately included in the review, involving 4.7 million adults (34.1%-100% male; median age, 30-59 years). Fifteen studies were based in Asia and 1 in Europe (Portugal). Five reported data from randomized clinical trials. An oral inspection conducted once or once every 2 to 3 years was described in 11 studies for screening oral cancer, while multistep screening involving Epstein-Barr virus serologic testing for nasopharyngeal carcinoma delivered every 1 to 4 years was presented in 5. In 4 trials and 6 observational studies, screening significantly increased the detection of localized (stage I/II) tumor or was associated with an increased proportion of diagnoses, respectively, regardless of the population and cancer subsites. Universal screening of asymptomatic adults improved 3- to 5-year overall survival but did not increase cancer-specific survival in 4 trials. Targeted screening improved overall and cancer-specific survival or was associated with improved survival outcomes in 2 trials and 2 observational studies, respectively. Studies had low to medium risks of bias. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from the existing literature suggests that a risk-targeted screening program for oral and nasopharyngeal cancers could improve diagnosis and patient survival. Screening adherence, societal cost-effectiveness, and optimal risk stratification of such a program warrant future research, especially in low-incidence settings outside Asia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».