A primary goal of health care is to prevent disease or detect it early enough that intervention will be more effective. Strategies for disease screening and prevention are driven by evidence that testing and intervention are practical and effective. Currently, most screening tests are readily available and inexpensive. Examples include tests that are biochemical (e.g., cholesterol, glucose), physiologic (e.g., blood pressure, growth curves), or radiologic (e.g., mammogram, bone densitometry) or that involve tissue specimens (e.g., Pap smear). In the future, it is anticipated that genetic testing will play an increasingly important role in predicting disease risk (Chap. 63). However, such tests are not widely used except for individuals at risk for high-penetrancegenes on the basis of family or ethnic history (e.g., BRCA1, BRCA2). The identification of low-penetrance but high-frequency genes that cause common disorders such as diabetes, hypertension, and macular degeneration offers the possibility of new genetic tests. However, any new screening test, whether based on genetic or other methods, must be subjected to rigorous evaluation of its sensitivity, specificity, impact on disease, and cost-effectiveness. Physicians and patients are introduced continually to new screening tests, often in advance of complete evaluation. For example, the use of whole-body CT imaging has been advocated as a means to screen for a variety of disorders. Though it is appealing in concept, there is currently no evidence to justify this approach, which is associated with high cost and a substantial risk of false-positive results.
This chapter will review the basic principles of screening and prevention in the primary care setting. Recommendations for specific disorders such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer are provided in the chapters dedicated to those topics.
Basic Principles of Screening
In general, screening is most effective when applied to relatively common disorders that carry a large disease burden (Table 4-1). The five leading causes of mortality in the United States are heart diseases, malignantneoplasms, accidents, cerebrovascular diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thus, many prevention strategies are targeted at these conditions. From a global health perspective, these conditions are priorities, but malaria, malnutrition, AIDS, tuberculosis, and violence also carry a heavy disease burden (Chap. 2).
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
aAssuming an unscreened population. |
Disorders with a long latency period increase the potential gains associated with detection. For example, cancer of the cervix has a long latency between dysplasia and invasive carcinoma, providing an opportunity for detection by routine screening. It is hoped that the introduction of new papillomavirus vaccines will provide additional disease prevention, ultimately reducing reliance on screening for cervical cancer. For colon cancer, an adenomatous polyp progresses to invasive cancer over 4–12 years, providing an opportunity to detect early lesions by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or endoscopy. In contrast, breast cancer screening in premenopausal women is more challenging—and controversial—because of the relatively short interval between development of a localized breast cancer and metastasis to regional nodes (estimated to be –12 months).
Methods of Measuring Health Benefits
It is not practical to perform all possible screening procedures. For example, screening for laryngeal cancer in smokers is not currently recommended. It is necessary to examine the strength of evidence in favor of screening measures relative to the cost and risk of false-positive tests. For example, should ultrasound be used to screen for ovarian cancer in average-risk women? It is currently estimated that the unnecessary laparotomies triggered by finding benign ovarian masses would cause more harm than the benefit derived from detecting the occasional curable ovarian cancer.
A variety of endpoints are used to assess the potential gain from screening and prevention interventions:
The number of subjects screened to alter the outcome in one individual. It is estimated, for example, that 731 women ages 65–69 would need to be screened by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and then treated appropriately to prevent one hip fracture from osteoporosis.
The absolute and relative impact of screening on disease outcome. A meta-analysis of Swedish mammography trials (ages 40–70) found that –1.2 fewer women per thousand would die from breast cancer if they were screened over a 12-year period. By comparison, –3 lives per 1000 might be saved from colon cancer in a population (ages 50–75) screened with annual FOBT over a 13-year period. Based on this analysis, colon cancer screening may actually save more womens lives than does mammography. The impact of FOBT (8.8/1000 versus 5.9/1000) might be stated either as 3 lives per 1000 or as a 30% reduction in colon cancer death; thus, it is important to consider both the relative impact and absolute impact on numbers of lives saved.
The cost per year of life saved is used to assess the effectiveness of many screening and prevention strategies. Typically, strategies that cost <$30,000–50,000 per year of life saved are considered "cost-effective" (Chap. 3). For example, using alendronate to treat 65-year-old women with osteoporosis approaches this threshold of approximately $30,000 per year of life saved.
Increase in average life expectancy for a population. Predicted increases in life expectancy for various screening procedures are listed in Table 4-2. It should be noted, however, that the increase in life expectancy is an average that applies to a population, not to an individual. In reality, the vast majority of the screened population does not derive any benefit and possibly incurs a slight risk from false-positive results. A small subset of patients, however, will benefit greatly from being screened. For example, Pap smears do not benefit the 98% of women who never develop cancer of the cervix. However, for the 2% who would develop localized cervical cancer, Pap smears may add as much as 25 years to their lives. Some studies suggest that a 1-month gain of life expectancy is a reasonable goal for a population-based preventive strategy.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Abbreviation: PSA, prostate-specific antigen. | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aScreening is performed earlier and more frequently when there is a strong family history. Randomized, controlled trials have documented that fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) confers a 15–30% reduction in colon cancer mortality. Although large randomized trials have not been performed for sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, well-designed case-control studies suggest similar or greater efficacy relative to FOBT. bIf staff support are available. cIn the future, Pap smear frequency may be influenced by HPV testing and the HPV vaccine. Note:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is capable of enhancing the detection of early-stage prostate cancer, but evidence is inconclusive that it improves health outcomes. PSA testing is recommended by several professional organizations and is widely used in clinical practice, but it is not currently recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Chap. 85). Source: Adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Guide to Clinical Prevention Services, 2009. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm. |
Screening techniques must be cost-effective if they are to be applied to large populations. Costs include not only the expense of testing but also time away from work, downstream costs from false-positive results, and other potential risks. When the risk-versus-benefit ratio is less favorable, it is useful to provide information to patients and factor their perspectives into the decision-making process. For example, many expert groups, including the USPSTF, recommend an individualized discussion about prostate cancer screening, as the decision-making process is complex and relies heavily on personal issues. Although the early detection of prostate cancer may seem desirable intuitively, risks include false-positive results that can lead to anxiety and unnecessary surgery. Randomized trials for prostate cancer screening have yielded mixed and relatively modest results. Potential complications from surgery and radiation treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel dysfunction. Some men may decline screening, whereas others may be more willing to accept the risks of an early-detection strategy. Another example of shared decision-making involves the choice of techniques for colon cancer screening (Chap. 82). In controlled studies, the use of annual FOBT reduces colon cancer deaths by 15–30%. Flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces colon cancer deaths by –60%. Colonoscopy offers the same benefit as or greater benefit than flexible sigmoidoscopy, but its use incurs additional costs and risks. These screening procedures have not been compared directly in the same population, but the estimated cost to society is similar: $10,000–25,000 per year of life saved. Thus, although one patient may prefer the ease of preparation, less time disruption, and the lower risk of flexible sigmoidoscopy, others may prefer the sedation and thoroughness of colonoscopy.
In considering the impact of screening tests, it is important to recognize that tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and exercise constitute the vast majority of factors that influence preventable deaths in developed countries. Perhaps the single greatest preventive health care measure is to help patients quit smoking (Chap. 395).
Commonly Encountered Issues
Despite compelling evidence that prevention strategies can have major health care benefits, implementation of these services is challenging because of competing demands on physician and patient time and because of gaps in health care reimbursement. Moreover, efforts to reduce disease risk frequently involve behavior changes (e.g., weight loss, exercise, seat belts) or the management of addictive conditions (e.g., tobacco and alcohol use) that are often recalcitrant to intervention. Public education and economic incentives are often useful, in addition to counseling by health care providers (Table 4-4).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abbreviation: STDs, sexually transmitted diseases. |
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Note: The numbers in parentheses refer to areas of risk in the mortality column affected by the specified intervention. Abbreviations: AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm. ATV, all-terrain vehicle; HPV, human papillomavirus; MMR, measles-mumps-rubella; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; STD, sexually transmitted disease; UV, ultraviolet. |
Many patients see a physician for ongoing care of chronic illnesses, and this visit provides an opportunity to include a "measure of prevention" for other health problems. For example, a patient seen for management of hypertension or diabetes can have breast cancer screening incorporated into one visit and a discussion about colon cancer screening at the next visit. Other patients may respond more favorably to a clearly defined visit that addresses all relevant screening and prevention interventions. Because of age or comorbidities, it may be appropriate with some patients to abandon certain screening and prevention activities, although there are fewer data about when to "sunset" these services. The risk of certain cancers, such as cancer of the cervix, ultimately declines, and it is reasonable to cease Pap smears after about age 65 if recent Pap smears have been negative. For breast, colon, and prostate cancer, it is reasonable to reevaluate the need for screening after about age 75. For some older patients with advanced diseases such as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure and for those who are immobile, the benefit of some screening procedures is low, and other priorities emerge when life expectancy is <10 years. This shift in focus needs to be done tactfully and allows greater focus on the conditions likely to affect quality and length of life.


