IMPORTANCE Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), a spinal curvature of 10°or more, is the most common form of scoliosis, with a prevalence of 1% to 3%. Curves progress in approximately two-thirds of patients with AIS before skeletal maturity, and large curves (>50°) may be associated with adverse health outcomes. OBJECTIVE To systematically review evidence on benefits and harms of AIS screening for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). DATA SOURCES Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, and relevant systematic reviews were searched for studies published from January 1966 to October 20, 2016; studies included in a previous USPSTF report were also reviewed. Surveillance was conducted through July 24, 2017. STUDY SELECTION Fair-and good-quality studies that evaluated the accuracy of screening children and adolescents aged 10 to 18 years for AIS, the benefits of AIS treatment, the harms of AIS screening or treatment, or long-term health outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data into evidence tables. Results were qualitatively summarized. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Health outcomes and spinal curvature in adolescence and adulthood, accuracy of screening for AIS, any harm of AIS screening or treatment. RESULTS Fourteen studies (N = 448 276) in 26 articles were included. Accuracy of AIS screening was highest (93.8% sensitivity; 99.2% specificity) in a cohort study of a clinic-based program using forward bend test, scoliometer, and Moiré topography screening (n = 306 082); accuracy was lower in cohort studies of 6 programs using fewer modalities (n = 141 161). Four controlled studies (n = 587) found evidence for benefit of bracing on curve progression compared with controls. A randomized clinical trial and a nonrandomized trial of exercise treatment (N = 184) found favorable reductions in Cobb angle of 0.67°to 4.9°in the intervention group compared with increases of 1.38°to 2.8°in the control group. Two cohort studies (n = 339) on long-term outcomes found that braced participants reported more negative treatment experience and body appearance compared with surgically treated or untreated participants. A study that combined a randomized clinical trial and cohort design (n = 242) reported harms of bracing, which included skin problems on the trunk and nonback body pains. There was no evidence on the effect of AIS screening on adult health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Screening can detect AIS. Bracing and possibly exercise treatment can interrupt or slow progression of curvature in adolescence. However, there is little or no evidence on long-term outcomes for AIS treated in adolescence, the association between curvature at skeletal maturity and adult health outcomes, the harms of AIS screening or treatment, or the effect of AIS screening on adult health outcomes.

IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.OBJECTIVE To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Background Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have increased risk for CRC. Understanding these risks, screening recommendations and screening behaviors can inform strategies to reduce CRC burden in these families. Methods A comprehensive review of literature published within the past 10 years was conducted to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening and effective interventions in persons with FH of CRC, and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Results Existing data show that having one affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases CRC risk by 2-fold, and risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and younger age at diagnosis. There was variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence was <50% and lower in persons under age 50. Having a provider’s recommendation, multiple affected relatives and family encouragement facilitated screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication were important barriers. Effective interventions incorporated strategies for overcoming barriers but these have not been tested broadly in clinical settings. Conclusions Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improve how we collect and utilize cancer FH, 2) establish consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhance provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, 4) encourage survivors to promote screening within their families, and partner with existing screening programs to expand reach to high-risk groups.

Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC, and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risk. We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening. We found high heterogeneity in family history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC, but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data on the natural history of CRC by family history suggests a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence on tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with family history of CRC. Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk of CRC.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians have a major influence on parental vaccine decisions. We tested a physician-targeted communication intervention designed to (1) reduce vaccine hesitancy in mothers of infants seen by trained physicians and (2) increase physician confidence in communicating about vaccines. METHODS:We conducted a community-based, clinic-level, 2-arm cluster randomized trial in Washington State. Intervention clinics received physician-targeted communications training. We enrolled mothers of healthy newborns from these clinics at the hospital of birth. Mothers and physicians were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was maternal vaccine hesitancy measured by Parental Attitudes on Childhood Vaccines score; secondary outcome was physician self-efficacy in communicating with parents by using 3 vaccine communication domains. RESULTS:We enrolled 56 clinics and 347 mothers. We conducted intervention trainings at 30 clinics, reaching 67% of eligible physicians; 26 clinics were randomized to the control group. Maternal vaccine hesitancy at baseline and follow-up changed from 9.8% to 7.5% in the intervention group and 12.6% to 8.0% in the control group. At baseline, groups were similar on all variables except maternal race and ethnicity. The intervention had no detectable effect on maternal vaccine hesitancy (adjusted odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.47-2.68). At follow-up, physician self-efficacy in communicating with parents was not significantly different between intervention and control groups.CONCLUSIONS: This physician-targeted communication intervention did not reduce maternal vaccine hesitancy or improve physician self-efficacy. Research is needed to identify physician communication strategies effective at reducing parental vaccine hesitancy in the primary care setting.

Context: Health systems increasingly are exploring implementation of standardized social risk assessments. Implementation requires screening tools both with evidence of validity and reliability (psychometric properties) and that are low cost, easy to administer, readable, and brief (pragmatic properties). These properties for social risk assessment tools are not well understood and could help guide selection of assessment tools and future research. Evidence acquisition: The systematic review was conducted during 2018 and included literature from PubMed and CINAHL published between 2000 and May 18, 2018. Included studies were based in the U.S., included tools that addressed at least 2 social risk factors (economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, neighborhood and physical environment, or food), and were administered in a clinical setting. Manual literature searching was used to identify empirical uses of included screening tools. Data on psychometric and pragmatic properties of each tool were abstracted. Evidence synthesis: Review of 6,838 unique citations yielded 21 unique screening tools and 60 articles demonstrating empirical uses of the included screening tools. Data on psychometric properties were sparse, and few tools reported use of gold standard measurement development methods. Review of pragmatic properties indicated that tools were generally low cost, written for low-literacy populations, and easy to administer. Conclusions: Multiple low-cost, low literacy tools are available for social risk screening in clinical settings, but psychometric data are very limited. More research is needed on clinic-based screening tool reliability and validity as these factors should influence both adoption and utility.

IMPORTANCE Skin cancer, primarily melanoma, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE To provide an updated systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force regarding clinical skin cancer screening among adults.

Background Although uniform colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, risk-based screening may be more efficient. We investigated whether CRC screening based on polygenic risk is a cost-effective alternative to current uniform screening, and if not, under what conditions it would be. Methods The MISCAN-Colon model was used to simulate a hypothetical cohort of US 40-year-olds. Uniform screening was modeled as colonoscopy screening at ages 50, 60, and 70 years. For risk-stratified screening, individuals underwent polygenic testing with current and potential future discriminatory performance (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC] of 0.60 and 0.65–0.80, respectively). Polygenic testing results were used to create risk groups, for which colonoscopy screening was optimized by varying the start age (40–60 years), end age (70–85 years), and interval (1–20 years). Results With current discriminatory performance, optimal screening ranged from once-only colonoscopy at age 60 years for the lowest-risk group to six colonoscopies at ages 40–80 years for the highest-risk group. While maintaining the same health benefits, risk-stratified screening increased costs by $59 per person. Risk-stratified screening could become cost-effective if the AUC value would increase beyond 0.65, the price per polygenic test would drop to less than $141, or risk-stratified screening would lead to a 5% increase in screening participation. Conclusions Currently, CRC screening based on polygenic risk is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with uniform screening. This is expected to change with a greater than 0.05 increase in AUC value, a greater than 30% reduction in polygenic testing costs, or a greater than 5% increase in adherence with screening.