The incidence and prevalence of NETs are steadily rising, possibly owing to detection of early-stage disease and stage migration. Survival for all NETs has improved over time, especially for distant-stage gastrointestinal NETs and pancreatic NETs in particular, reflecting improvement in therapies. These data will help to prioritize future research directions.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Importance Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among U.S. women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality. This report updates the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer. Process The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update, and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. Evidence Synthesis Mammography screening in women aged 40–69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening in women who are age 70 years and older and are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false positive exams are greater if screening begins at younger ages due to the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs. biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for average risk women. Recommendations The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women who are ages 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women who are age 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or more (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Findings from the National Cancer Institute’s National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation.

Although the use of claims data may underestimate the true incidence of lymphedema, women with BCRL had a greater risk of infections and incurred higher medical costs. The substantial costs documented here suggest that further efforts should be made to elucidate reduction and prevention strategies for BCRL.

Health impairment often leads to work impairment in the form of both absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e. reduced productivity while at work). Several self-report productivity instruments have been designed over the past few years to measure the impact of illness on productivity at work and/or in non-work activities. In a review of the literature we identified six generic subjective instruments - the Endicott Work Productivity Scale, Health and Labor Questionnaire, Health and Work Questionnaire, Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) - that could theoretically be used in any working population. These instruments were usually validated against other subjective measures (such as health-related QOL). Each productivity instrument has benefits in certain research settings, but the psychometric properties of the WPAI have been assessed most extensively. It was the most frequently used instrument and has also been modified to measure productivity reductions associated with specific diseases (e.g. allergic rhinitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, chronic hand dermatitis). The WLQ has also been tested extensively to measure the general health impact and impact of specific conditions. Two migraine-specific subjective instruments were also identified: the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire and the Migraine Work and Productivity Loss Questionnaire, of which the latter was found to have better psychometric properties. Productivity outcomes are useful in that they characterise the impact of an illness in the workplace and show the effect of treatment on productivity. Evidence of psychometric properties and generalisability of different instruments was found to a varying degree. Thus, further research is needed to assess the accuracy and usefulness of individual instruments in certain research settings. Health-related productivity has been increasingly recognised as an important component of the burden of illness associated with a given disease; without it, one cannot reliably assess this burden.

In this paper, we propose a flexible "two-part" random Effects model (Olsen and Schafer 2001;Tooze, Grunwald, and Jones 2002) for correlated medical cost data. Typically, medical cost data are right-skewed, involve a substantial proportion of zero values, and may exhibit heteroscedasticity. In many cases, such data is also obtained in hierarchical form, e.g., on patients served by the same physician. The proposed model specification therefore consists of two generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), linked together by correlated random Effects. Respectively, and conditionally on the random Effects and covariates, we model the odds of cost being positive (Part I) using a GLMM with a logistic link and the mean cost (Part II) given that costs were actually incurred using a generalized gamma regression model with random Effects and a scale parameter that is allowed to depend on covariates (c.f. Manning, Basu, and Mullahy 2005). The class of generalized gamma distributions is very flexible and includes the lognormal, gamma, inverse gamma and Weibull distributions as special cases. We demonstrate how to carry out estimation using the Gaussian quadrature techniques conveniently implemented in SAS Proc NLMIXED. The proposed model is used to analyze pharmacy cost data on 56,245 adult patients clustered within 239 physicians in a mid-western U.S. managed care organization.