George F. Sawaya

Bio: George F. Sawaya is an academic researcher from University of California, San Francisco. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cervical cancer & Population. The author has an hindex of 52, co-authored 170 publications receiving 12160 citations. Previous affiliations of George F. Sawaya include National Institutes of Health & United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Abstract: Description: Update of the 2002 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. Methods: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement)

Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement

Abstract: DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).

Estrogen Therapy in Postmenopausal Women: Effects on Cognitive Function and Dementia

Abstract: Context.—Several studies have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy in postmenopausal women improves cognition, prevents development of dementia, and improves the severity of dementia, while other studies have not found a benefit of estrogen use.Objective.—To determine whether postmenopausal estrogen therapy improves cognition, prevents development of dementia, or improves dementia severity.Data Sources.—We performed a literature search of studies published from January 1966 through June 1997, using MEDLINE, manually searched bibliographies of articles identified, and consulted experts.Study Selection.—Studies that evaluated biological mechanisms of estrogen's effect on the central nervous system and studies that addressed the effect of estrogen on cognitive function or on dementia.Data Extraction.—We reviewed studies for methods, sources of bias, and outcomes and performed a meta-analysis of the 10 studies of postmenopausal estrogen use and risk of dementia using standard meta-analytic methods.Data Synthesis.—Biochemical and neurophysiologic studies suggest several mechanisms by which estrogen may affect cognition: promotion of cholinergic and serotonergic activity in specific brain regions, maintenance of neural circuitry, favorable lipoprotein alterations, and prevention of cerebral ischemia. Five observational studies and 8 trials have addressed the effect of estrogen on cognitive function in nondemented postmenopausal women. Cognition seems to improve in perimenopausal women, possibly because menopausal symptoms improve, but there is no clear benefit in asymptomatic women. Ten observational studies have measured the effect of postmenopausal estrogen use on risk of developing dementia. Meta-analysis of these studies suggests a 29% decreased risk of developing dementia among estrogen users, but the findings of the studies are heterogeneous. Four trials of estrogen therapy in women with Alzheimer disease have been conducted and have had primarily positive results, but most have been small, of short duration, nonrandomized, and uncontrolled.Conclusions.—There are plausible biological mechanisms by which estrogen might lead to improved cognition, reduced risk for dementia, or improvement in the severity of dementia. Studies conducted in women, however, have substantial methodologic problems and have produced conflicting results. Large placebo-controlled trials are required to address estrogen's role in prevention and treatment of Alzheimer disease and other dementias. Given the known risks of estrogen therapy, we do not recommend estrogen for the prevention or treatment of Alzheimer disease or other dementias until adequate trials have been completed.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.

Abstract: This is the fourth American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored consensus guidelines for management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities, after the original consensus conferences in 20011 and subsequent updates in 20062 and 2012.3 An interim guidance publication providing management recommendations for primary HPV screening was released in 2015.4 This document updates and replaces all previous guidance. The key difference between 2019 guidelines and previous versions is the change from primarily test results–based algorithms (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for patients with HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL],” etc.) to primarily “risk-based” guidelines (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for any combination of history and current test results yielding a 4.0% or greater probability of finding CIN 3+,” etc.). See Box 1 for essential changes. Tables of risk estimates for possible combinations of current screening test results and screening history (including unknown history) have been generated from a prospective longitudinal cohort of more than 1.5 million patients followed for more than a decade at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). All KPNC estimates of risk underlying guideline decisions are detailed in the accompanying article by Egemen et al.5 The applicability of these risk estimates to other United States regions and populations has been confirmed in other data sets from screening programs and clinical trials.6 Many patients, especially those with minor abnormalities, can be managed by identifying their risk level using Tables 1A to 5B in Egemen et al5 and linking it to a recommended clinical action (return to routine screening, surveillance with repeat testing at 1- or 3-year intervals, colposcopy, or treatment). To facilitate use of these tables, the same information will be accessible via smartphone app (for purchase) and web (no cost) through http://www.asccp.org. Decision aids may facilitate use of the tables.7 Common abnormalities are managed using risk estimates outlined in Section E, and rare abnormalities are managed via the result-specific consensus recommendations outlined in Sections G-K. Box 1. Essential Changes From Prior Management Guidelines 1) Recommendations are based on risk, not results. Recommendations of colposcopy, treatment, or surveillance will be based on a patient's risk of CIN 3+ determined by a combination of current results and history (including unknown history). The same current test results may yield different management recommendations depending on the history of recent past test results. 2) Colposcopy can be deferred for certain patients. Repeat HPV testing or cotesting at 1 year is recommended for patients with minor screening abnormalities indicating HPV infection with low risk of underlying CIN 3+ (e.g., low-grade cytologic abnormalities after a documented negative screening HPV test or cotest). At the 1-year follow-up test, referral to colposcopy is recommended if results remain abnormal. 3) Guidance for expedited treatment is expanded (i.e., treatment without colposcopic biopsy). Expedited treatment was an option for patients with HSIL cytology in the 2012 guidelines; this guidance is now better defined. For nonpregnant patients 25 years or older, expedited treatment, defined as treatment without preceding colposcopic biopsy demonstrating CIN 2+, is preferred when the immediate risk of CIN 3+ is ≥60%, and is acceptable for those with risks between 25% and 60%. Expedited treatment is preferred for nonpregnant patients 25 years or older with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 (HPV 16) (i.e., HPV 16–positive HSIL cytology) and never or rarely screened patients with HPV-positive HSIL regardless of HPV genotype. Shared decision-making should be used when considering expedited treatment, especially for patients with concerns about the potential impact of treatment on pregnancy outcomes. 4) Excisional treatment is preferred to ablative treatment for histologic HSIL (CIN 2 or CIN 3) in the United States. Excision is recommended for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). 5) Observation is preferred to treatment for CIN 1. Treatment remains acceptable for patients with repeat diagnoses of CIN 1 persisting 2 years or more. 6) Histopathology reports based on Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST)/World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for reporting histologic HSIL should include CIN 2 or CIN 3 qualifiers, i.e., HSIL(CIN 2) and HSIL (CIN 3). 7) All positive HPV tests, regardless of genotype, should have additional reflex triage testing performed from the same laboratory specimen (e.g., reflex cytology). Additional testing from the same laboratory specimen is recommended because the findings may inform colposcopy practice. For example, those with HSIL cytology and concurrent positive testing for HPV genotype 16 qualify for expedited treatment. HPV 16 or 18 infections have the highest risk for CIN 3 and occult cancer, so additional evaluation (e.g., colposcopy with biopsy) is necessary even when cytology results are negative. If HPV 16 and 18 testing is positive, and additional laboratory testing of the same sample is not feasible, the patient should proceed directly to colposcopy. 8) Continued surveillance with HPV testing or cotesting at 3-year intervals for at least 25 years is recommended after treatment of histologic HSIL, CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS. Continued surveillance at 3-year intervals beyond 25 years is acceptable for as long as the patient's life expectancy and ability to be screened are not significantly compromised by serious health issues. The 2012 guidelines recommended return to 5-year screening intervals and did not specify when screening should cease. New evidence indicates that risk remains elevated for at least 25 years, with no evidence that treated patients ever return to risk levels compatible with 5-year intervals. Surveillance with cytology alone is acceptable only if testing with HPV or cotesting is not feasible. Cytology is less sensitive than HPV testing for detection of precancer and is therefore recommended more often. Cytology is recommended at 6-month intervals when HPV testing or cotesting is recommended annually. Cytology is recommended annually when 3-year intervals are recommended for HPV or cotesting. 9) Human papilloma virus assays that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for screening should be used for management according to their regulatory approval in the United States. (Note: all HPV testing in this document refers to testing for high-risk HPV types only). For all management indications, HPV mRNA and HPV DNA tests without FDA approval for primary screening alone should only be used as a cotest with cytology, unless sufficient, exceptionally rigorous data are available to support primary HPV testing in management. The minimum amount of data required to generate a recommendation will include the patient's age and current test results, as we recognize that previous screening history is often not known. Increased precision of management guidance will be possible if information is available on test results within the past 5 years and previous precancer treatment within the past 25 years.3 Current results and past history are designed to generate the patient's risk estimate from data tables.5 Risk estimates are available for the following clinical situations: abnormal screening test results with unknown history, abnormal screening test results with medical record documentation of a preceding negative HPV test or cotest, surveillance of previous abnormal screening test results that did not require immediate colposcopic referral (e.g., follow-up after an HPV-positive cytology negative result), colposcopy/biopsy results, and follow-up surveillance tests after colposcopy or after treatment for, or resolution of, high-grade abnormalities (e.g., CIN 2+). The recognition that persistent HPV infection is necessary for developing precancer and cancer (defined as CIN 3+, which includes diagnoses of CIN 3, AIS, and cancer) underlies the 2019 guideline update. Prospective longitudinal data indicate that when a new abnormal screening test result follows a negative HPV test or cotest within the past 5 years, the estimated risk of CIN 3+ is reduced by approximately 50%.8 A negative cytology result within 3 years of a new abnormal screening test, however, does not confer a similar reduction in risk.9 The 2019 guidelines also recognize that a colposcopic examination performed according to accepted standards (e.g., using the KPNC colposcopy protocol or the ASCCP Colposcopy Standards10) confirming low-grade or normal histology reduces a patient's estimated risk of having precancer/cancer in the next 2 years.11 This allows patients with an HPV-positive ASC-US or LSIL result at their 1-year follow-up visit after a colposcopy confirming normal- or low-grade histology to return for repeat HPV or cotesting in 1 more year, rather than immediately return to colposcopy. Thus, incorporating a patient's history of previous HPV tests and colposcopy/biopsy results will permit detection and treatment of CIN 3+ while avoiding unnecessary interventions for patients with new HPV infections who are at lower risk.12

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (Version 2012)

Abstract: ABI : ankle–brachial index ACCORD : Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ADVANCE : Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation AGREE : Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation AHA : American Heart Association apoA1 : apolipoprotein A1 apoB : apolipoprotein B CABG : coronary artery bypass graft surgery CARDS : Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes Study CCNAP : Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions CHARISMA : Clopidogrel for High Athero-thrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilisation, Management, and Avoidance CHD : coronary heart disease CKD : chronic kidney disease COMMIT : Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial CRP : C-reactive protein CURE : Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events CVD : cardiovascular disease DALYs : disability-adjusted life years DBP : diastolic blood pressure DCCT : Diabetes Control and Complications Trial ED : erectile dysfunction eGFR : estimated glomerular filtration rate EHN : European Heart Network EPIC : European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition EUROASPIRE : European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention through Intervention to Reduce Events GFR : glomerular filtration rate GOSPEL : Global Secondary Prevention Strategies to Limit Event Recurrence After MI GRADE : Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation HbA1c : glycated haemoglobin HDL : high-density lipoprotein HF-ACTION : Heart Failure and A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise TraiNing HOT : Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study HPS : Heart Protection Study HR : hazard ratio hsCRP : high-sensitivity C-reactive protein HYVET : Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial ICD : International Classification of Diseases IMT : intima-media thickness INVEST : International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril JTF : Joint Task Force LDL : low-density lipoprotein Lp(a) : lipoprotein(a) LpPLA2 : lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2 LVH : left ventricular hypertrophy MATCH : Management of Atherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk Patients with Recent Transient Ischaemic Attack or Ischaemic Stroke MDRD : Modification of Diet in Renal Disease MET : metabolic equivalent MONICA : Multinational MONItoring of trends and determinants in CArdiovascular disease NICE : National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence NRT : nicotine replacement therapy NSTEMI : non-ST elevation myocardial infarction ONTARGET : Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial OSA : obstructive sleep apnoea PAD : peripheral artery disease PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PROactive : Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events PWV : pulse wave velocity QOF : Quality and Outcomes Framework RCT : randomized clinical trial RR : relative risk SBP : systolic blood pressure SCORE : Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Project SEARCH : Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and SHEP : Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program STEMI : ST-elevation myocardial infarction SU.FOL.OM3 : SUpplementation with FOlate, vitamin B6 and B12 and/or OMega-3 fatty acids Syst-Eur : Systolic Hypertension in Europe TNT : Treating to New Targets UKPDS : United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study VADT : Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial VALUE : Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use VITATOPS : VITAmins TO Prevent Stroke VLDL : very low-density lipoprotein WHO : World Health Organization ### 1.1 Introduction Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a chronic disorder developing insidiously throughout life and usually progressing to an advanced stage by the time symptoms occur. It remains the major cause of premature death in Europe, even though CVD mortality has …

Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment.

Abstract: The field of aging and dementia is focusing on the characterization of the earliest stages of cognitive impairment. Recent research has identified a transitional state between the cognitive changes of normal aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD), known as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Mild cognitive impairment refers to the clinical condition between normal aging and AD in which persons experience memory loss to a greater extent than one would expect for age, yet they do not meet currently accepted criteria for clinically probable AD. When these persons are observed longitudinally, they progress to clinically probable AD at a considerably accelerated rate compared with healthy age-matched individuals. Consequently, this condition has been recognized as suitable for possible therapeutic intervention, and several multicenter international treatment trials are under way. Because this is a topic of intense interest, a group of experts on aging and MCI from around the world in the fields of neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, neuropsychology, neuroimaging, neuropathology, clinical trials, and ethics was convened to summarize the current state of the field of MCI. Participants reviewed the world scientific literature on aging and MCI and summarized the various topics with respect to available evidence on MCI. Diagnostic criteria and clinical outcomes of these subjects are available in the literature. Mild cognitive impairment is believed to be a high-risk condition for the development of clinically probable AD. Heterogeneity in the use of the term was recognized, and subclassifications were suggested. While no treatments are recommended for MCI currently, clinical trials regarding potential therapies are under way. Recommendations concerning ethical issues in the diagnosis and the management of subjects with MCI were made.

2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Abstract: ABI : ankle–brachial (blood pressure) index ABPM : ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ACCORD : Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACE-I : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndromes ADVANCE : Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx