Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21442

Cancer statistics, 2018

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21349

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016.

Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

CA : A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

The introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening in the late 1980s led to an epidemic of prostate cancer, particularly in developed countries. However, the first valid reports from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of screening were not published until 2009. Men in the screening group in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer were 20% less likely than those in the control group to die from prostate cancer. The absolute difference was only 0.7/1000, implying that over 1400 men needed to be screened to prevent one prostate cancer death. Screening was also associated with a 70% increased risk for being diagnosed with prostate cancer. The American Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial found no survival benefit for screening. Results were not conclusive because a substantial proportion of study subjects had previously undergone PSA testing, over half of the control group had PSA testing, follow-up was relatively short, and fewer than 100 subjects died from prostate cancer. Balancing the potential survival benefit from screening is the risk of overdiagnosis—finding cancers that would not otherwise cause clinical problems—and the risk of treatment complications, including urinary, sexual and bowel dysfunction. Prostate cancer screening efforts would benefit from improved biomarkers, which more readily identify clinically important cancers. Cancer control efforts might also need to include chemoprevention, though currently available agents are controversial. In the meantime, patients need to be supported in achieving informed decisions on whether to be screened for prostate cancer.

/pdf/what-we-have-learned-from-randomized-trials-of-prostate-1bma2hoac4.pdf

What we have learned from randomized trials of prostate cancer screening.

Objective:National guidelines recommend lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients, including survivors of other tobacco-related cancers like head ...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003489419868245

Attitudes of Clinicians about Screening Head and Neck Cancer Survivors for Lung Cancer Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Doxazosin-to-terazosin switch for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Despite the evidence indicating that decision aids (DA) improve informed treatment decision making for prostate cancer (PCa), physicians do not routinely recommend DAs to their patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with urologists (n = 11), radiation oncologists (n = 12) and primary care physicians (n = 10) about their methods of educating low-risk PCa patients regarding the treatment decision, their concerns about recommending DAs, and the essential content and format considerations that need to be addressed. Physicians stressed the need for providing comprehensive patient education before the treatment decision is made and expressed concern about the current unevaluated information available on the Internet. They made recommendations for a DA that is brief, applicable to diverse populations, and that fully discloses all treatment options (including active surveillance) and their potential side effects. Echoing previous studies showing that low-risk PCa patients are making rapid and potentially uninformed treatment decisions, these results highlight the importance of providing patient education early in the decision-making process. This need may be fulfilled by a treatment DA, should physicians systematically recommend DAs to their patients. Physicians' recommendations for the inclusion of particular content and presentation methods will be important for designing a high quality DA that will be used in clinical practice.

Richard M. Hoffman

Papers

What we have learned from randomized trials of prostate cancer screening.

Attitudes of Clinicians about Screening Head and Neck Cancer Survivors for Lung Cancer Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Doxazosin-to-terazosin switch for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Physicians’ perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients

Implications of the New USPSTF Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendation-Attaining Equipoise.