Made by DATEXIS (Data Science and Text-based Information Systems) at Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin
Deep Learning Technology: Sebastian Arnold, Betty van Aken, Paul Grundmann, Felix A. Gers and Alexander Löser. Learning Contextualized Document Representations for Healthcare Answer Retrieval. The Web Conference 2020 (WWW'20)
          Funded by The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy; Grant: 01MD19013D, Smart-MD Project, Digital Technologies
           
        
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues recommendations for various cancers:
- Strongly recommends cervical cancer screening in women who are sexually active and have a cervix at least until the age of 65.
- Recommend that Americans be screened for colorectal cancer via fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy starting at age 50 until age 75.
- Evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening for skin cancer, oral cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in men under 75.
- Routine screening is not recommended for bladder cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, or prostate cancer.
- Recommends mammography for breast cancer screening every two years from ages 50–74, but does not recommend either breast self-examination or clinical breast examination. A 2013 Cochrane review concluded that breast cancer screening by mammography had no effect in reducing mortality because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Screens for gastric cancer using photofluorography due to the high incidence there.
Breast cancer screening refers to testing otherwise-healthy women for breast cancer in an attempt to achieve an earlier diagnosis under the assumption that early detection will improve outcomes. A number of screening tests have been employed including clinical and self breast exams, mammography, genetic screening, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging.
A clinical or self breast exam involves feeling the breast for lumps or other abnormalities. Clinical breast exams are performed by health care providers, while self-breast exams are performed by the person themselves. Evidence does not support the effectiveness of either type of breast exam, as by the time a lump is large enough to be found it is likely to have been growing for several years and thus soon be large enough to be found without an exam. Mammographic screening for breast cancer uses X-rays to examine the breast for any uncharacteristic masses or lumps. During a screening, the breast is compressed and a technician takes photos from multiple angles. A general mammogram takes photos of the entire breast, while a diagnostic mammogram focuses on a specific lump or area of concern.
A number of national bodies recommend breast cancer screening. For the average woman, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography every two years in women between the ages of 50 and 74, the Council of Europe recommends mammography between 50 and 69 with most programs using a 2-year frequency, and in Canada screening is recommended between the ages of 50 and 74 at a frequency of 2 to 3 years. These task force reports point out that in addition to unnecessary surgery and anxiety, the risks of more frequent mammograms include a small but significant increase in breast cancer induced by radiation.
The Cochrane collaboration (2013) states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer of 0.05% (a decrease of 1 in 2000 deaths from breast cancer over 10 years or a relative decrease of 15% from breast cancer). Screening over 10 years results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment (3 to 14 per 1000) and more than half will have at least one falsely positive test. This has resulted in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm. Cochrane states that, due to recent improvements in breast cancer treatment, and the risks of false positives from breast cancer screening leading to unnecessary treatment, "it therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening" at any age. Whether MRI as a screening method has greater harms or benefits when compared to standard mammography is not known.
In the United States screening is typically recommended between the age of 50 and 75 years. For those between 76 and 85 years of age the decision to screen should be individualized. A number of screening methods can be used including stool based tests every 3 years, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and colonoscopy every 10 years. For those at high risk, screenings usually begin at around 40. It is unclear which of these two methods is better. Colonoscopy may find more cancers in the first part of the colon but is associated with greater cost and more complications. For people with average risk who have had a high-quality colonoscopy with normal results, the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend any type of screening in the 10 years following the colonoscopy. For people over 75 or those with a life expectancy of less than 10 years, screening is not recommended. It takes about 10 years after screening for one out of a 1000 people to benefit.
In Canada, among those 50 to 75 at normal risk, fecal immunochemical testing or FOBT is recommended every two years or sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. Colonoscopy is less preferred.
Some countries have national colorectal screening programs which offer FOBT screening for all adults within a certain age group, typically starting between age 50 and 60. Examples of countries with organised screening include the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands.
The selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as tamoxifen) reduce the risk of breast cancer but increase the risk of thromboembolism and endometrial cancer. There is no overall change in the risk of death. They are thus not recommended for the prevention of breast cancer in women at average risk but may be offered for those at high risk. The benefit of breast cancer reduction continues for at least five years after stopping a course of treatment with these medications.
Aspirin and celecoxib appear to decrease the risk of colorectal cancer in those at high risk. Aspirin is recommended in those who are 50 to 60 years old, do not have an increased risk of bleeding, and are at risk for cardiovascular disease to prevent colorectal cancer. It is not recommended in those at average risk. There is tentative evidence for calcium supplementation, but it is not sufficient to make a recommendation. Vitamin D intake and blood levels are associated with a lower risk of colon cancer.
Checking the cervix by the Papanicolaou test, or Pap test, for cervical cancer has been credited with dramatically reducing the number of cases of and mortality from cervical cancer in developed countries. Pap test screening every three to five years with appropriate follow-up can reduce cervical cancer incidence up to 80%. Abnormal results may suggest the presence of precancerous changes, allowing examination and possible preventive treatment. The treatment of low-grade lesions may adversely affect subsequent fertility and pregnancy. Personal invitations encouraging women to get screened are effective at increasing the likelihood they will do so. Educational materials also help increase the likelihood women will go for screening, but they are not as effective as invitations.
According to the 2010 European guidelines, the age at which to start screening ranges between 20 and 30 years of age, but preferentially not before age 25 or 30 years, and depends on burden of the disease in the population and the available resources.
In the United States, screening is recommended to begin at age 21, regardless of age at which a woman began having sex or other risk factors. Pap tests should be done every three years between the ages of 21 and 65. In women over the age of 65, screening may be discontinued if no abnormal screening results were seen within the previous 10 years and no history of CIN 2 or higher exists. HPV vaccination status does not change screening rates. Screening can occur every 5 years between ages 30 and 65 when a combination of cervical cytology screening and HPV testing is used and this is preferred. However, it is acceptable to screen this age group with a Pap test alone every three years. Screening is not beneficial before age 25 as the rate of disease is low. Screening is not beneficial in women older than 60 years if they have a history of negative results. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline has recommend for different levels of resource availability.
Liquid-based cytology is another potential screening method. Although it was probably intended to improve on the accuracy of the Pap test, its main advantage has been to reduce the number of inadequate smears from around 9% to around 1%. This reduces the need to recall women for a further smear. The United States Preventive Services Task Force supports screening every 5 years in those who are between 30 and 65 years when cytology is used in combination with HPV testing.
Pap tests have not been as effective in developing countries. This is in part because many of these countries have an impoverished health care infrastructure, too few trained and skilled professionals to obtain and interepret Pap tests, uninformed women who get lost to follow-up, and a lengthy turn-around time to get results. These realities have resulted in the investigation of cervical screening approaches that use fewer resources and offer rapid results such as visual inspection with acetic acid or HPV DNA testing.
Apart from not smoking, the American Cancer Society recommends keeping a healthy weight, and increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, while decreasing consumption of red and processed meat, although there is no consistent evidence this will prevent or reduce pancreatic cancer specifically. A 2014 review of research concluded that there was evidence that consumption of citrus fruits and curcumin reduced risk of pancreatic cancer, while there was possibly a beneficial effect from whole grains, folate, selenium, and non-fried fish.
In the general population, screening of large groups is not currently considered effective, although newer techniques, and the screening of tightly targeted groups, are being evaluated. Nevertheless, regular screening with endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/CT imaging is recommended for those at high risk from inherited genetics.
The 2010 WHO classification of tumors of the digestive system grades all the pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) into three categories, based on their degree of cellular differentiation (from "NET G1" through to the poorly differentiated "NET G3"). The U.S. National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends use of the same AJCC-UICC staging system as pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Using this scheme, the stage-by-stage outcomes for PanNETs are dissimilar to those of the exocrine cancers. A different TNM system for PanNETs has been proposed by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society.
Anal Pap smears similar to those used in cervical cancer screening have been studied for early detection of anal cancer in high-risk individuals. In 2011, the HIV clinic implemented a program to enhance access to anal cancer screening for HIV-positive men. Nurse practitioners perform anal Papanicolaou screening, and men with abnormal results receive further evaluation with high-resolution anoscopy. The program has helped identify many precancerous growths, allowing them to be safely removed.
People with Barrett's esophagus (a change in the cells lining the lower esophagus) are at much higher risk, and may receive regular endoscopic screening for the early signs of cancer. Because the benefit of screening for adenocarcinoma in people without symptoms is unclear, it is not recommended in the United States. Some areas of the world with high rates of squamous-carcinoma have screening programs.
Cervical cancer is staged by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system, which is based on clinical examination, rather than surgical findings. It allows only these diagnostic tests to be used in determining the stage: palpation, inspection, colposcopy, endocervical curettage, hysteroscopy, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, intravenous urography, and X-ray examination of the lungs and skeleton, and cervical conization.
Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast cancer cases. The overall proportion of TNBC is very similar in all age groups. Younger women have a higher rate of basal or BRCA related TNBC while older women have a higher proportion of apocrine, normal-like and rare subtypes including neuroendocrine TNBC.
Among younger women, African American and Hispanic women have a higher risk of TNBC, with African Americans facing worse prognosis than other ethnic groups.
In 2009, a case-control study of 187 triple-negative breast cancer patients described a 2.5 increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer in women who used oral contraceptives (OCs) for more than one year compared to women who used OCs for less than one year or never. The increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer was 4.2 among women 40 years of age or younger who used OCs for more than one year, while there was no increased risk for women between the ages of 41 and 45. Also, as duration of OC use increased, triple-negative breast cancer risk increased.
Staging is based on the TNM staging system, which classifies the amount of tumor invasion (T), involvement of lymph nodes (N), and distant metastasis (M). The currently preferred classification is the 2010 AJCC staging system for cancer of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction. To help guide clinical decision making, this system also incorporates information on cell type (ESCC, EAC, etc.), grade (degree of differentiation – an indication of the biological aggressiveness of the cancer cells), and tumor location (upper, middle, lower, or junctional).
Large-cell carcinoma (LCC), like small-cell carcinoma (SCC) is very rare and only accounts for about 5% of all cervical cancers. Early-stage LCC are extremely aggressive and difficult to diagnose due to the sub-mucosal location of the tumor and intact overlying mucosa. As with SCC, in LCC early cases are asymptomatic. Later stages present with irregular bleeding, vaginal spotting, discharge, and pelvic pain. The basis for treatment of LCC tumors is derived from therapy used for SCC; when diagnosed, multimodal therapy should be considered just as with SCC.
As soon as a tumor is detected, diagnosing the type of cancer remains a primary objective, as it helps determine the best possible treatment by the analysis of the structure of the tumor and cancer cells.
Since many, if not most, anal cancers derive from HPV infections, and since the HPV vaccine before exposure to HPV prevents infection by some strains of the virus and has been shown to reduce the incidence of potentially precancerous lesions, scientists surmise that HPV vaccination may reduce the incidence of anal cancer.
On 22 December 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil vaccine to prevent anal cancer and pre-cancerous lesions in males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine has been used before to help prevent cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancer, and associated lesions caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 in women.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013 stated evidence was insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral cancer in adults without symptoms by primary care providers. The American Academy of Family Physicians comes to similar conclusions while the American Cancer Society recommends that adults over 20 years who have periodic health examinations should have the oral cavity examined for cancer. The American Dental Association recommends that providers remain alert for signs of cancer during routine examinations.
There are a variety of screening devices, however, there is no evidence that routine use of these devices in general dental practice is helpful. However, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the risk of harm this device may cause if routinely used in general practice. Such harms include false positives, unnecessary surgical biopsies and a financial burden on the patient.
The diagnosis of urachal cancer can be difficult and usually requires a multidisciplinary approach. A calcification in the midline can be detected in some patients in abdominal imaging studies. A cystoscopy is helpful in most cases. For diagnosis evaluation of a tissue biopsy is needed, which is usually obtained by transurethral resection (TURBT). Measurement of serum concentrations of CEA, CA19-9 and CA125 can be helpful in monitoring urachal cancer
Several tests are used to diagnose vaginal cancer, including:
- Physical exam and history
- Pelvic exam
- Pap smear
- Biopsy
- Colposcopy
Recommendations for women with vaginal cancer is not to have routine surveillance imaging to monitor the cancer unless they have new symptoms or rising tumor markers. Imaging without these indications is discouraged because it is unlikely to detect a recurrence or improve survival, and because it has its own costs and side effects. MRI provides visualization of the extent of vaginal cancer.
Prevention
Antibodies may be used to determine the expression of protein markers on the surface of cancer cells. Often the expression of these antigens is similar to the tissue that the cancer grew from, so immunohistochemical testing sometimes helps to identify the source of the cancer. Individual tests often do not provide definitive answers, but sometimes patterns may be observed, suggesting a particular site of origin (e.g. lung, colon, etc.). Immunohistochemical testing suggests a single source of cancer origin in about one in four cases of CUP. However, there is a lack of definitive research data showing that treatment guided by information from immunohistochemical testing improves outcomes or long-term prognosis.
Diagnosis is established by transurethral biopsy. Types of urethral cancer include transitional cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and melanoma.
Early diagnosis of oral cancer patients would decrease mortality and help to improve treatment. Oral surgeons and dentists can diagnose these patients in the early stages. Health providers, dentists, and oral surgeons shall have high knowledge and awareness that would help them to provide better diagnosis for oral cancer patients. An examination of the mouth by the health care provider, dentist, oral surgeons shows a visible and/or palpable (can be felt) lesion of the lip, tongue, or other mouth area. The lateral/ventral sides of the tongue are the most common sites for intraoral SCC. As the tumor enlarges, it may become an ulcer and bleed. Speech/talking difficulties, chewing problems, or swallowing difficulties may develop. A feeding tube is often necessary to maintain adequate nutrition. This can sometimes become permanent as eating difficulties can include the inability to swallow even a sip of water. The doctor can order some special investigations which may include a chest x-ray, CT or MRI scans, and tissue biopsy.
While a dentist, physician or other health professional may suspect a particular lesion is malignant, there is no way to tell by looking alone - since benign and malignant lesions may look identical to the eye. A non-invasive brush biopsy (BrushTest) can be performed to rule out the presence of dysplasia (pre-cancer) and cancer on areas of the mouth that exhibit an unexplained color variation or lesion. The only definitive method for determining if cancerous or precancerous cells are present is through biopsy and microscopic evaluation of the cells in the removed sample. A tissue biopsy, whether of the tongue or other oral tissues and microscopic examination of the lesion confirm the diagnosis of oral cancer or precancer.
Standard treatment is surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. As a variation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is very frequently used for triple-negative breast cancers. This allows for a higher rate of breast-conserving surgeries and by evaluating the response to the chemotherapy gives important clues about the individual responsiveness of the particular cancer to chemotherapy.
In addition to chemotherapy, an additive called Didox can be added to aid in the reduction of drug resistance and further treatment efforts. Didox is used to inhibit ribonucleotide reductase M2 (RRM2) which contributes to the cells resistance of the chemotherapy treatment resulting in a large number of relapse (Wilson 2016). RRM2 is upregulated within these specific Triple Negative cancer cells leading to a higher rate of drug resistance and inability to slow or stop the tumor progression which leads to more aggressive forms of triple negative breast cancer that are often fatal (Wilson 2016).
TNBCs are generally very susceptible to chemotherapy. In some cases, however, early complete response does not correlate with overall survival. This makes it particularly complicated to find the optimal chemotherapy. Adding a taxane to the chemotherapy appears to improve outcome substantially.
"BRCA1"-related triple-negative breast cancer appear to be particularly susceptible to chemotherapy including platinum-based agents and taxanes.
Although mutations in single genes were not individually predictive, TNBC tumors bearing mutations in genes involved in the androgen receptor (AR) and FOXA1 pathways were much more sensitive to chemotherapy. Mutations in the AR/FOXA1 pathway provide a novel marker for identifying chemosensitive TNBC patients who may benefit from current standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens. Mutations that lowered the levels of functional BRCA1 or BRCA2 RNA were associated with significantly better survival outcomes. This BRCA deficience signature define a new, highly chemosensitive subtype of TNBC. BRCA-deficient TNBC tumors have a higher rate of clonal mutation burden, defined as more clonal tumors with a higher number of mutations per clone, and are also associated with a higher level of immune activation, which may explain their greater chemosensitivity.
Most people with cancer of unknown primary origin have widely disseminated and incurable disease, although a few can be cured through treatment. With treatment, typical survival with CUP ranges from 6 to 16 months. Survival rates are lower in cases with visceral metastatic disease, ranging from 6 to 9 months. Survival rates are higher when the cancer is more limited to lymph nodes, pleura, or peritoneal metastasis, which ranges from 14 to 16 months. Long-term prognosis is somewhat better if a particular source of cancer is strongly suggested by clinical evidence.