Section 2. Recommendations for Adults

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. June 2004.  http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/bladder/blacanrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Bladder cancer is 2 to 3 times more common in men than in women and is unusual before age 50. Bladder cancer is heterogeneous; it is a spectrum of conditions, most of which are not life-threatening.
• Screening tests—such as microscopic urinalysis, urine dipstick, urine cytology, or such new tests as bladder tumor antigen (BTA) or nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) immunoassay—can detect bladder cancers that are clinically unapparent. However, because of the low prevalence of bladder cancer, the positive predictive value of these tests is low.
• Smoking increases the risk for bladder cancer; about 50% of all cases of bladder cancer occur in current or former smokers. Smokers should be counseled on quitting smoking.
• People in occupations that involve exposure to chemicals used in the dye or rubber industries may also have increased risk for bladder cancer. The USPSTF did not review the evidence for targeted screening for those with occupational exposure.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:355-361. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/brcagen/brcagenrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• These recommendations apply to women who have not received a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer. They do not apply to women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that includes a relative with a known deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes; these women should be referred for genetic counseling. These recommendations do not apply to men.
• Although there currently are no standardized referral criteria, women with an increased-risk family history should be considered for genetic counseling to further evaluate their potential risks.
• Certain specific family history patterns are associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Both maternal and paternal family histories are important. For non-Ashkenazi Jewish women, these patterns include 2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, 1 of whom received the diagnosis at age 50 years or younger; a combination of 3 or more first- or second-degree relatives with breast cancer regardless of age at diagnosis; a combination of both breast and ovarian cancer among first- and second-degree relatives; a first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer; a combination of 2 or more first- or second-degree relatives with ovarian cancer regardless of age at diagnosis; a first- or second-degree relative with both breast and ovarian cancer at any age; and a history of breast cancer in a male relative.
• For women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, an increased-risk family history includes any first-degree relative (or 2 second-degree relatives on the same side of the family) with breast or ovarian cancer.
• About 2 percent of adult women in the general population have an increased-risk family history as defined here. Women with none of these family history patterns have a low probability of having a deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes.
• Computational tools are available to predict the risk for clinically important BRCA mutations (that is, BRCA mutations associated with the presence of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both), but these tools have not been verified in the general population. There is no empirical evidence concerning the level of risk for a BRCA mutation that merits referral for genetic counseling.
• Not all women with a potentially deleterious BRCA mutation will develop breast or ovarian cancer. In a woman who has a clinically important BRCA mutation, the probability of developing breast or ovarian cancer by age 70 years is estimated to be 35 percent to 84 percent for breast cancer and 10 percent to 50 percent for ovarian cancer.
• Appropriate genetic counseling helps women make informed decisions, can improve their knowledge and perception of absolute risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and can often reduce anxiety. Genetic counseling includes elements of counseling; risk assessment; pedigree analysis; and, in some cases, recommendations for testing for BRCA mutations in affected family members, the presenting patient, or both. It is best delivered by a suitably trained health care provider.
• A BRCA test is typically ordered by a physician. When done in concert with genetic counseling, the test assures the linkage of testing with appropriate management decisions. Genetic testing may lead to potential adverse ethical, legal, and social consequences, such as insurance and employment discrimination; these issues should be discussed in the context of genetic counseling and evaluation for testing.
• Among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, prophylactic mastectomy or oophorectomy decreases the incidence of breast and ovarian cancer; there is inadequate evidence for mortality benefits. Chemoprevention with selective estrogen receptor modulators may decrease incidence of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer; however, it is also associated with adverse effects, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and endometrial cancer. Most breast cancer associated with BRCA1 mutations is estrogen receptornegative and thus is not prevented by tamoxifen. Intensive screening with mammography has poor sensitivity, and there is no evidence of benefit of intensive screening for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may detect more cases of cancer, but the effect on mortality is not clear.
• Women with an increased-risk family history are at risk not only for deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations but potentially for other unknown mutations as well. Women with an increased-risk family history who have negative results on tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations may also benefit from surgical prophylaxis.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(1):56-8. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastchemo/breastchemorr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Clinicians should consider both the risk for breast cancer and the risk for adverse effects when identifying women who may be candidates for chemoprevention.

  Risk for breast cancer. Older age; a family history of breast cancer in a mother, sister, or daughter; and a history of atypical hyperplasia on a breast biopsy are the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. Table 1 indicates how the estimated benefits of tamoxifen vary depending on age and family history. Other factors that contribute to risk include race, early age at menarche, pregnancy history (nulliparity or older age at first birth), and number of breast biopsies. The risk for developing breast cancer within the next 5 years can be estimated using risk factor information by completing the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Tool (the "Gail model," available at http://cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ or 800-4-CANCER). Clinicians can use this information to help individual patients considering tamoxifen therapy estimate the potential benefit. However, the validity, feasibility, and impact of using the Gail model to identify appropriate candidates for chemoprevention have not been tested in a primary care setting. The Gail model does not incorporate estradiol levels or estrogen use, factors that some studies suggest may influence the effectiveness of tamoxifen.

  Risk for adverse effects. Women are at lower risk for adverse effects from chemoprevention if they are younger; have no predisposition to thromboembolic events such as stroke, pulmonary embolism, or deep venous thrombosis; or do not have a uterus.

• In general, the balance of benefits and harms of chemoprevention is more favorable for:
  1. Women in their 40s who are at increased risk for breast cancer and have no predisposition to thromboembolic events.
  2. Women in their 50s who are at increased risk for breast cancer, have no predisposition to thromboembolic events, and do not have a uterus. For example, a woman who is 45 years of age and has a mother, sister, or daughter with breast cancer would have approximately a 1.6 percent risk for developing breast cancer over the next 5 years (Table 1). On average, treating such women with tamoxifen for 5 years would prevent about three times as many invasive cancers (8 per 1,000) as the number of serious thromboembolic complications caused (1 stroke and 1 to 2 pulmonary emboli per 1,000). Among women 55 years of age, benefits exceed harms only for those who are not at risk for endometrial cancer; and the margin of benefit is small unless risk for breast cancer is substantially increased (for example, 4% over 5 years).
• Women younger than 40 years of age have a lower risk for breast cancer, and thus will not experience as large an absolute benefit from breast cancer chemoprevention as older women. Women 60 years of age and older, who have the highest risk for breast cancer also have the highest risk for complications from chemoprevention, with a less favorable balance of benefits and harms.
• The USPSTF found more evidence for the benefits of tamoxifen than for the benefits of raloxifene. Currently, only tamoxifen is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the specific indication of breast cancer chemoprevention. Although there are biological reasons to suspect that raloxifene should have similar benefits, trial data currently are limited to one study in which the primary outcome was fracture prevention. Additional trials to further evaluate this drug's efficacy for breast cancer chemoprevention are underway, including a trial comparing efficacy and safety of raloxifene and tamoxifen. Raloxifene is approved by the FDA for preventing and treating osteoporosis.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2002;137(Part 1):344-6. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanrr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• The precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences. Clinicians should inform women about the potential benefits (reduced chance of dying from breast cancer), potential harms (e.g., false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies), and limitations of the test that apply to women their age. Clinicians should tell women that the balance of benefits and potential harms of mammography improves with increasing age for women between the ages of 40 and 70.
• Women who are at increased risk for breast cancer (e.g., those with a family history of breast cancer in a mother or sister, a previous breast biopsy revealing atypical hyperplasia, or first childbirth after age 30) are more likely to benefit from regular mammography than women at lower risk. The recommendation for women to begin routine screening in their 40s is strengthened by a family history of breast cancer having been diagnosed before menopause.
• The USPSTF did not examine whether women should be screened for genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2) that increase the risk for developing breast cancer, or whether women with genetic mutations might benefit from earlier or more frequent screening for breast cancer.
• In the trials that demonstrated the effectiveness of mammography in lowering breast cancer mortality, screening was performed every 12-33 months. For women aged 50 and older, there is little evidence to suggest that annual mammography is more effective than mammography done every other year. For women aged 40-49, available trials also have not reported a clear advantage of annual mammography over biennial mammography. Nevertheless, some experts recommend annual mammography based on the lower sensitivity of the test and on evidence that tumors grow more rapidly in this age group.
• The precise age at which to discontinue screening mammography is uncertain. Only 2 randomized controlled trials enrolled women older than 69 and no trials enrolled women older than 74. Older women face a higher probability of developing and dying from breast cancer but also have a greater chance of dying from other causes. Women with comorbid conditions that limit their life expectancy are unlikely to benefit from screening.
• Clinicians should refer patients to mammography screening centers with proper accreditation and quality assurance standards to ensure accurate imaging and radiographic interpretation. Clinicians should adopt office systems to ensure timely and adequate followup of abnormal results. A listing of accredited facilities is available at www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/certified.html.
• Clinicians who advise women to perform BSE or who perform routine CBE to screen for breast cancer should understand that there is currently insufficient evidence to determine whether these practices affect breast cancer mortality, and that they are likely to increase the incidence of clinical assessments and biopsies.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. January 2003. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/ uspscerv.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• The goal of cytologic screening is to sample the transformation zone, the area where physiologic transformation from columnar endocervical epithelium to squamous (ectocervical) epithelium takes place and where dysplasia and cancer arise. A meta-analysis of randomized trials supports the combined use of an extended tip spatula to sample the ectocervix and a cytobrush to sample the endocervix.²
• The optimal age to begin screening is unknown. Data on natural history of HPV infection and the incidence of high-grade lesions and cervical cancer suggest that screening can safely be delayed until 3 years after onset of sexual activity or until age 21, whichever comes first.³ Although there is little value in screening women who have never been sexually active, many U.S. organizations recommend routine screening by age 18 or 21 for all women, based on the generally high prevalence of sexual activity by that age in the U.S. and concerns that clinicians may not always obtain accurate sexual histories.
• Discontinuation of cervical cancer screening in older women is appropriate, provided women have had adequate recent screening with normal Pap results. The optimal age to discontinue screening is not clear, but risk of cervical cancer and yield of screening decline steadily through middle age. The USPSTF found evidence that yield of screening was low in previously screened women after age 65. New American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendations suggest stopping cervical cancer screening at age 70. Screening is recommended in older women who have not been previously screened, when information about previous screening is unavailable, or when screening is unlikely to have occurred in the past (e.g., among women from countries without screening programs). Evidence is limited to define "adequate recent screening." The ACS guidelines recommend that older women who have had three or more documented, consecutive, technically satisfactory normal/negative cervical cytology tests, and who have had no abnormal/positive cytology tests within the last 10 years, can safely stop screening.³
• The USPSTF found no direct evidence that annual screening achieves better outcomes than screening every 3 years. Modeling studies suggest little added benefit of more frequent screening for most women. The majority of cervical cancers in the United States occur in women who have never been screened or who have not been screened within the past 5 years; additional cases occur in women who do not receive appropriate followup after an abnormal Pap smear.^4,5 Because sensitivity of a single Pap test for high-grade lesions may only be 60-80 percent, however, most organizations in the United States recommend that annual Pap smears be performed until a specified number (usually two or three) are cytologically normal before lengthening the screening interval.⁶ The ACS guidelines suggest waiting until age 30 before lengthening the screening interval³; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) identifies additional risk factors that might justify annual screening, including a history of cervical neoplasia, infection with HPV or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), or high-risk sexual behavior,⁷ but data are limited to determine the benefits of these strategies.⁷
• Discontinuation of cytological screening after total hysterectomy for benign disease (e.g., no evidence of cervical neoplasia or cancer) is appropriate given the low yield of screening and the potential harms from false-positive results in this population.^8,9 Clinicians should confirm that a total hysterectomy was performed (through surgical records or inspecting for absence of a cervix); screening may be appropriate when the indications for hysterectomy are uncertain. ACS and ACOG recommend continuing cytologic screening after hysterectomy for women with a history of invasive cervical cancer or DES exposure due to increased risk for vaginal neoplasms, but data on the yield of such screening are sparse.
• A majority of cases of invasive cervical cancer occur in women who are not adequately screened.^4,5 Clinicians, hospitals, and health plans should develop systems to identify and screen the subgroup of women who have had no screening or who have had inadequate past screening.
• Newer Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved technologies, such as the liquid-based cytology (e.g., ThinPrep®), may have improved sensitivity over conventional Pap smear screening, but at a considerably higher cost and possibly with lower specificity. Even if sensitivity is improved, modeling studies suggest these methods are not likely to be cost-effective unless used with screening intervals of 3 years or longer. Liquid-based cytology permits testing of specimens for HPV, which may be useful in guiding management of women whose Pap smear reveals atypical squamous cells. HPV DNA testing for primary cervical cancer screening has not been approved by the FDA and its role in screening remains uncertain.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2002;137:129-31. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Potential screening options for colorectal cancer include home fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, the combination of home FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema. Each option has advantages and disadvantages that may vary for individual patients and practice settings. The choice of specific screening strategy should be based on patient preferences, medical contraindications, patient adherence, and available resources for testing and followup. Clinicians should talk to patients about the benefits and potential harms associated with each option before selecting a screening strategy.
• The optimal interval for screening depends on the test. Annual FOBT offers greater reductions in mortality rates than biennial screening but produces more false-positive results. A 10-year interval has been recommended for colonoscopy on the basis of evidence regarding the natural history of adenomatous polyps. Shorter intervals (5 years) have been recommended for flexible sigmoidoscopy and double-contrast barium enema because of their lower sensitivity, but there is no direct evidence with which to determine the optimal interval for tests other than FOBT. Case-control studies have suggested that sigmoidoscopy every 10 years may be as effective as sigmoidoscopy performed at shorter intervals.
• The USPSTF recommends initiating screening at 50 years of age for men and women at average risk for colorectal cancer, based on the incidence of cancer above this age in the general population. In persons at higher risk (for example, those with a first-degree relative who receives a diagnosis with colorectal cancer before 60 years of age), initiating screening at an earlier age is reasonable.
• Expert guidelines exist for screening very high-risk patients, including those with a history suggestive of familial polyposis or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, or those with a personal history of ulcerative colitis.¹⁰ Early screening with colonoscopy may be appropriate, and genetic counseling or testing may be indicated for patients with genetic syndromes.
• The appropriate age at which colorectal cancer screening should be discontinued is not known. Screening studies have generally been restricted to patients younger than 80 years of age, with colorectal cancer mortality rates beginning to decrease within 5 years of initiating screening. Yield of screening should increase in older persons (because of higher incidence of colorectal cancer), but benefits may be limited as a result of competing causes of death. Discontinuing screening is therefore reasonable in patients whose age or comorbid conditions limit life expectancy.
• Proven methods of FOBT screening use guaiac-based test cards prepared at home by patients from three consecutive stool samples and forwarded to the clinician. Whether patients need to restrict their diet and avoid certain medications is not established. Rehydration of the specimens before testing increases the sensitivity of FOBT but substantially increases the number of false-positive test results. Neither digital rectal examination (DRE) nor the testing of a single stool specimen obtained during DRE is recommended as an adequate screening strategy for colorectal cancer.
• The combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy may detect more cancers and more large polyps than either test alone, but the additional benefits and potential harms of combining the 2 tests are uncertain. In general, FOBT should precede sigmoidoscopy because a positive test result is an indication for colonoscopy, obviating the need for sigmoidoscopy.
• Colonoscopy is the most sensitive and specific test for detecting cancer and large polyps but is associated with higher risks than other screening tests for colorectal cancer. These include a small risk for bleeding and risk for perforation, primarily associated with removal of polyps or biopsies performed during screening. Colonoscopy also usually requires more highly trained personnel, overnight bowel preparation, sedation, and longer recovery time, which may necessitate transportation for the patient. It is not certain whether the potential added benefits of colonoscopy relative to screening alternatives are large enough to justify the added risks and inconvenience for all patients.
• Initial costs of colonoscopy are higher than the costs of other tests. Estimates of cost-effectiveness, however, suggest that, from a societal perspective, compared with no screening, all methods of colorectal cancer screening are likely to be as cost-effective as many other clinical preventive services-less than $30,000 per additional year of life gained.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2004;140:738-9. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/lungcancer/lungcanrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• The benefit of screening for lung cancer has not been established in any group, including asymptomatic high-risk populations such as older smokers. The balance of harms and benefits becomes increasingly unfavorable for persons at lower risk, such as nonsmokers.
• The sensitivity of LDCT for detecting lung cancer is four times greater than the sensitivity of CXR. However, LDCT is also associated with a greater number of false-positive results, more radiation exposure, and increased costs compared with CXR.
• Because of the high rate of false-positive results, many patients will undergo invasive diagnostic procedures as a result of lung cancer screening. Although the morbidity and mortality rates from these procedures in asymptomatic individuals are not available, mortality rates due to complications from surgical interventions in symptomatic patients reportedly range from 1.3 percent to 11.6 percent; morbidity rates range from 8.8 percent to 44 percent, with higher rates associated with larger resections.
• Other potential harms of screening are potential anxiety and concern as a result of false-positive tests, as well as possible false reassurance because of false-negative results. However, these harms have not been adequately studied.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. February 2004.  http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/oralcan/oralcanrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Direct inspection and palpation of the oral cavity is the most commonly recommended method of screening for oral cancer, although there are little data on the sensitivity and specificity of this method. Screening techniques other than inspection and palpation are being evaluated but are still experimental.
• Tobacco use in all forms is the biggest risk factor for oral cancer. Alcohol abuse combined with tobacco use increases risk.
• Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of oral cancer when treating patients who use tobacco or alcohol.
• Patients should be encouraged to not use tobacco and to limit alcohol use in order to decrease their risk for oral cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and cirrhosis.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in: Ann Fam Med 2004;2:260-2. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ovariancan/ovcanrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• There is no existing evidence that any screening test, including CA-125, ultrasound, or pelvic examination, reduces mortality from ovarian cancer. Furthermore, existing evidence that screening can detect early-stage ovarian cancer is insufficient to indicate that this earlier diagnosis will reduce mortality.
• Because there is a low incidence of ovarian cancer in the general population (age-adjusted incidence of 17 per 100,000 women), screening for ovarian cancer is likely to have a relatively low yield. The great majority of women with a positive screening test will not have ovarian cancer (i.e., they will have a false-positive result). In women at average risk, the positive predictive value of an abnormal screening test is, at best, approximately 2 percent (i.e., 98 percent of women with positive test results will not have ovarian cancer).
• The positive predictive value of an initially positive screening test would be more favorable for women at higher risk. For example, the lifetime probability of ovarian cancer increases from about 1.6 percent in a 35-year-old woman without a family history of ovarian cancer to about 5 percent if she has 1 relative and 7 percent if she has 2 relatives with ovarian cancer. If ongoing clinical trials show that screening has a beneficial effect on mortality rates, then women at higher risk are likely to experience the greatest benefit.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. February 2004.  http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/pancreatic/pancrers.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Due to the poor prognosis of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, there is an interest in primary prevention. The evidence for diet-based prevention of pancreatic cancer is limited and conflicting. Some experts recommend lifestyle changes that may help to prevent pancreatic cancer, such as stopping the use of tobacco products, moderating alcohol intake, and eating a balanced diet with sufficient fruit and vegetables.
• Persons with hereditary pancreatitis may have a higher lifetime risk for developing pancreatic cancer.¹¹ However, the USPSTF did not review the effectiveness of screening these patients.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2002;137:915-6. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr/prostaterr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE) can effectively detect prostate cancer in its early pathologic stages. Recent evidence suggests that radical prostatectomy can reduce prostate cancer mortality in men whose cancer is detected clinically. The balance of potential benefits (the reduction of morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer) and harms (false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and possible complications) of early treatment of the types of cancers found by screening, however, remains uncertain. Therefore, the benefits of screening for early prostate cancer remain unknown. Ongoing screening trials, and trials of treatment versus "watchful waiting" for cancers detected by screening, may help clarify the benefits of early detection of prostate cancer.
• Despite the absence of firm evidence of effectiveness, some clinicians may opt to perform prostate cancer screening for other reasons. Given the uncertainties and controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening, clinicians should not order the PSA test without first discussing with the patient the potential but uncertain benefits and the possible harms of prostate cancer screening. Men should be informed of the gaps in the evidence, and they should be assisted in considering their personal preferences and risk profile before deciding whether to be tested.
• If early detection improves health outcomes, the population most likely to benefit from screening will be men aged 50 to 70 who are at average risk, and men older than 45 who are at increased risk (African American men and men with a family history of a first-degree relative with prostate cancer).¹² Benefits may be smaller in Asian Americans, Hispanics, and other racial and ethnic groups that have a lower risk of prostate cancer. Older men and men with other significant medical problems who have a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years are unlikely to benefit from screening.¹²
• PSA testing is more sensitive than DRE for the detection of prostate cancer. PSA screening with the conventional cut-point of 4.0 ng/ml detects a large majority of prostate cancers; however, a significant percentage of early prostate cancers (10 percent to 20 percent) will be missed by PSA testing alone.¹³ Using a lower threshold to define an abnormal PSA detects more cancers at the cost of more false positives and more biopsies. The yield of screening in terms of cancer detected declines rapidly with repeated annual testing.¹² If screening were to reduce mortality, biennial PSA screening could yield as much benefit as annual screening.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. October 2003.  http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Using sunscreen has been shown to prevent squamous cell skin cancer. The evidence for the effect of sunscreen use in preventing melanoma, however, is mixed. Sunscreens that block both ultraviolet A (UV-A) and ultraviolet B (UV-B) light may be more effective in preventing squamous cell cancer and its precursors than those that block only UV-B light. However, people who use sunscreen alone could increase their risk for melanoma if they increase the time they spend in the sun.
• UV exposure increases the risk for skin cancer among people with all skin types, but especially fair-skinned people. Those who sunburn readily and tan poorly, namely those with red or blond hair and fair skin that freckles or burns easily, are at highest risk for developing skin cancer and would benefit most from sun protection behaviors. The incidence of melanoma among whites is 20 times higher than it is among blacks; the incidence of melanoma among whites is about 4 times higher than it is among Hispanics.
• Observational studies indicate that intermittent or intense sun exposure is a greater risk factor for melanoma than chronic exposure. These studies support the hypothesis that preventing sunburn, especially in childhood, may reduce the lifetime risk for melanoma.
• Other measures for preventing skin cancer include avoiding direct exposure to midday sun (between the hours of 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM) to reduce exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays and covering skin exposed to the sun (by wearing protective clothing such as broad-brimmed hats, long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and sunglasses).
• The effects of sunlamps and tanning beds on the risk for melanoma are unclear due to limited study design and conflicting results from retrospective studies.
• Only a single case-control study of skin self-examination has reported a lower risk for melanoma among patients who reported ever examining their skin over 5 years. Although results from this study suggest that skin self-examination may be effective in preventing skin cancer, these results are not definitive.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3S):44-6. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ajpmsuppl/skcarr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• Benefits from screening are unproven, even in high-risk patients. Clinicians should be aware that fair-skinned men and women aged > 65, patients with atypical moles, and those with > 50 moles constitute known groups at substantially increased risk for melanoma.
• Clinicians should remain alert for skin lesions with malignant features noted in the context of physical examinations performed for other purposes. Asymmetry, border irregularity, color variability, diameter > 6 mm ("A," "B," "C," "D"), or rapidly changing lesions are features associated with an increased risk of malignancy. Suspicious lesions should be biopsied.
• The USPSTF did not examine the outcomes related to surveillance of patients with familial syndromes, such as familial atypical mole and melanoma (FAM-M) syndrome.

Return to Contents

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. February 2004.  http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm.

Clinical Considerations

• The low incidence of testicular cancer and favorable outcomes in the absence of screening make it unlikely that clinical testicular examinations would provide important health benefits. Clinical examination by a physician and self-examination are the potential screening options for testicular cancer. However, little evidence is available to assess the accuracy, yield, or benefits of screening for testicular cancer.
• Although currently most testicular cancers are discovered by patients themselves or their partners, either unintentionally or by self-examination, there is no evidence that teaching young men how to examine themselves for testicular cancer would improve health outcomes, even among men at high risk, including men with a history of undescended testes or testicular atrophy.
• Clinicians should be aware of testicular cancer as a possible diagnosis when young men present to them with suggestive signs and symptoms. There is some evidence that patients who present initially with symptoms of testicular cancer are frequently diagnosed as having epididymitis, testicular trauma, hydrocele, or other benign disorders. Efforts to promote prompt assessment and better evaluation of testicular problems may be more effective than widespread screening as a means of promoting early detection.

Return to Contents

• The USPSTF did not review evidence regarding vitamin supplementation for patients with known or potential nutritional deficiencies, including pregnant and lactating women, children, the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses. Dietary supplements may be appropriate for people whose diet does not provide the recommended dietary intake of specific vitamins. Individuals may wish to consult a health care provider to discuss whether dietary supplements are appropriate.
• With the exception of vitamins for which there is compelling evidence of net harm (e.g., beta-carotene supplementation in smokers), there is little reason to discourage people from taking vitamin supplements. Patients should be reminded that taking vitamins does not replace the need to eat a healthy diet. All patients should receive information about the benefits of a diet high in fruit and vegetables, as well as information on other foods and nutrients that should be emphasized or avoided in their diet (2002 USPSTF recommendation on counseling to promote a healthy diet).
• Patients who choose to take vitamins should be encouraged to adhere to the dosages recommended in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) of the Institute of Medicine. Some vitamins, such as A and D, may be harmful in higher doses; therefore, doses greatly exceeding the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) or Adequate Intake (AI) should be taken with care while considering whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits. Vitamins and minerals sold in the United States are classified as "dietary supplements," and there is a degree of quality control over content if they have a U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) seal.¹⁴ Nevertheless, imprecision in the content and concentration of ingredients could pose a theoretical risk not reflected in clinical trials using calibrated compounds.
• The adverse effects of beta-carotene on smokers have been observed primarily in those taking large supplemental doses. There is no evidence to suggest that beta-carotene is harmful to smokers at levels occurring naturally in foods.
• The USPSTF did not review evidence supporting folic acid supplementation among pregnant women to reduce neural tube defects. In 1996, the USPSTF recommended folic acid for all women who are planning, or capable of, pregnancy (see 1996 USPSTF chapter on screening for neural tube defects).¹⁵
• Clinicians and patients should discuss the possible need for vitamin supplementation when taking certain medications (e.g., folic acid supplementation for those patients taking methotrexate).

Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section