Human ; Infant, Newborn ; Mass Screening ; Neonatal Screening ; Censuses

Infant, Newborn ; Mass Screening ; Neonatal Screening

Human ; Mass Screening ; Mothers ; Nuchal Translucency Measurement ; Prenatal Diagnosis

Humans ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Endoscopy ; Esophageal Neoplasms/epidemiology* ; Risk Factors ; Mass Screening

OBJECTIVE

This study determined the diagnostic accuracies of Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (GROP) criteria and a novel modified G-ROP criteria on identifying retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in infants referred for screening at a tertiary hospital.

This was a single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study. Medical records of infants referred for ROP screening from January 2012 to December 2021 were reviewed. Infants were labelled as “requiring ROP examination” if they met the 2020 Philippine Academy of Ophthalmology – ROP Working Group (PAO-ROPWG) screening consensus, G-ROP, or modified G-ROP criteria. We compared the accuracy of each criterion in predicting prethreshold ROP, evaluating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, as well as percentage of low-risk infants. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests and one-way ANOVA with post hoc testing.

Of the 873 infants, 162 infants (18.6%) were noted to have ROP of any stage. Type 1 ROP developed in 15.4%, and type 2 ROP in 16.7%. The 2020 PAO-ROPWG consensus had 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 86.3%- 100%) in detecting type 1 and 2 ROP while 323 infants (37%) were low-risk. G-ROP criteria had 100% (95% CI: 86.3%-100%) sensitivity and 79.2% (95% CI: 76.4%-81.9%) specificity in predicting type 1 ROP, and 88.89% (95% CI: 70.84%-97.65%) sensitivity and 79.1% (95% CI: 76.2%-81.8%) specificity in predicting type 2 ROP, while 672 infants (77%) were classified as low-risk. Modified G-ROP criteria had a 100% (95% CI: 86.3%-100%) sensitivity in predicting type 1 and 2 ROP, 54.9% (95% CI: 51.5%-58.3%) and 55.1% (95% CI: 51.7%-58.5%) specificity in predicting type 1 and type 2 ROP, respectively, while 472 infants (54%) were classified as low-risk.

G-ROP and modified G-ROP criteria showed high sensitivity and better specificity compared to the 2020 PAO-ROPWG consensus. Their stricter criteria for gestational age and birth weight likely enhanced specificity. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a broader population.

Objectives: This preliminary study determined the prevalence of HIV infection among patients with newly diagnosed solid and hematologic malignancies at the Philippine General Hospital - Cancer Institute. Methods: Adult Filipinos aged 19 years and above with biopsy- or imaging-confirmed malignancy and for chemotherapy, seen at the adult medical oncology and hematology clinic from January to September 2021 were included. Demographic and clinical data were obtained using a questionnaire. Rapid HIV screening was performed using blood extracted via finger prick. Pre- and post-test counselling were conducted. Results: Of the 124 patients included in our study, majority were female (91, 73.4%), and 45 years old and above with a median age of 49 (20 – 74). Majority had solid tumors (121, 97.6%) with breast cancer being the most common (67, 54.0%) followed by colorectal (18, 14.5%), and head and neck cancer (14, 11.3%). Among those with hematologic malignancies, two had acute myelogenous leukemia and one had multiple myeloma. Six patients had AIDS-defining malignancies (NHL, cervical cancer). HIV risk factors and associated conditions were present in 18 patients (14.5%). Ten patients reported prior HIV testing. None of the patients tested positive for HIV. Conclusion The absence of HIV cases detected in our cohort may be due to the low prevalence of HIV risk factors and associated conditions. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend HIV testing among newlydiagnosed cancer patients. However, physicians are encouraged to offer HIV testing to cancer patients, especially to those with HIV risk factors, given the benefits of early detection and management of HIV.
HIV ; Philippines ; Neoplasms ; Mass Screening

BACKGROUND: Screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a more effective approach and has the potential to detect lung cancer more accurately. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the accuracy of population-based screening studies primarily assessing baseline LDCT screening for lung cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science were searched for articles published up to April 10, 2022. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data of true positives, false-positives, false negatives, and true negatives in the screening test were extracted. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated by using hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristics analysis. Heterogeneity between studies was measured using the Higgins I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using a Deeks' funnel plot and linear regression test. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies with 157,762 individuals were identified for the final qualitative synthesis; most of them were from Europe and America (38 studies), ten were from Asia, and one was from Oceania. The recruitment period was 1992 to 2018, and most of the subjects were 40 to 75 years old. The analysis showed that the AUC of lung cancer screening by LDCT was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), respectively. The funnel plot and test results showed that there was no significant publication bias among the included studies. CONCLUSIONS Baseline LDCT has high sensitivity and specificity as a screening technique for lung cancer. However, long-term follow-up of the whole study population (including those with a negative baseline screening result) should be performed to enhance the accuracy of LDCT screening.
Humans ; Adult ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging* ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Mass Screening ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Humans ; Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis* ; Early Detection of Cancer ; China ; Mass Screening

INTRODUCTION: MyDiagnostick is an atrial fibrillation (AF) screening tool that has been validated in the Caucasian population in the primary care setting. METHODS: In our study, we compared MyDiagnostick with manual pulse check for AF screening in the community setting. RESULTS: In our cohort of 671 candidates from a multi-ethnic Asian population, AF prevalence was found to be 1.78%. Of 12 candidates, 6 (50.0%) had a previous history of AF and another 6 (50.0%) were newly diagnosed with AF. Candidates found to have AF during the screening were older (72.0 ± 11.7 years vs. 56.0 ± 13.0 years, P < 0.0001) and had a higher CHADSVASC risk score (2.9 ± 1.5 vs. 1.5 ± 1.1, P = 0.0001). MyDiagnostick had a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 96.2%. In comparison, manual pulse check had a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 98.9%. CONCLUSION MyDiagnostick is a simple AF screening device that can be reliably used by non-specialist professionals in the community setting. Its sensitivity and specificity are comparable and validated across various studies performed in different population cohorts.
Humans ; Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis* ; Heart Rate ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Risk Factors ; Electrocardiography ; Mass Screening

Humans ; Aspirin/therapeutic use* ; Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control* ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use* ; Risk Assessment ; Mass Screening