Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia. Emerging evidence from several countries suggests increasing incidence in people aged <50 years. Methods: We assessed colon and rectal cancer incidence trends in people aged 20+ in Australia from 1982 to 2014. We used data on 375,008 incident cases (248,162 colon and 126,846 rectal). We quantified the annual percentage change (APC) in rates by age group using Joinpoint regression. Results: For people aged 70 years) was estimated at 1.9% to 4.9% per annum for colon cancer from 2010 onward and 1.1% to 1.8% per annum in rectal cancer from the early 2000s onward. Conclusions: Colon and rectal cancer incidence has increased in people aged <50 years in Australia over the last two decades. However, colon and rectal cancer rates decreased in people aged 50+, likely due to de facto and organized bowel cancer screening. Impact: Further research is needed to examine the cause of the increase and to quantify the impact of future trends on the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for those <50 years.

Introduction: There are three government-funded population-based screening programs in Australia – the national breast cancer screening program (BreastScreen Australia), the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP), and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Options for early detection of other cancers (e.g. hepatocellular carcinoma and melanoma) are under investigation. This study provides an overview of the health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of population-level breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening, targeted-risk screening for lung cancer and Lynch syndrome, and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in Australia. Methods: The study reviewed and, where possible, updated the estimated health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of screening approaches from modelling studies for four cancer types, PSA testing and Lynch syndrome testing in Australia. Costs are presented in 2018 Australian dollars. Results: The renewed NCSP (for women not HPV-vaccinated) and the NBCSP were estimated to be cost-effective versus no screening; the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was $16 632 per life-year saved (LYS) for the NCSP, and $3380/LYS for the NBCSP. BreastScreen Australia was predicted to have a CER of $40 279/LYS–$65 065/LYS. In 2017, the NCSP transitioned to 5-yearly primary HPV testing with partial genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 for women aged 25–74 years. Alongside vaccination, this change is predicted to prevent a further 587 cervical cancer deaths in 2018–2035, and have a favourable benefit-to-harm balance versus prior practice (biennial cytology testing for women aged 18–69 years). On average, the NBCSP (biennial screening using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for people aged 50–74 years) is estimated to prevent 2519 colorectal cancer deaths and result in 350 colonoscopy-related adverse events annually. The inaccuracy of PSA testing as a screening tool impedes the capacity to conduct meaningful cost-effectiveness analyses at a population level, based on current evidence. Three annual low-dose computed tomography screens for lung cancer using the US National Lung Screening Trial selection criteria would not be cost-effective in Australia. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluation of systematic proband testing, cascade testing and subsequent surveillance for Lynch syndrome in Australia is currently underway. Conclusions: Current evidence supports a favourable cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm balance for the NCSP and NBCSP. An updated cost-effectiveness and benefits-to-harms analysis for BreastScreen Australia is required. Carefully founded quantitative estimates of health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness provide an important aid to policy decision making, and form the basis for developing decision aids to guide individual screening decisions. Opportunities exist for lung cancer screening, systematic Lynch syndrome testing and informed decision making about PSA testing. However, more evidence is required on risk assessment, targeting of screening tests, optimal referral pathways, managing potential harms and delivering services in a cost-effective framework.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to many aspects of life in Australia and globally. This includes actual and potential future impacts on Australia’s three national screening programs for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. These programs aim to improve cancer outcomes through an organised approach to the early detection of cancer and precancer in asymptomatic populations. The design of each program varies according to biological differences in the three cancers, the available screening technology, the target population, and variations in their administration of Australia’s federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The observed and potential impacts of COVID-19 on these programs, and on related activities such as the current national enquiry into lung cancer screening feasibility, therefore vary significantly. This article focuses on observed short-term impacts, adaptations and the longer-term outlook for cancer screening in relation to COVID-19. It summarises potential responses to minimise the harms of disruptions caused by COVID-19, and highlights research and policy opportunities in the pandemic response and recovery which could inform and accelerate optimisation of cancer screening in the long term.

Background: cognitive pharmaceutical services (CPSs) encompass a variety of pharmacists' interventions to optimise pharmacotherapy. The clinical effectiveness of CPSs for aged patients remains controversial. Objective: to analyse and describe the evidence of the clinical effectiveness of CPSs in aged patients by means of performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: using the recommended methodology by Cochrane, a search was undertaken for systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness of CPSs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DOAJ, SCIELO and COCHRANE LIBRARY. Reviews were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Quality of the evidence in the reviews was ranked using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: a total of 14 systematic reviews and one meta-analysis were analysed. The overall quality of the reviews was moderate. High and moderate strength of evidence was found for the positive effect of certain CPSs on reducing the number and improving the appropriateness of medicines. There was conflicting evidence of the effect on adherence. There was limited evidence of high and moderate strength on clinical outcomes. No positive evidence was found on mortality, hospitalisations, functional capacity and cognitive function. No systematic reviews reported the effect on the level of control of health problems. Conclusions: certain types of CPSs reduce the number of medicines and improve the appropriateness of prescriptions. Longer follow-up periods and/or the use of surrogate clinical variables measuring the short-term impact are required to demonstrate the effect on clinical outcomes.