Search

BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barretts esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. METHODS: In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements. RESULTS: Professionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test. CONCLUSIONS: Most professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced public communication, and country-specific regulations.

Purpose: To develop a model that simulates radiologist assessments and use it to explore whether pairing readers based on their individual performance characteristics could optimize screening performance. Methods: Logistic regression models were designed and used to model individual radiologist assessments. For model evaluation, model-predicted individual performance metrics and paired disagreement rates were compared against the observed data using Pearson correlation coefficients. The logistic regression models were subsequently used to simulate different screening programs with reader pairing based on individual true-positive rates (TPR) and/or false-positive rates (FPR). For this, retrospective results from breast cancer screening programs employing double reading in Sweden, England, and Norway were used. Outcomes of random pairing were compared against those composed of readers with similar and opposite TPRs/FPRs, with positive assessments defined by either reader flagging an examination as abnormal. Results: The analysis data sets consisted of 936,621 (Sweden), 435,281 (England), and 1,820,053 (Norway) examinations. There was good agreement between the model-predicted and observed radiologists' TPR and FPR (r ≥ 0.969). Model-predicted negative-case disagreement rates showed high correlations (r ≥ 0.709), whereas positive-case disagreement rates had lower correlation levels due to sparse data (r ≥ 0.532). Pairing radiologists with similar FPR characteristics (Sweden: 4.50% [95% confidence interval: 4.46%–4.54%], England: 5.51% [5.47%–5.56%], Norway: 8.03% [7.99%–8.07%]) resulted in significantly lower FPR than with random pairing (Sweden: 4.74% [4.70%–4.78%], England: 5.76% [5.71%–5.80%], Norway: 8.30% [8.26%–8.34%]), reducing examinations sent to consensus/arbitration while the TPR did not change significantly. Other pairing strategies resulted in equal or worse performance than random pairing. Conclusions: Logistic regression models accurately predicted screening mammography assessments and helped explore different radiologist pairing strategies. Pairing readers with similar modeled FPR characteristics reduced the number of examinations unnecessarily sent to consensus/arbitration without significantly compromising the TPR. Highlights: A logistic-regression model can be derived that accurately predicts individual and paired reader performance during mammography screening reading. Pairing screening mammography radiologists with similar false-positive characteristics reduced false-positive rates with no significant loss in true positives and may reduce the number of examinations unnecessarily sent to consensus/arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Insight into the aggressiveness of potential breast cancers found in screening may optimize recall decisions. Specific growth rate (SGR), measured on mammograms, may provide valuable prognostic information. This study addresses the association of SGR with prognostic factors and overall survival in patients with invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST) from a screened population. Methods: In this historic cohort study, 293 women with NST were identified from all participants in the Nijmegen screening program (2003–2007). Information on clinicopathological factors was retrieved from patient files and follow-up on vital status through municipalities. On consecutive mammograms, tumor volumes were estimated. After comparing five growth functions, SGR was calculated using the best-fitting function. Regression and multivariable survival analyses described associations between SGR and prognostic factors as well as overall survival. Results: Each one standard deviation increase in SGR was associated with an increase in the Nottingham prognostic index by 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21–0.46]. Each one standard deviation increase in SGR increased the odds of a tumor with an unfavorable subtype (based on histologic grade and hormone receptors; odds ratio 2.14 [95% CI: 1.45–3.15]) and increased the odds of diagnosis as an interval cancer (versus screen-detected; odds ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.20–2.06]). After a median of 12.4 years of follow-up, 78 deaths occurred. SGR was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 1.12 [95% CI: 0.87–1.43]). Conclusions: SGR may indicate prognostically relevant differences in tumor aggressiveness if serial mammograms are available. A potential association with cause-specific survival could not be determined and is of interest for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although DBT is the standard initial imaging modality for women with focal breast symptoms, the importance of ultrasound has grown rapidly in the past decades. Therefore, the Breast UltraSound Trial (BUST) focused on assessing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the evaluation of breast symptoms by reversing the order of breast imaging; first performing ultrasound followed by DBT. This side-study of the BUST evaluates patients' perceptions of ultrasound and DBT in a reversed setting. Methods: After imaging, 1181/1276 BUST participants completed a survey consisting of open and closed questions regarding both exams (mean age 47.2, ±11.74). Additionally, a different subset of BUST participants (n = 29) participated in six focus group interviews 18–24 months after imaging to analyze their imaging experiences in depth. Results: A total of 55.3% of women reported reluctance to undergoing DBT, primarily due of pain, while the vast majority also find bilateral DBT reassuring (87.3%). Thematic analysis identified themes related to 1) imaging reluctance (pain/burden, result, and breast harm) and 2) ultrasound and DBT perceptions. Regarding the latter, the theme comfort underscores DBT as burdensome and painful, while ultrasound is largely perceived as non-burdensome. Ultrasound is also particularly valued for its interactive nature, as highlighted in the theme interaction. Perceived effectiveness reflects women's interest in bilateral breast evaluation with DBT and the visibility of lesions, while they express more uncertainty about the reliability of ultrasound. Emotional impact portrays DBT as reassuring for many women, whereas opinions on the reassurance provided by ultrasound are more diverse. Additional themes include costs, protocols and privacy. Conclusions: Ultrasound is highly tolerated, and particularly valued is the interaction with the radiologist. Nearly half of women express reluctance towards DBT; nevertheless, a large portion report feeling more confident after undergoing bilateral DBT, reassuring them of the absence of abnormalities. Understanding patients' perceptions of breast imaging examinations is of great value when optimizing diagnostic pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The current approach to breast cancer screening, which is based on a person's age, overlooks individual-level differences in breast cancer risk. As a result, many people are over- or under-screened according to their actual risk of breast cancer. Risk-stratified breast screening may overcome the limitations of age-based screening, but there are still many knowledge gaps regarding how best to implement it in the population setting. This study will generate the first Canadian evidence on the adoption of breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting, to support the future implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study demonstrated that, while risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level is feasible, an equity lens must be considered in implementation to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened. Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40–69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Owing to its high sensitivity, as concluded in the Breast UltraSound Trial (BUST), targeted ultrasound (US) now seems a promising accurate stand-alone modality for diagnostic evaluation of breast complaints. This approach implies omission of bilateral digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with clearly benign US findings. Within BUST, radiologists started with US followed by DBT. This side-study investigates women's experiences with DBT, their main motivation to undergo diagnostic imaging, and their view on US as a stand-alone modality. Methods: A subset of BUST participants completed a questionnaire on their DBT experiences, reason for undergoing diagnostic assessment, and view on US-only diagnostics. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Results: In total, 778 of 838 women (response rate 92.8%) were included (M = 47, SD = 11.16). Of them, 16.8% reported no burden of DBT, 33.5% slight burden, 31.0% moderate, and 12.7% severe burden. Furthermore, 13% reported no pain, 35.3% slight pain, 33.2% moderate, and 11.3% severe pain. Moreover, 88.3% indicated that the most important reason for breast assessment was explanation of their complaint and to rule out breast cancer, whereas 3.2% wanted to "check" both breasts. And 82.4% reported satisfaction with US only in case of a nonmalignancy. Conclusions: Our study shows that most women in the diagnostic setting experience at least slight-to-moderate DBT-related burden and pain, and that explanation for their symptoms is their main interest. Also, the majority report satisfaction with US only in case of nonmalignant findings. However, exploration of women's perspectives outside this study is needed as our participants all underwent both examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about the impact of screen-detected breast cancer compared with clinically detected breast cancer on the disease-free interval (ie, free from locoregional recurrences, distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer). Moreover, it is thought that most studies overestimate the beneficial effect of screening, as they do not adjust for lead time. We investigated the association between method of breast cancer detection and disease-free interval, taking lead time into account. Methods Women aged 50-76 years, diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Women diagnosed in 2005 were divided into screen-detected and clinically detected cancer and had a follow-up of 10 years (2005 cohort). Women diagnosed in 2006-2008 were divided into screen-detected, interval, and nonscreen-related cancer and had a follow-up of 5 years (2006-2008 cohort). A previously published method was used to adjust for lead time. Analyses were repeated correcting for confounding variables instead of lead time. Results The 2005 cohort included 6215 women. Women with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with clinically detected cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.87). The 2006-2008 cohort included 15 176 women. Women with screen-detected or interval cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with nonscreen-related cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.88; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99, respectively). Correcting for confounders instead of lead time did not change associations. Conclusion Women with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with a nonscreen-related or clinically detected cancer, after correction for lead time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]