Search

Population screening for breast cancer (BC) is currently offered in the UK for women aged 50 to 71 with the aim of reducing mortality. There is additional screening within the national programme for women identified as having a very high risk of BC. There is growing interest in further risk stratification in breast screening, which would require a whole population risk assessment and the subsequent offer of screening tailored to the individual's risk. Some women would be offered more intensive screening than others or no screening. This might provide a better balance of screening benefits and harms for each individual than the current population age-based programme alone. The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) is considering using decision-analytic and other models to evaluate different risk stratification screening strategies and identify remaining gaps in evidence. This paper reports the proceedings of a UK NSC workshop where experts in the field discussed both risk prediction models, as well as decision-analytic models providing a benefit-harm analysis/economic evaluation of risk-stratified screening programmes (see Table 1). The aim of the meeting was to present and discuss the current work of experts, including some data which had not been published at the time of the meeting, to inform the UK NSC. The workshop was not intended to present a balanced evaluation of how to deliver screening in future. Areas for further work identified included methods for comparing models to assess accuracy, the optimum risk assessment tools, the digital screening infrastructure, acceptability of stratification, choice of screening test and reducing inequalities. A move to risk stratification of the whole programme would require a careful phased introduction with continuing assessment of real-world evidence during deployment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The MyPeBS study is an ongoing randomised controlled trial testing whether a risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategy is non-inferior, or eventually superior, to standard age-based screening at reducing incidence of stage 2 or more cancers. This large European Commission-funded initiative aims to include 85,000 women aged 40 to 70 years, without prior breast cancer and not previously identified at high risk in six countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Israel, Spain, UK). A specific work package within MyPeBS examines psychological, socio-economic and ethical aspects of this new screening strategy. It compares women's reported data and outcomes in both trial arms on the following issues: general anxiety, cancer-related worry, understanding of breast cancer screening strategy and information-seeking behaviour, socio-demographic and economic characteristics, quality of life, risk perception, intention to change health-related behaviours, satisfaction with the trial., Methods: At inclusion, 3-months, 1-year and 4-years, each woman participating in MyPeBS is asked to fill online questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, subgroup comparisons and analysis of variations over time will be performed with appropriate tests to assess differences between arms. Multivariate regression models will allow modelling of different patient reported data and outcomes such as comprehension of the information provided, general anxiety or cancer worry, and information seeking behaviour. In addition, a qualitative study (48 semi-structured interviews conducted in France and in the UK with women randomised in the risk-stratified arm), will help further understand participants' acceptability and comprehension of the trial, and their experience of risk assessment., Discussion: Beyond the scientific and medical objectives of this clinical study, it is critical to acknowledge the consequences of such a paradigm shift for women. Indeed, introducing a risk-based screening relying on individual biological differences also implies addressing non-biological differences (e.g. social status or health literacy) from an ethical perspective, to ensure equal access to healthcare. The results of the present study will facilitate making recommendations on implementation at the end of the trial to accompany any potential change in screening strategy., Trial Registration: Study sponsor: UNICANCER. My personalised breast screening (MyPeBS)., Clinicaltrials: gov (2018) available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331 Contact: Cécile VISSAC SABATIER, PhD, + 33 (0)1 73 79 77 58 ext + 330,142,114,293, contact@mypebs.eu., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading., Methods: Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification., Results: CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened.One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner)., Conclusions: Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost.

Background: Poor response rates to postal questionnaires can introduce bias and reduce the statistical power of a study. To improve response rates in our trial in primary care we tested the effect of introducing an unconditional direct payment of 5 pounds for the completion of postal questionnaires., Methods: We recruited patients in general practice with knee problems from sites across the United Kingdom. An evidence-based strategy was used to follow-up patients at twelve months with postal questionnaires. This included an unconditional direct payment of 5 pounds to patients for the completion and return of questionnaires. The first 105 patients did not receive the 5 pounds incentive, but the subsequent 442 patients did. We used logistic regression to analyse the effect of introducing a monetary incentive to increase the response to postal questionnaires., Results: The response rate following reminders for the historical controls was 78.1% (82 of 105) compared with 88.0% (389 of 442) for those patients who received the 5 pounds payment (diff = 9.9%, 95% CI 2.3% to 19.1%). Direct payments significantly increased the odds of response (adjusted odds ratio = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.0, P = 0.009) with only 12 of 442 patients declining the payment. The incentive did not save costs to the trial--the extra cost per additional respondent was almost 50 pounds., Conclusion: The direct payment of 5 pounds significantly increased the completion of postal questionnaires at negligible increase in cost for an adequately powered study.

Background: Though new technologies like Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) may be accurate, they often diffuse into practice before thorough assessment of their value in diagnosis and management, and of their effects on patient outcome and costs. MRI of the knee is a common investigation despite concern that it is not always appropriate. There is wide variation in general practitioners (GPs) access to, and use of MRI, and in the associated costs. The objective of this study was to resolve uncertainty whether GPs should refer patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee for MRI or to an orthopaedic specialist in secondary care., Methods/design: The design consisted of a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial with two parallel groups and concomitant economic evaluation. Patients presenting in general practice with suspected internal derangement of the knee and for whom their GP was considering referral to an orthopaedic specialist in secondary care were eligible for inclusion. Within practices, GPs or practice nurses randomised eligible and consenting participants to the local radiology department for an MRI examination, or for consultation with an orthopaedic specialist. To ensure that the waiting time from GP consultation to orthopaedic appointment was similar for both trial arms, GPs made a provisional referral to orthopaedics when requesting the MRI examination. Thus we evaluated the more appropriate sequence of events independent of variations in waiting times. Follow up of participants was by postal questionnaires at six, twelve and 24 months after randomisation. This was to ensure that the evaluation covered all events up to and including arthroscopy., Discussion: The DAMASK trial should make a major contribution to the development of evidence-based partnerships between primary and secondary care professionals and inform the debate when MRI should enter the diagnostic pathway.

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS) is in progress. The study design, accrual to date, and related research projects are described. Revised accrual rates and expected recruitment are given. 15 cancers have been detected to date, from a total of 1236 screening measurements. This event rate and the tumour grades reported are compared with recent reports from other studies in women at high risk of breast cancer.