Search

Background: Supporting well-informed decisions about breast cancer screening requires communicating that inconsequential disease may be detected, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Having previously shown that telling women about overdetection improved informed choice, we investigated effects on screening knowledge and participation over 2 years., Methods: We conducted a community-based, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Australia. Participants were women aged 48-50 years, without personal or strong family history of breast cancer, who had not undergone mammography in the past 2 years. We randomly assigned 879 women to receive the intervention decision aid (evidence-based information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false-positives) or control decision aid (identical but without overdetection information). We interviewed 838 women postintervention and recontacted them for follow-up at 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Main outcomes for this report are screening knowledge and participation., Results: We interviewed 790, 746, and 712 participants at 6 months, 1, and 2 years, respectively. The intervention group demonstrated superior knowledge throughout follow-up. After 2 years, conceptual knowledge was adequate in 123 (34.4%) of 358 women in the intervention group compared with 71 (20.1%) of 354 control participants(odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.46 to 2.85). Groups were similar in total screening participation (200 [55.1%] vs 204 [56.0%]; = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 1.29)., Conclusions: A brief decision aid produced lasting improvement in women's understanding of potential consequences of screening, including overdetection, without changing participation rates. These findings support the use of decision aids for breast cancer screening., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The incidence of non-invasive breast cancer has increased substantially over time. We aim to describe temporal trends in the incidence of carcinoma in situ of the breast in New South Wales (NSW), Australia., Methods: Descriptive study of trends in the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) in women who received a diagnosis from 1972 to 2012, recorded in the NSW Cancer Registry., Results: Carcinoma in situ as a proportion of all breast cancer was 0.4% during the prescreening period 1972 to 1987 and is currently 14.1% (2006 to 2012). Among 10,810 women diagnosed with DCIS, incidence across all ages rose from 0.15 per 100,000 during 1972 to 1983 to 16.81 per 100,000 over 2006 to 2012, representing a 100-fold increase (IRR 113.10; 95% CI 81.94 to 156.08). Among women in the target age group for screening (50-69 years) incidence rose from 0.27 per 100,000 to 51.96 over the same period (IRR 195.50; 95% CI 117.26 to 325.89). DCIS incidence peaks in women aged 60-69 years. DCIS incidence has not stabilized despite screening being well established for over 20 years, and participation rates in the target age range remaining stable., Conclusions: Our findings raise questions about the value of the increasing detection of DCIS and aggressive treatment of these lesions, especially among older women, and support trials of de-escalated treatment., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: Screening mammography aims to improve breast cancer (BC) prognosis by increasing the incidence of early-stage tumours in order to decrease the incidence of late-stage cancer, but no reports have investigated these potential effects in an Australian population. Therefore we aimed to identify temporal trends in stage-specific BC in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between 1972 and 2012., Methods: An observational study of women who received a diagnosis of BC from 1972-2012 as recorded in the NSW Cancer Registry, a population-based registry with almost complete coverage and high rates of histological verification. We analysed trends in stage-specific incidence before screening and compared them to periods after screening began. Our primary group of interest was women in the target age range of 50-69 years, though trends in women outside the target age were also assessed., Results: Screening was not associated with lower incidence of late-stage BC at diagnosis. Incidence for all stages remained higher than prescreening levels. In women aged 50-69 years, the incidence of carcinoma in situ (CIS), localised and regional BC has more than doubled compared to the prescreening era, with incidence rate ratios ranging from 2.0 for regional (95% CI 1.95-2.13) to 121.8 for CIS (95% CI 82.58-179.72). Before the introduction of screening, there was a downward trend in distant metastatic BC incidence, and after the introduction of screening there was an increase (IRR 1.8; 95% CI 1.62-2.00). In women too young to screen the incidence of late-stage BC at diagnosis also increased, whereas localised disease was stable., Conclusions: The incidence of all stages of BC has increased over the past 40 years, with the greatest rise seen during the established screening period for women aged 50-69 years. Our findings suggest that some of the expected benefits of screening may not have been realised and are consistent with overdiagnosis.

From 2013 through 2017, the Australian national breast cancer screening programme is gradually inviting women aged 70-74 years to attend screening, following a policy decision to extend invitations to older women. We estimate the benefits and harms of the new package of biennial screening from age 50-74 compared with the previous programme of screening from age 50-69. Using a Markov model, we applied estimates of the relative risk reduction for breast cancer mortality and the risk of overdiagnosis from the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening review to Australian breast cancer incidence and mortality data. We estimated screening specific outcomes (recalls for further imaging, biopsies, false positives, and interval cancer rates) from data published by BreastScreen Australia. When compared with stopping at age 69, screening 1,000 women to age 74 is likely to avert one more breast cancer death, with an additional 78 women receiving a false positive result and another 28 women diagnosed with breast cancer, of whom eight will be overdiagnosed and overtreated. The extra 5 years of screening results in approximately 7 more overdiagnosed cancers to avert one more breast cancer death. Thus extending screening mammography in Australia to older women results in a less favourable harm to benefit ratio than stopping at age 69. Supporting informed decision making for this age group should be a public health priority., (© 2017 UICC.)

Objectives: In a randomised controlled trial, we found that informing women about overdetection changed their breast screening decisions. We now present a mediation analysis exploring the psychological pathways through which study participants who received the intervention processed information about overdetection and how this influenced their decision-making. We examined a series of potential mediators in the causal chain between exposure to overdetection information and women's subsequently reported breast screening intentions., Design: Serial multiple mediation analysis within a randomised controlled trial., Setting: New South Wales, Australia., Participants: 811 women aged 48-50 years with no personal history of breast cancer., Interventions: Two versions of a decision aid giving women information about breast cancer deaths averted and false positives from mammography screening, either with (intervention) or without (control) information on overdetection., Main Outcome: Intentions to undergo breast cancer screening in the next 2-3 years., Mediators: Knowledge about overdetection, worry about breast cancer, attitudes towards breast screening and anticipated regret., Results: The effect of information about overdetection on women's breast screening intentions was mediated through multiple cognitive and affective processes. In particular, the information led to substantial improvements in women's understanding of overdetection, and it influenced-both directly and indirectly via its effect on knowledge-their attitudes towards having screening. Mediation analysis showed that the mechanisms involving knowledge and attitudes were particularly important in determining women's intentions about screening participation., Conclusions: Even in this emotive context, new information influenced women's decision-making by changing their understanding of possible consequences of screening and their attitudes towards undergoing it. These findings emphasise the need to provide good-quality information on screening outcomes and to communicate this information effectively, so that women can make well-informed decisions., Trial Registration Number: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613001035718) on 17 September 2013., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Purpose: There is no consensus on adequate negative margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We systematically reviewed the evidence on margins in BCS for DCIS., Methods: A study-level meta-analysis of local recurrence (LR), microscopic margin status and threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression (frequentist) and network meta-analysis (Bayesian) that allows for multiple margin distances per study, adjusting for follow-up time., Results: Based on 20 studies (LR: 865 of 7883), odds of LR were associated with margin status [logistic: odds ratio (OR) 0.53 for negative vs. positive/close (p < 0.001); network: OR 0.45 for negative vs. positive]. In logistic meta-regression, relative to >0 or 1 mm, ORs for 2 mm (0.51), 3 or 5 mm (0.42) and 10 mm (0.60) showed comparable significant reductions in the odds of LR. In the network analysis, ORs relative to positive margins for 2 (0.32), 3 (0.30) and 10 mm (0.32) showed similar reductions in the odds of LR that were greater than for >0 or 1 mm (0.45). There was weak evidence of lower odds at 2 mm compared with >0 or 1 mm [relative OR (ROR) 0.72, 95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.47-1.08], and no evidence of a difference between 2 and 10 mm (ROR 0.99, 95 % CrI 0.61-1.64). Adjustment for covariates, and analyses based only on studies using whole-breast radiotherapy, did not change the findings., Conclusion: Negative margins in BCS for DCIS reduce the odds of LR; however, minimum margin distances above 2 mm are not significantly associated with further reduced odds of LR in women receiving radiation.

Objective: There have been calls to remove 'carcinoma' from terminology for in situ cancers such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We investigated the effect of describing DCIS as 'abnormal cells' versus 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' on women's concern and treatment preferences., Setting and Participants: Community sample of Australian women (n=269) who spoke English as their main language at home., Design: Randomised comparison within a community survey. Women considered a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS described as either 'abnormal cells' (arm A) or 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' (arm B). Within each arm, the initial description was followed by the alternative term and outcomes reassessed., Results: Women in both arms indicated high concern, but still indicated strong initial preferences for watchful waiting (64%). There were no differences in initial concern or preferences by trial arm. However, more women in arm A ('abnormal cells' first term) indicated they would feel more concerned if given the alternative term ('pre-invasive breast cancer cells') compared to women in arm B who received the terms in the opposite order (67% arm A vs 52% arm B would feel more concerned, p=0.001). More women in arm A also changed their preference towards treatment when the terminology was switched from 'abnormal cells' to 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' compared to arm B. In arm A, 18% of women changed their preference to treatment while only 6% changed to watchful waiting (p=0.008). In contrast, there were no significant changes in treatment preference in arm B when the terminology was switched (9% vs 8% changed their stated preference)., Conclusions: In a hypothetical scenario, interest in watchful waiting for DCIS was high, and changing terminology impacted women's concern and treatment preferences. Removal of the cancer term from DCIS may assist in efforts towards reducing overtreatment., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide breast cancer surgery by measuring residual tumor size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Accurate measurement may avoid overly radical surgery or reduce the need for repeat surgery. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis examines MRI's agreement with pathology in measuring the longest tumor diameter and compares MRI with alternative tests., Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Heath Technology Assessment, and Cochrane databases identified eligible studies. Primary study authors supplied IPD in a template format constructed a priori. Mean differences (MDs) between tests and pathology (i.e. systematic bias) were calculated and pooled by the inverse variance method; limits of agreement (LOA) were estimated. Test measurements of 0.0 cm in the presence of pathologic residual tumor, and measurements >0.0 cm despite pathologic complete response (pCR) were described for MRI and alternative tests., Results: Eight studies contributed IPD (N = 300). The pooled MD for MRI was 0.0 cm (LOA: +/-3.8 cm). Ultrasound underestimated pathologic size (MD: -0.3 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.1 cm), with comparable LOA. MDs were similar for MRI (0.1 cm) and mammography (0.0 cm), with wider LOA for mammography. Clinical examination underestimated size (MD: -0.8 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.0 cm), with wider LOA. Tumors "missed" by MRI typically measured 2.0 cm or less at pathology; tumors >2.0 cm were more commonly "missed" by clinical examination (9.3 %). MRI measurements >5.0 cm occurred in 5.3 % of patients with pCR, but were more frequent for mammography (46.2 %)., Conclusions: There was no systematic bias in MRI tumor measurement, but LOA are large enough to be clinically important. MRI's performance was generally superior to ultrasound, mammography, and clinical examination, and it may be considered the most appropriate test in this setting. Test combinations should be explored in future studies.

Objective: There are increasing rates of mastectomy and bi-lateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). To help women avoid decisions that lead to unnecessary aggressive treatments, there have been recent calls to remove the cancer terminology from descriptions of DCIS. We investigated how different proposed terminologies for DCIS affect women's perceived concern and management preferences., Materials and Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a community sample of 26 Australian women varying by education and cancer screening experience. Women responded to a hypothetical scenario using terminology with and without the cancer term to describe DCIS., Results: Among a sample of women with no experience of a DCIS diagnosis, a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS elicited high concern regardless of the terminology used to describe it. Women generally exhibited stronger negative reactions when a cancer term was used to describe DCIS compared to a non-cancer term, and most preferred the diagnosis be given as a description of abnormal cells. Overall women expressed interest in watchful waiting for DCIS but displayed preferences for very frequent monitoring with this management approach., Conclusion: Communicating a diagnosis of DCIS using terminology that does not include the cancer term was preferred by many women and may enable discussions about more conservative management options. However, women's preference for frequent monitoring during watchful waiting suggests women need more education and reassurance about this management approach., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Early assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer allows therapy to be tailored; however, optimal response assessment methods have not been established. We estimated the accuracy of ultrasound (US) to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) using common response criteria and pCR definitions, and estimated incremental accuracy over known prognostic variables. Participants undergoing US after two cycles in the GeparTrio trial randomised to no change in NAC were eligible. US response by World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria (1D or 2D) and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) was assessed. Four pCR definitions were applied. Sensitivity (correct prediction of pCR), specificity (correct prediction of no-pCR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were derived from logistic regression including patient variables with and without US. In 832 patients, DORs decreased as pCR definitions became less stringent (p = 0.01). For WHO-2D, DORs were as follows: 4.07 (ypT0,ypN0), 3.75 (ypT0/is,ypN0), 3.14 (ypT0/is,ypN+/-) and 2.65 (ypT0/is/1a,ypN+/-). DORs did not differ between US criteria (p = 0.60). High sensitivity and lower specificity were found for WHO-2D and RECIST; WHO-1D was highly specific with low sensitivity. Sensitivity was highest for WHO-2D predicting ypT0,ypN0 (sensitivity = 81.7%, specificity = 47.6% vs. 42.3% and 80.4% for WHO-1D). Adding US to models including patient variables (age, T-stage, histology and subtype) improved AUCs for predicting pCR by 2-3%. In conclusion, US accuracy is highest for predicting ypT0,ypN0, shown to be most prognostic of long-term survival. WHO-2D and RECIST maximise sensitivity; WHO-1D maximises specificity. US modestly improves the prediction of pCR by patient characteristics., (© 2014 UICC.)

Objective: To develop, pilot and refine a decision aid (ahead of a randomised trial evaluation) for women around age 50 facing their initial decision about whether to undergo mammography screening., Design: Two-stage mixed-method pilot study including qualitative interviews (n=15) and a randomised comparison using a quantitative survey (n=34)., Setting: New South Wales, Australia., Participants: Women aged 43-59 years with no personal history of breast cancer., Interventions: The decision aid provides evidence-based information about important outcomes of mammography screening over 20 years (breast cancer mortality reduction, overdetection and false positives) compared with no screening. The information is presented in a short booklet for women, combining text and visual formats. A control version produced for the purposes of comparison omits the overdetection-related content., Outcomes: Comprehension of key decision aid content and acceptability of the materials., Results: Most women considered the decision aid clear and helpful and would recommend it to others. Nonetheless, the piloting process raised important issues that we tried to address in iterative revisions. Some participants found it hard to understand overdetection and why it is of concern, while there was often confusion about the distinction between overdetection and false positives. In a screening context, encountering balanced information rather than persuasion appears to be contrary to people's expectations, but women appreciated the opportunity to become better informed., Conclusions: The concept of overdetection is complex and new to the public. This study highlights some key challenges for communicating about this issue. It is important to clarify that overdetection differs from false positives in terms of its more serious consequences (overtreatment and associated harms). Screening decision aids also must clearly explain their purpose of facilitating informed choice. A staged approach to development and piloting of decision aids is recommended to further improve understanding of overdetection and support informed decision-making about screening., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Introduction: Women are largely unaware that mammography screening can cause overdetection of inconsequential disease, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Evidence is lacking about how information on overdetection affects women's breast screening decisions and experiences. This study investigates the consequences of providing information about overdetection of breast cancer to women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening., Methods and Analysis: This is a randomised controlled trial with an embedded longitudinal qualitative substudy. Participants are a community sample of women aged 48-50 in New South Wales, Australia, recruited in 2014. Women are randomly allocated to either quantitative only follow-up (n=904) or additional qualitative follow-up (n=66). Women in each stream are then randomised to receive either the intervention (evidence-based information booklet including overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives) or a control information booklet (including mortality reduction and false positives only). The primary outcome is informed choice about breast screening (adequate knowledge, and consistency between attitudes and intentions) assessed via telephone interview at 2 weeks postintervention. Secondary outcomes measured at this time include decision process (decisional conflict and confidence) and psychosocial outcomes (anticipated regret, anxiety, breast cancer worry and perceived risk). Women are further followed up at 6 months, 1 and 2 years to assess self-reported screening behaviour and long-term psychosocial outcomes (decision regret, quality of life). Participants in the qualitative stream undergo additional in-depth interviews at each time point to explore the views and experiences of women who do and do not choose to have screening., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has ethical approval, and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This research will help ensure that information about overdetection may be communicated clearly and effectively, using an evidence-based approach, to women considering breast cancer screening., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001035718., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to guide breast cancer surgery by measuring residual tumour after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study-level meta-analysis examines MRI's agreement with pathology, compares MRI with alternative tests and investigates consistency between different measures of agreement., Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Mean differences (MDs) in tumour size between MRI or comparator tests and pathology were pooled by assuming a fixed effect. Limits of agreement (LOA) were estimated from a pooled variance by assuming equal variance of the differences across studies., Results: Data were extracted from 19 studies (958 patients). The pooled MD between MRI and pathology from six studies was 0.1 cm (95% LOA: -4.2 to 4.4 cm). Similar overestimation for MRI (MD: 0.1 cm) and ultrasound (US) (MD: 0.1 cm) was observed, with comparable LOA (two studies). Overestimation was lower for MRI (MD: 0.1 cm) than mammography (MD: 0.4 cm; two studies). Overestimation by MRI (MD: 0.1 cm) was smaller than underestimation by clinical examination (MD: -0.3 cm). The LOA for mammography and clinical examination were wider than that for MRI. Percentage agreement between MRI and pathology was greater than that of comparator tests (six studies). The range of Pearson's/Spearman's correlations was wide (0.21-0.92; 16 studies). Inconsistencies between MDs, percentage agreement and correlations were common., Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging appears to slightly overestimate pathologic size, but measurement errors may be large enough to be clinically significant. Comparable performance by US was observed, but agreement with pathology was poorer for mammography and clinical examination. Percentage agreement can provide supplementary information to MDs and LOA, but Pearson's/Spearman's correlation does not provide evidence of agreement and should be avoided. Further comparisons of MRI and other tests using the recommended methods are warranted.

Background: Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) have increased risk of an interval cancer. We aimed to identify risk factors for second (ipsilateral or contralateral) screen-detected or interval breast cancer within 1 year of screening in PHBC women., Methods: Screening mammograms from women with history of early-stage breast cancer at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated facilities (1996-2008) were examined. Associations between woman-level, screen-level, and first cancer variables and the probability of a second breast cancer were modeled using multinomial logistic regression for three outcomes [screen-detected invasive breast cancer, interval invasive breast cancer, or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] relative to no second breast cancer., Results: There were 697 second breast cancers, of these 240 were interval cancers, among 67,819 screens in 20,941 women. In separate models for women with DCIS or invasive first cancer, first breast cancer surgery predicted all three second breast cancer outcomes (P < 0.001), and high ORs for second breast cancers (between 1.95 and 4.82) were estimated for breast conservation without radiation (relative to mastectomy). In women with invasive first breast cancer, additional variables predicted risk (P < 0.05) for at least one of the three outcomes: first-degree family history, dense breasts, longer time between mammograms, young age at first breast cancer, first breast cancer stage, and adjuvant systemic therapy for first breast cancer; and risk of interval invasive breast cancer was highest in women <40 years at first breast cancer (OR, 3.41; 1.34-8.70), those with extremely dense breasts (OR, 2.55; 1.4-4.67), and those treated with breast conservation without radiation (OR, 2.67; 1.53-4.65)., Conclusion: Although the risk of a second breast cancer is modest, our models identify risk factors for interval second breast cancer in PHBC women., Impact: Our findings may guide discussion and evaluations of tailored breast screening in PHBC women, and incorporating this information into clinical decision-making warrants further research.

Background: It has been proposed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be used to guide breast cancer surgery by differentiating residual tumor from pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This meta-analysis examines MRI accuracy in detecting residual tumor, investigates variables potentially affecting MRI performance, and compares MRI with other tests., Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate (relative) diagnostic odds ratios ([R]DORs). Summary sensitivity (correct identification of residual tumor), specificity (correct identification of pCR), and areas under the SROC curves (AUCs) were derived. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Forty-four studies (2050 patients) were included. The overall AUC of MRI was 0.88. Accuracy was lower for "standard" pCR definitions (referent category) than "less clearly described" (RDOR = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 5.23) or "near-pCR" definitions (RDOR = 2.60, 95% CI = 0.73 to 9.24; P = .03.) Corresponding AUCs were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.91. Specificity was higher when negative MRI was defined as contrast enhancement less than or equal to normal tissue (0.83, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.93) vs no enhancement (0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.69; P = .02), with comparable sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; vs 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92; P = .45). MRI had higher accuracy than mammography (P = .02); there was only weak evidence that MRI had higher accuracy than clinical examination (P = .10). No difference in MRI and ultrasound accuracy was found (P = .15)., Conclusions: MRI accurately detects residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Accuracy was lower when pCR was more rigorously defined, and specificity was lower when test negativity thresholds were more stringent; these definitions require standardization. MRI is more accurate than mammography; however, studies comparing MRI and ultrasound are required.

Objective: To elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening., Design: Qualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussions, Setting: Sydney, Australia, Participants: Fifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening., Results: Prior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened., Conclusions: Women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to have a role in predicting final pathologic response when undertaken early during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer. This paper examines the evidence for MRI's accuracy in early response prediction. A systematic literature search (to February 2011) was performed to identify studies reporting the accuracy of MRI during NAC in predicting pathologic response, including searches of MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. 13 studies were eligible (total 605 subjects, range 16-188). Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI was typically performed after 1-2 cycles of anthracycline-based or anthracycline/taxane-based NAC, and compared to a pre-NAC baseline scan. MRI parameters measured included changes in uni- or bidimensional tumour size, three-dimensional volume, quantitative dynamic contrast measurements (volume transfer constant [Ktrans], exchange rate constant [k(ep)], early contrast uptake [ECU]), and descriptive patterns of tumour reduction. Thresholds for identifying response varied across studies. Definitions of response included pathologic complete response (pCR), near-pCR, and residual tumour with evidence of NAC effect (range of response 0-58%). Heterogeneity across MRI parameters and the outcome definition precluded statistical meta-analysis. Based on descriptive presentation of the data, sensitivity/specificity pairs for prediction of pathologic response were highest in studies measuring reductions in Ktrans (near-pCR), ECU (pCR, but not near-pCR) and tumour volume (pCR or near-pCR), at high thresholds (typically >50%); lower sensitivity/specificity pairs were evident in studies measuring reductions in uni- or bidimensional tumour size. However, limitations in study methodology and data reporting preclude definitive conclusions. Methods proposed to address these limitations include: statistical comparison between MRI parameters, and MRI vs other tests (particularly ultrasound and clinical examination); standardising MRI thresholds and pCR definitions; and reporting changes in NAC based on test results. Further studies adopting these methods are warranted., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In current medical literature, mammography and other cancer screening programs are subject to controversy because of debate about the magnitude and nature of the benefits and harms. This paper discusses the issues around informed choice for women considering breast screening., Method: We discuss qualitative and quantitative studies of women's attitudes to breast screening and informed choice., Results: Women view breast screening as a way of avoiding potential regret, and reassurance from normal results is highly valued. Screening participants acknowledge anxiety about false positives but awareness regarding potential overdetection of indolent breast cancer is minimal, and research is needed to assess how better understanding of screening downsides may affect women's views. In any case, weighing up screening advantages and disadvantages is sensitive to personal preferences., Conclusions: Communicators have an ethical obligation to make balanced information available to women, which is flexible enough to respond to the level of detail and involvement desired by each individual. Many women want to know more and to participate more actively in screening decisions. Techniques have been developed to present balanced information and support individual decision making in ways that are accessible and empowering for the wider community. Evaluations of breast cancer screening must integrate clinical data with evidence on the perspectives of women themselves., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women., Objective: To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC., Design and Setting: Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-2007) affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium., Participants: There were 58,870 screening mammograms in 19,078 women with a history of early-stage (in situ or stage I-II invasive) breast cancer and 58,870 matched (breast density, age group, mammography year, and registry) screening mammograms in 55,315 non-PHBC women., Main Outcome Measures: Mammography accuracy based on final assessment, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, and stage at diagnosis., Results: Within 1 year after screening, 655 cancers were observed in PHBC women (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBC women. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBC women were cancer rates of 10.5 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 9.7-11.3) vs 5.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 5.2-6.4), cancer detection rate of 6.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 6.2-7.5) vs 4.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.9-5.0), interval cancer rate of 3.6 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) vs 1.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 1.1-1.7), sensitivity 65.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-69.0%) vs 76.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.7%), specificity 98.3% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.4%) vs 99.0% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.1%), abnormal mammogram results in 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) vs 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%) (all comparisons P < .001). Screening sensitivity in PHBC women was higher for detection of in situ cancer (78.7%; 95% CI, 71.4%-84.5%) than invasive cancer (61.1%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.4%), P < .001; lower in the initial 5 years (60.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-65.5%) than after 5 years from first cancer (70.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-75.6%), P = .006; and was similar for detection of ipsilateral cancer (66.3%; 95% CI, 60.3%-71.8%) and contralateral cancer (66.1%; 95% CI, 60.9%-70.9%), P = .96. Screen-detected and interval cancers in women with and without PHBC were predominantly early stage., Conclusion: Mammography screening in PHBC women detects early-stage second breast cancers but has lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate, despite more evaluation and higher underlying cancer rate, relative to that in non-PHBC women.

Purpose: There is no consensus on what constitutes adequate negative margins in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We review the evidence on surgical margins in BCT for early-stage invasive breast cancer., Methods: Meta-analysis of studies reporting local recurrence (LR) relative to quantified final microscopic margin status and the threshold distance for negative margins. The proportion of LR was modelled using random effects logistic meta-regression., Results: Based on 21 studies (LR in 1,026 of 14,571 subjects) the odds of LR were associated with margin status [model 1: odds ratio (OR) = 2.02 for positive/close versus negative; model 2: OR = 1.80 for close versus negative, 2.42 for positive versus negative (P<0.001 both models)] but not with margin distance [1mm versus 2mm versus 5mm (P > 0.10 both models)], adjusting for median follow-up time. However, there was weak evidence in both models that the odds of LR decreased as the threshold distance for declaring negative margins increased. This bordered significance in model 2 [OR for 1mm, 2mm, 5mm: 1.0, 0.75, 0.51 (P = 0.097 for trend)], and was not significant in model 1 [OR for 1mm, 2mm, 5mm: 1.0, 0.85, 0.58 (P = 0.11 for trend)] but was evident when one study (of women ≤ 40 years) was excluded from this model [OR for 1mm, 2mm, 5mm: 1.0, 0.72, 0.52 (P = 0.058 for trend)]: this trend was rendered insignificant by adjustment for the proportion of subjects receiving a radiation boost or the proportion of subjects receiving endocrine therapy., Conclusions: Margin status has a prognostic effect in all women treated for invasive breast cancer; increasing the threshold distance for declaring negative margins is weakly associated with reduced odds of LR, however adjustment for covariates (adjuvant therapy) removes the significance of this effect. Adoption of wider margins, relative to narrower widths, for declaring negative margins is unlikely to a have substantial additional benefit for long-term local control in BCT., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To estimate the extent of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening in New South Wales, Australia, a population with a well-established mammography screening program which has achieved full geographic coverage., Methods: We calculated overdiagnosis as the observed annual incidence of invasive breast cancer in NSW in 1999-2001 (a screened population) minus the expected annual incidence in this population at the same time, as a percentage of the expected incidence. We estimated expected incidence without screening in 1999-2001 from the incidence of invasive breast cancer in: (1) women in unscreened age groups (interpolation method); and (2) women in all age groups prior to the implementation of screening (extrapolation method). We then adjusted these estimates for trends in major risk factors for breast cancer that may have coincided with the introduction of mammography screening: increasing obesity, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and nulliparity. Finally, we adjusted for lead time to produce estimates of expected incidence in 1999-2001. These were compared with the observed incidence in 1999-2001 to calculate overdiagnosis of breast cancer associated with screening., Results: Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer among 50-69 year NSW women was estimated to be 42 and 30% using the interpolation and extrapolation methods, respectively., Conclusion: Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer attributable to mammography screening appears to be substantial. Our estimates are similar to recent estimates from other screening programmes. Overdiagnosis merits greater attention in research and in clinical and public health policy making.

Purpose: Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for staging women with breast cancer, including screening for occult contralateral cancer. This article is a review and meta-analysis of studies reporting contralateral MRI in women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer., Methods: We systematically reviewed the evidence on contralateral MRI, calculating pooled estimates for positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive:false-positive ratio (TP:FP), and incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR) over conventional imaging. Random effects logistic regression examined whether estimates were associated with study quality or clinical variables., Results: Twenty-two studies reported contralateral malignancies detected only by MRI in 131 of 3,253 women. Summary estimates were as follows: MRI-detected suspicious findings (TP plus FP), 9.3% (95% CI, 5.8% to 14.7%); ICDR, 4.1% (95% CI, 2.7% to 6.0%), PPV, 47.9% (95% CI, 31.8% to 64.6%); TP:FP ratio, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.82). PPV was associated with the number of test positives and baseline imaging. Few studies included consecutive women, and few ascertained outcomes in all subjects. Where reported, 35.1% of MRI-detected cancers were ductal carcinoma in situ (mean size = 6.9 mm), 64.9% were invasive cancers (mean size = 9.3 mm), and the majority were stage pTis or pT1 and node negative. Effect on treatment was inconsistently reported, but many women underwent contralateral mastectomy., Conclusion: MRI detects contralateral lesions in a substantial proportion of women, but does not reliably distinguish benign from malignant findings. Relatively high ICDR may be due to selection bias and/or overdetection. Women must be informed of the uncertain benefit and potential harm, including additional investigations and surgery.

PURPOSE We review the evidence on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging the affected breast to determine its accuracy and impact on treatment. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI in detection of multifocal (MF) and/or multicentric (MC) cancer not identified on conventional imaging. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive (TP) to false positive (FP) ratio, and examined their variability according to quality criteria. Pooled estimates of the proportion of women whose surgery was altered were calculated. Results Data from 19 studies showed MRI detects additional disease in 16% of women with breast cancer (N = 2,610). MRI incremental accuracy differed according to the reference standard (RS; P = .016) decreasing from 99% to 86% as the quality of the RS increased. Summary PPV was 66% (95% CI, 52% to 77%) and TP:FP ratio was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09 to 3.34). Conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to mastectomy was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.9 to 11.3), from WLE to more extensive surgery was 11.3% in MF/MC disease (95% CI, 6.8 to 18.3). Due to MRI-detected lesions (in women who did not have additional malignancy on histology) conversion from WLE to mastectomy was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.6) and from WLE to more extensive surgery was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 9.5). CONCLUSION MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in an important proportion of women by identifying additional cancer, however there is a need to reduce FP MRI detection. Randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of detecting additional disease which changes surgical treatment in women with apparently localized breast cancer.

Estimates of breast-cancer overdetection, the detection with screening of cancer that would not have presented clinically during the woman's lifetime (and therefore would not be diagnosed in the absence of screening), vary widely. We systematically reviewed estimates of overdetection to assess the extent to which these might be biased by study methods. Primary research papers and reviews that estimated overdetection of invasive breast cancer were eligible for inclusion. For each paper we appraised the study design and methods to identify the extent and effect of bias. Two reviews and six primary studies were included. We categorised studies as being based on cumulative-incidence or incidence-rate methods. The least biased overdetection estimates range from -4% to 7.1% for women aged 40-49 years, 1.7% to 54% for women aged 50-59 years, and 7% to 21% for women aged 60-69 years. Studies consistently show that cancer overdetection occurs in screening for breast cancer; however, reported estimates are biased. Sensitivity of mammography for both cancers that will progress and for overdetected cancers may be increasing with time. New studies are urgently needed to quantify the true extent of overdetection in current mammography screening programmes. These studies should be designed to avoid the multiple sources of bias identified in this review.

Interval breast cancers-those diagnosed after a negative mammographic screen and before the next scheduled screen-are an important indicator of the potential effectiveness of population screening for breast cancer. Although the incidence of interval cancers is usually monitored, radiological surveillance is not undertaken routinely in most screening programmes. Here, we describe radiological surveillance of interval breast cancers and discuss methodological difficulties in the radiological review process and in the categorisation of interval cancers as false-negative, true, or occult. Furthermore, we identify methods that affect whether an interval cancer is classified as a false-negative (missed) or a true interval cancer. For all radiological categories of interval cancers, we outline possible changes to screening programmes that might improve cancer detection. Standardised radiological surveillance of interval cancers might allow within-programme comparisons and has the potential to guide practice and improve quality.

Objective: Whether tests such as imaging should be read with or without access to prior clinical information is controversial. Naïve comparisons may suggest that the provision of prior information improves test accuracy, whereas in fact the opposite may be true. This is because provision of clinical background may actually bias test readers to over- or underinterpret relevant test findings, and they may suboptimally integrate the previous and current evidence. We propose comparing the combined accuracy of prior information and a test read (i) with or (ii) without knowledge of prior information. Analysis methods include simple decision rules and logistic regression., Study Design and Setting: A study of cancer detection in women presenting with breast symptoms, in whom ultrasound could be read with or without reviewing prior mammography., Results: Naïve analysis gave an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for ultrasound read with mammography on view that was 4.6% higher (P < .01) than without mammography on view. Our approach, comparing the combined accuracy of mammography and ultrasound read i) with and ii) without knowledge of mammographic findings, showed much smaller differences., Conclusion: Our approach is more appropriate than naïve analyses. The particular choice of analytic method depends on the study size and the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of the prior information and the test reading.

Background: Intraoperative diagnosis of breast cancer metastases in axillary sentinel nodes is desirable to avoid a second operation for lymphadenectomy. Imprint or touch-preparation cytology is a popular technique that has high specificity and a wide range of sensitivity., Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed. Included articles were assessed for methodological and reporting quality. Random-effects model pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Single-variable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were performed for predictors of sensitivity., Results: Thirty-one studies were included; all were of good methodological quality but reporting quality varied. Pooled sensitivity of imprint cytology was 63 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 57 to 69) per cent and specificity was 99 (95 per cent c.i. 98 to 99) per cent. Pooled sensitivity for macrometastases was 81 per cent and that for micrometastases 22 per cent. Mean or median primary tumour size (P = 0.004), the prevalence of metastases (P = 0.103) and the proportion of micrometastases (P = 0.022) were significant risk factors in single-variable meta-regression analysis. Only the proportion of micrometastases remained significant in multivariable analysis. Frozen sectioning had better sensitivity than imprint cytology in three of four direct comparisons., Conclusion: Imprint cytology is simple and rapid, and has good sensitivity for macrometastases. The significance of poor sensitivity for micrometastases will be determined by trials investigating their natural history., (Copyright 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.)

Breast ultrasound is generally interpreted with knowledge of the mammographic examination. This study examined the influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of ultrasound in women with breast symptoms. Subjects were sampled from all women 25-55 years of age consecutively attending a breast clinic. This included all 240 women shown to have breast cancer and 240 age-matched women shown not to have cancer. Ultrasound films were prospectively reviewed and reported by two radiologists independent of each other and in a blinded manner. A two-phase design was used. In the first phase, the radiologists provided an opinion on the ultrasound films. In the second phase, the ultrasound films were reread with consideration of the corresponding mammographic examination. The accuracy of reading the ultrasound with and without knowledge of the findings on mammography was compared using sensitivity and specificity, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Reporting the ultrasound with knowledge of mammography (compared to without mammography) improved sensitivity and reduced specificity for both radiologists. For one reader, sensitivity increased from 77.5% to 86.7% (p = 0.0002) and specificity decreased from 89.7% to 85.4% (p = 0.04). For the other reader, sensitivity increased from 81.3% to 87.5% (p = 0.0023) and specificity decreased from 87.1% to 85.0% (p = 0.27). ROC curves for both radiologists showed that reporting ultrasound with knowledge of mammography resulted in small (about 3%), but significant improvement in the area under the ROC curve. Our study indicates that knowledge of the findings of mammography improves the interpretation of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women.

Objective: To provide easy to use estimates of the benefits and harms of biennial screening mammography for women aged 40, 50, 60, and 70 years., Design: Markov process model, with data from BreastScreen Australia, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics., Main Outcome Measure: Age specific outcomes expressed per 1000 women over 10 years., Results: For every 1000 women screened over 10 years, 167-251 (depending on age) receive an abnormal result; 56-64 of these women undergo at least one biopsy, 9-26 have an invasive cancer detected by screening, and 3-6 have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by screening. More breast cancers (both invasive and DCIS) are diagnosed among screened than unscreened women. For example, among 1000 women aged 50 who have five biennial screens, 33 breast cancers are diagnosed: 28 invasive cancers (18 detected at screening and 10 interval cancers) and five DCIS (all detected at screening). By comparison, among 1000 women aged 50 who decline screening, 20 cancers are diagnosed over 10 years. There are about 0.5, 2, 3, and 2 fewer deaths from breast cancer over 10 years per 1000 women aged 40, 50, 60, and 70, respectively, who choose to be screened compared with women who decline screening at times determined by relevant policy., Conclusion: Benefits and harms of screening mammography are relatively finely balanced. Quantitative estimates such as these can be used to support individual informed choices about screening.

Background: Fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) is widely used in the diagnosis of breast cancer. It is unknown whether, for palpable cancers, ultrasound-guided FNAB is more accurate than freehand FNAB, and practice varies between physicians, services and countries., Methods: From consecutive women attending a major cancer centre in Florence, we prospectively recruited subjects who had a definitely palpable lump which was solid on ultrasound and suspicious of malignancy (n = 102). All subjects were investigated using both ultrasound-guided and freehand FNAB (one aspirate with each method). Radiologists skilled in both sampling techniques performed all clinical examinations and aspirations, and for each subject the same radiologist obtained both FNAB samples. Sequence of aspiration method was randomised. Cytological interpretation was blinded to method of sampling. Comparative sensitivity (and insufficiency) for FNAB using the two methods was calculated in all cancers (n = 97)., Results: Ultrasound-guided FNAB resulted in 13.6% (5-22%) less insufficient aspirates than freehand FNAB (chi2 = 7.58; p = 0.006). When insufficient aspirates are included and considered as negative, ultrasound-guided FNAB has a 14.6% (5.8-23%) or a 16.5% (7.6-25.4%) significantly better sensitivity than freehand FNAB (for cytology 3-5 positive or cytology 4-5 positive respectively). When insufficient aspirates are excluded from the analysis, ultrasound-guided FNAB has a 1.4% (-1.2 to 3.9%) or a 2.6% (-2.5 to 7.8%) higher sensitivity than freehand FNAB (for cytology 3-5 positive or cytology 4-5 positive respectively) but this difference in the sensitivity of the two methods is not statistically significant., Conclusion: Our data suggest that ultrasound-guided FNAB has better sensitivity than freehand FNAB in palpable breast cancer, which is predominantly an effect of a significant reduction in insufficient aspirates, but in part an effect of 'upgrading' cytological classification of cancers.

Objective: This study examined the influence of knowledge of clinical information on the accuracy of mammography in women referred for investigation of breast symptoms., Methods: Subjects were sampled from all women consecutively attending a symptomatic breast clinic and aged 25-55 years. This included all 240 women shown to have breast cancer and 240 age-matched women shown not to have cancer. Mammography films were prospectively reported by two radiologists independently of each other in a blinded manner and without knowledge of any clinical information. The films were then re-read with information about the type and site of symptoms (and without knowledge of the level of suspicion of cancer on clinical examination). The accuracy of reading with and without information on symptoms was compared using sensitivity and specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The effect of age on changes in test accuracy was examined., Results: Reporting the mammogram with knowledge of clinical information (compared to without any information) significantly improved sensitivity (75.8 vs. 71.3%, P = 0.003) for one radiologist, with a non-significant reduction in specificity (85.4 vs. 87.1%, P = 0.22). For the other radiologist, it resulted in non-significant improvement in both sensitivity (75.4 vs. 73.8%, P = 0.13) and specificity (89.2 vs. 87.9%, P = 0.25). Age did not have a statistically significant effect on changes in test accuracy in our data. ROC curves for both radiologists showed that reporting mammography with knowledge of clinical information resulted in small (about 2%) but significant improvement in overall test accuracy., Conclusion: Our findings support the provision of clinical information relating to patients' presentation to radiologists reporting diagnostic mammography., (Copyright 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers)

We systematically reviewed the literature on the accuracy of new technologies proposed for breast cancer screening. Four potential tests were identified (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and computer-aided detection (CAD)) for which primary studies met quality and applicability criteria and provided adequate data on test accuracy. These technologies have been assessed in cross-sectional studies of test accuracy where the new test is compared to mammography. Ultrasound, used as an adjunct to mammography in women with radiologically dense breasts, detects additional cancers and causes additional false positives. Magnetic resonance imaging may have a better sensitivity (but lower specificity) than mammography in selected high-risk women, but studies of this technology included small number of cancers. Computer-aided detection may enhance the sensitivity of mammography and warrants further evaluation in large prospective trials. One study of FFDM suggests that it may identify some cancers not identified on conventional mammography and may result in a lower recall rate. The evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of any of these new technologies in population screening, but would support further evaluation.

This study examines the influence of work-up on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography in symptomatic women. Subjects were sampled from all women consecutively attending a symptomatic breast clinic and aged 25-55 years (240 women shown to have breast cancer and 240 age-matched women shown not to have cancer). Mammography films were prospectively reported by two radiologists independently of each other and in a blinded manner using two phases of film reading: initially only baseline films were read, then mammography was re-read with work-up films. The accuracy of reporting mammography with and without work-up was compared using sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Reporting the mammogram with work-up (compared to without any work-up films) improved sensitivity (75.3% vs 69.0%, P=0.059) for one radiologist, with a non-significant gain in specificity (84.5% vs 79.4%, P=0.38). For the other radiologist, it resulted in a non-significant decrease in sensitivity (79.5% vs 83.7%, P=0.14) with a significant increase in specificity (85.6% vs 61.9%, P=0.00001). ROC curves for both radiologists showed that reporting mammography with work-up resulted in significant improvement (4.5% for R1, 6.8% for R2) in overall test accuracy. Our findings support the use of work-up mammography in the diagnostic setting.

Objective: We examined the age-specific sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in symptomatic women to determine the age below which sonography may be the more accurate imaging test, which may guide the choice of initial breast imaging examination based on the woman's age., Materials and Methods: Four hundred eighty subjects were sampled from all women consecutively attending a symptomatic breast clinic between 1994 and 1996 and ranging in age from 25 to 55 years. We included all 240 women shown to have breast cancer (thus avoiding selection bias) and 240 age-matched women shown not to have cancer. Mammograms and sonograms were prospectively interpreted independently and without knowledge of age by two radiologists in a blinded manner, with a third radiologist arbitrating disagreements. Sensitivity and specificity of each imaging test in relation to age were examined using logistic regression modeling, and accuracy was compared using the chi-square test for paired proportions., Results: Sensitivity and specificity of each test were not linearly associated with age; however, the sensitivity of mammography increased substantially in women older than 50 years. Sonographic sensitivity of 81.7% was not significantly greater than mammographic sensitivity of 75.8% (chi(2)(1) = 2.06, p = 0.15). However, in women 45 years old or younger, the sensitivity of sonography was 13.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.1-24.3%) greater than that of mammography. The specificity of both tests was approximately 88.0%., Conclusion: These data show that sonography is the more accurate imaging test in women 45 years old or younger who present with breast symptoms and may be an appropriate initial imaging examination.

Background: For early breast cancer, survival after breast conservation is similar to that after mastectomy. Some women may not have a clear preference and wish to have further information about quality of life experienced after the alternative treatments. This paper describes a systematic review of randomized trials on mastectomy versus breast conservation for which there are data on quality of life or psychosocial outcomes., Methods: Literature was reviewed to find all randomized controlled trials comparing breast conservation to mastectomy, with quality of life or psychological effects as an outcome. Studies were then critically appraised by two reviewers independently and any disagreements about their quality and results resolved by discussion., Results: A total of six randomized trials met our inclusion criteria. In general, they are of poor quality. Women who had breast conservation had a more favourable body image of themselves than those who had mastectomy in all five studies in which it was examined. The evidence was statistically inconclusive for all the other dimensions measured, namely perceptions of psychological health, sexual health, physical health, fear of the future and global quality of life. Radiotherapy may be a determinant of poorer psychological health and body image., Conclusions: Apart from body image, it is unclear whether breast conservation or mastectomy results in better psychosocial outcomes. Moreover, the studies were done before evidence was available to inform women about the equivalence of survival with these alternative treatments. Therefore there is inadequate information available to help many women decide about their choice of treatment in the future. Preference trials should be conducted, using standardized quality-of-life measures, in which women who are uncertain about which treatment to choose are randomized to breast conservation or mastectomy.

Using MEDLINE and the bibliographies of retrieved articles and reviews, we identified and systematically reviewed the quality and results of all randomized trials of mammographic screening that included women less than 50 years of age. Eight randomized trials were identified, 7 of which included women less than 50. Identified trials were assessed for the following design features: (a) method of randomization, (b) documented comparability of baseline data, (c) standardized criteria for breast cancer death, (d) blinded review of cause of death, (e) completeness of follow-up, and (f) use of an "intention to treat analysis." The quality of trials was generally high, with a total of almost 160,000 women randomized. In women aged 40-49 at entry, the overall, absolute risk difference between those invited and those not was 0.0004 (95% CI: 0 to 0.0009). Yet, what does this mean to a 40-year-old women considering screening? If 10,000 women aged 40-49 years were screened regularly, then after a decade there would be about 4 less breast cancer deaths? Is that worthwhile? This is a difficult question, and it needs to be weighed against the problems arising from false positives and ductal carcinoma in situ. We recommend that women in this age group intending to be screened should be fully informed of these results in terms of absolute benefit.

This study aimed to examine whether knowledge, attitudes and concerns predicted attendance at the mobile Breast X-Ray Programme in Sydney. A cohort study design was used, whereby women were surveyed prior to the implementation of the program, and two years later records were checked to determine whether they had attended for screening. Telephone interviews were sought with randomly selected women aged 45 to 70 years living in the central Sydney area (the screening van's catchment area). A total of 285 women was surveyed (response rate: 50 per cent). Of these, 86 (30 per cent) subsequently attended at the mobile van and 199 did not. Attendance did not appear to be related to any of the following factors: knowledge; attitudes; prior experience; perceived susceptibility and morbid concern in relation to breast cancer; the amount of information about screening mammography to which a woman had been exposed. The results are interpreted in light of methodological considerations plus findings from our other research.

We examined the psychosocial impact of implementing a generalised campaign to promote mammography screening in an Australian inner city community. Prior to the campaign, telephone interviews were conducted with 628 randomly selected women aged 45-70, 285 in central Sydney (where the screening programme operated) and 343 from the rest of Sydney. A second cross-sectional survey was conducted two years after the campaign commenced. The campaign achieved an estimated 21% attendance rate in an eligible population of 43,000 women over a period of 22 months. Overall the campaign reached a large section of the eligible community, with 70% of women being aware of the van's existence. In addition, the proportion of women who reported being exposed to 'a moderate amount' or 'quite a lot' of information about screening increased by almost 20%. However, two thirds of women still reported being exposed to 'only a little' or no information at all. Attendance was achieved largely in the absence of improvements in knowledge and attitudes. Where change did happen, it occurred in the community overall, rather than being confined to the campaign's target area. Changes were most likely due to general electronic and print media messages, which were largely positive in their tone of reporting on screening. The campaign in one area of central Sydney, Drummoyne, which was much more intense, was successful in encouraging greater awareness of the van and mammography screening, plus greater attendance than in the rest of central Sydney, but had no impact on knowledge or attitudes. There was no demonstrable impact on psychological morbidity.

A random sample of women in Sydney were interviewed by telephone to determine their knowledge about and attitudes to mammography. A response rate of 56 per cent (628 women) was obtained. While the majority of women had had some experience with breast cancer, knowledge about which age groups were most at risk and treatment alternatives was limited. Only about half of the sample had heard about screening mammography before the survey. However, when a simple explanation was given, 79 per cent expressed a favourable attitude toward it. Only 22 per cent of women thought of themselves as being personally susceptible to breast cancer; the proportion was lower in women over 60 than in those in their 40s. Morbid concern about breast cancer was rare. About a quarter of the sample expressed concern about mammographically induced exposure to radiation. Attitudes and perceptions of personal susceptibility were not associated with knowledge about risks of breast cancer. However, having a favourable attitude and a lack of concern about radiation were associated with previously having heard about screening mammography. Women speaking a language other than English at home and from households where the main income earner was in an unskilled occupation were least likely to have heard of screening mammography. Suggestions for data-based recruitment strategies are discussed.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of invitations for mammographic screening. Women aged 45 to 69 who had not attended for screening at the mobile Breast X-Ray Programme of the Central Sydney Area Health Service were randomly selected from the 1989 electoral listing. In the geographical area in which the study was conducted (Drummoyne local government area), 36 per cent of women had attended for screening before the intervention, indicating that the invitations were aimed at the reluctant participant. Women were randomly allocated to a control group who did not receive invitations (n = 80), and an intervention group who received letters from the Program inviting them to attend at a specified time (n = 163). Overall 33 per cent of women (53 of 163) who were sent invitations attended for screening compared to 9 per cent of those not invited (7 of 80) (P less than 0.001). Older women responded at least as well as younger women. In addition, the distribution of language spoken at home was similar for electoral listing attenders and the community as a whole, suggesting that this intervention works as well for women of English- and non-English-speaking backgrounds. The results suggest that the response to an invitation for screening from a source not personally known to women achieves comparable attendance to an invitation from their general practitioner, as assessed in a previous study.

A reliable and valid questionnaire has been developed to measure the satisfaction of participants with service offered at mammography screening programmes. The questionnaire measures five specific aspects: convenience and accessibility, staffs' interpersonal skills, information transfer between staff and client, physical surroundings and perceived technical competence of staff. A general satisfaction dimension was also included. Systematic procedures were followed to ensure that the initial pool of items met the criteria for satisfactory content validity. These procedures included extensive literature review and interviews with participants and service providers. Discriminant validity was assessed by a modified Q-sort procedure, where eight expert judges sorted items into relevant dimensions. The sample for other validity and reliability testing consisted of 584 women who were participants at a breast X-ray programme in Melbourne, Australia. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by considering the correlation of the sum of the subscale scores for each respondent with their score on the general subscale (r = 0.76; P less than 0.001). Multiple regression was used to provide further evidence for the discriminant validity of the proposed subscales and support for the multidimensional conceptualism of satisfaction. Scores on the general satisfaction subscale were used as an outcome variable and other subscale scores were predictor variables. All subscale scores significantly contributed to the prediction of satisfaction, over and above that of other subscales (R2 = 0.59). This indicates that these subscales are measuring distinct dimensions of satisfaction. Cronbach's alpha of each subscale was over 0.50, indicating that the subscales are reliable. The instrument is a potentially useful tool for assessing the quality of care at mammographic screening services and could be used routinely by such services to monitor satisfaction.

We surveyed a random sample of 200 general practitioners from the Sydney metropolitan area about their attitudes to and knowledge of screening mammography. General practitioners' knowledge about some aspects of screening mammography was found to be limited; only 25% of the sample knew that the risk of breast cancer increases with age and only 30% of the sample knew that the evidence for a reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening is weakest for women of less than 50 years of age. Ninety-five per cent of general practitioners were of the opinion that breast self-examination and clinical examination were important for asymptomatic women of more than 45 years of age compared with the 75% of respondents who viewed mammography in the same way. Scores on a scale that was constructed to measure attitudes to mammographic screening showed that 20% of general practitioners had a "very favourable" attitude, and that a further 67% of general practitioners had a "favourable" attitude. No general practitioners had a "very unfavourable" attitude. Eighty-four per cent of general practitioners indicated that they would recommend that their patients attend a free screening-mammography service. Willingness to recommend mammographic screening was predicted by a general practitioner's attitude score. The strongest component of this prediction was a belief that the benefits of screening mammography outweighed the radiation risks. General practitioners need to be supplied with correct information about target groups for screening, so that women in the appropriate age-groups are encouraged to attend screening programmes.