Search

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of supplemental 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the diagnostic work-up of BI-RADS 0 recalls. We hypothesized that 3D ABUS may reduce the benign biopsy rate. Materials and methods: In this prospective multicenter diagnostic study, screening participants recalled after a BI-RADS 0 result underwent bilateral 3D ABUS supplemental to usual care: digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and targeted hand-held ultrasound (HHUS). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 3D ABUS, and DBT plus HHUS, were calculated. New 3D ABUS findings and changes of management (biopsy or additional imaging) were recorded. Results: A total of 501 women (median age 55 years, IQR [51–64]) with 525 BI-RADS 0 lesions were included between April 2018 and March 2020. Cancer was diagnosed in 45 patients. 3D ABUS sensitivity was 72.1% (95% CI [57.2–83.4%]), specificity 84.4% (95% CI [80.8–87.4%]), PPV 29.2% (95% CI [21.4–38.5%]), and NPV 97.1% 95.0–98.4%). Sensitivity of DBT plus HHUS was 100% (95% CI [90.2–100%]), specificity 71.4% (95% CI [67.2–75.2%]), PPV 23.8% (95% CI [18.1–30.5%]) and NPV 100% (95% CI [98.7–100%]). Twelve out of 43 (27.9%) malignancies in BI-RADS 0 lesions were missed on 3D ABUS, despite being detected on DBT and/or HHUS. Supplemental 3D ABUS resulted in the detection of 57 new lesions and six extra biopsy procedures, all were benign. Conclusion: 3D ABUS in the diagnostic work-up of BI-RADS 0 recalls may miss over a quarter of cancers detected with HHUS and/or DBT and should not be used to omit biopsy. Supplemental 3D ABUS increases the benign biopsy rate. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, available via https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/29659 Critical relevance statement: Supplemental 3D automated breast ultrasound in the work-up of BI-RADS 0 recalls may miss over a quarter of cancers detected with other methods and should not be used to omit biopsy; ABUS findings did increase benign biopsy rate. Key Points: Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) may miss over 25% of cancers detectable by alternative methods. Don't rely solely on 3D ABUS to assess indication for biopsy. New findings with supplemental 3D ABUS increase the benign biopsy rate. [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]

Background: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barrett's 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high‐quality information on cumulative risks of false‐positive (FP) recall and screen‐detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005‐2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true‐positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%‐81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44‐1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41‐1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87‐2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Dutch breast cancer screening, solitary, new or growing well-circumscribed masses should be recalled for further assessment. This results in cancers detected but also in false positive recalls, especially at initial screening. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics of well-circumscribed masses at mammography and identify potential methods to improve the recall strategy. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. In addition, follow-up data were retrieved on all 8860 recalled women in a Dutch screening region from 2014 to 2019. Based on 15 articles identified in the literature search, we found that probably benign well-circumscribed masses that were kept under surveillance had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0–2%. New or enlarging solitary well-circumscribed masses had a PPV of 10–12%. In general the detected carcinomas had a favorable prognosis. In our exploration of screening practice, 25% of recalls (2133/8860) were triggered by a well-circumscribed mass. Those recalls had a PPV of 2.0% for initial and 10.6% for subsequent screening. Most detected carcinomas had a favorable prognosis as well. To recognize malignancies presenting as well-circumscribed masses, identifying solitary, new or growing lesions is key. This information is missing at initial screening since prior examinations are not available, leading to a low PPV. Access to prior clinical examinations may therefore improve this PPV. In addition, given the generally favorable prognosis of screen-detected malignant well-circumscribed masses, one may opt to recall these lesions at subsequent screening, if grown, rather than at initial screening. • Well-circumscribed masses are very common in breast cancer screening. • Most well-circumscribed masses have a low positive predictive value for malignancy. • Identifying solitary, new or growing lesions is key to recognizing malignancies. • Comparison to prior clinical examinations may improve positive predictive value. • Recall at subsequent rather than initial screening, if grown, could be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5-4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women's uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women's organisational preferences regarding tailored screening.Methods: A total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics.Results: Self-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women's organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward.Conclusions: Breast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem solving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to exclude malignancy in women with equivocal findings on conventional imaging. However, recommendations on its use for women recalled after screening are lacking. This study evaluates the impact of problem solving MRI on diagnostic workup among women recalled from the Dutch screening program, as well as time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use. Women who were recalled at screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands (2008–2017) were included. Two-year follow-up data were collected. Diagnostic-workup and accuracy of problem solving MRI were evaluated and time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use were examined. In the study period 16,175 women were recalled, of whom 906 underwent problem solving MRI. Almost half of the women (45.4%) who underwent problem solving MRI were referred back to the screening program without further workup. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of problem solving MRI were 98.2%, 70.0%, 31.1%, and 99.6%, respectively. The percentage of recalled women receiving problem solving MRI fluctuated over time (4.7%–7.2%) and significantly varied among hospitals (2.2%–7.0%). The use of problem solving MRI may exclude malignancy in recalled women. The use of problem solving MRI varied over time and among hospitals, which indicates the need for guidelines on problem solving MRI. • Problem solving MRI did correctly refer back women to the screening program. • The sensitivity and specificity of problem solving MRI were 98.2% and 70.0%. • Positive and negative predictive values of problem solving MRI were 31.1% and 99.6%. • By excluding malignancy, problem solving MRI may reduce invasive diagnostic workup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors provides opportunities to shift from a one-size-fits-all screening programme to a personalised approach, where screening and prevention is based on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. However, potential implementation of this new paradigm could present considerable challenges which the present review aims to explore. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating potential implications of the implementation of personalised risk-based screening and primary prevention for breast cancer. Identified themes were evaluated using thematic analysis. Results The search strategy identified 5699 unique publications, of which 59 were selected for inclusion. Significant changes in policy and practice are warranted. The organisation of breast cancer screening spans several healthcare delivery systems and clinical settings. Feasibility of implementation depends on how healthcare is funded and arranged, and potentially varies between countries. Piloting risk assessment and prevention counselling in primary care settings has highlighted implications relating to the need for extensive additional training on risk (communication) and prevention, impact on workflow, and professionals' personal discomfort breaching the topic with women. Additionally, gaps in risk estimation, psychological, ethical and legal consequences will need to be addressed. Conclusion The present review identified considerable unresolved issues and challenges. Potential implementation will require a more complex framework, in which a country's healthcare regulations, resources, and preferences related to screening and prevention services are taken into account. However, with the insights gained from the present overview, countries expecting to implement risk-based screening and prevention can start to inventory and address the issues that were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our purpose was to compare mammographic positioning quality of new (NR) versus experienced screening radiographers (ER) in the Netherlands.Methods and Materials: Before starting to work in breast screening, NR must complete an education programme including a theoretical course (four days), practical training (six weeks), and a portfolio-review of 50 mammographic screening examinations performed by the radiographer. Furthermore, Dutch screening has an extensive system of quality assurance, including an audit-review of positioning quality of mammograms by ER. We analysed 13,520 portfolio views (NR) and 14,896 audit views (ER) based on pre-specified criteria, e.g., depiction of inframammary angle.Results: Overall positioning was more adequate for NR than ER (CC views: 97% versus 86%, p = 0.00; MLO views: 92% versus 84%, p = 0.00). NR scored better for most of the CC-criteria and showed, for instance, less folds (inadequate: 10% versus 16%, p = 0.00). In contrast, NR encountered more difficulties for MLO views in, for example, depiction of infra-mammary angle (inadequate: 38% versus 34%, p = 0.00). Overall, mammograms from NR were more often considered adequate, because of less severe errors.Conclusion: NR perform better than ER in overall positioning technique. These results stress the need for continuous monitoring and training in breast screening programmes to keep positioning skills up to date.Key Points: • We evaluated positioning quality of new and experienced Dutch screening radiographers. • New radiographers outperform their experienced colleagues in mammographic positioning quality. • New radiographers make less severe errors compared to experienced colleagues. • There is a need for a continuous individual monitoring and feedback system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Differences in breast density between populations may explain part of the variation in regional breast cancer screening performance. This study aimed to determine whether regional differences in breast density distribution are present in the Dutch screening population.Methods: As part of the DENSE trial, mammographic density was measured using a fully-automated volumetric method. The regions in our study were based on the geographic coverage of 14 reading units representing a large part of the Netherlands. General linear models were used.Results: Four hundred eighty-five thousand and twenty-one screening participants with a median age of 60 years were included (2013-2014). The proportion of women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts ranged from 32.5% to 45.7% between regions. Mean percent dense volume varied between 6.51% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.46-6.55) and 7.68% (95% CI: 7.66-7.71). Age differences could not explain the variation. Socio-economic status (SES) was positively associated with volumetric density in all analyses (low SES: 6.95% vs. high SES: 7.63%; p trend  < 0.0001), whereas a potential association between urbanisation and breast density only became apparent after SES adjustment.Conclusion: There appears to be geographic variation in mammographic density in the Netherlands, emphasizing the importance of including breast density as parameter in the evaluation of screening performance.Key Points: • Mammographic density may affect regional breast cancer screening performance. • Volumetric breast density varies across screening areas. • SES is positively associated with breast density. • Implications of volumetric breast density differences need to be studied further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the results of all audits performed in the past and to assess their value in the quality assurance of the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.Methods: The audit team of the Dutch Reference Centre for Screening (LRCB) conducts triennial audits of all 17 reading units. During audits, screening outcomes like recall rates and detection rates are assessed and a radiological review is performed. This study investigates and compares the results of four audit series: 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2003-2007 and 2010-2013.Results: The analysis shows increased recall rates (from 0.66%, 1.07%, 1.22% to 1.58%), increased detection rates (from 3.3, 4.5, 4.8 to 5.4 per 1000) and increased sensitivity (from 64.5%, 68.7%, 70.5% to 71.6%), over the four audit series. The percentage of 'missed cancers' among interval cancers and advanced screen-detected cancers did not change (p = 0.4).Conclusions: Our audits not only provide an opportunity for assessing screening outcomes, but also provide moments of self-reflection with peers. For radiologists, an accurate understanding of their performance is essential to identify points of improvement. We therefore recommend a radiological review of screening examinations and immediate feedback as part of an audit.Key Points: • Radiological review and immediate feedback are recommended as part of an audit. • For breast screening radiologists, audits provide moments of self-reflection with peers. • Radiological review of screening examinations provides insights in recall behaviour. • Accurate understanding of radiologists' performance is essential to identify points of improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overdiagnosis is the main harm of cancer screening programs but is difficult to quantify. This review aims to evaluate existing approaches to estimate the magnitude of overdiagnosis in cancer screening in order to gain insight into the strengths and limitations of these approaches and to provide researchers with guidance to obtain reliable estimates of overdiagnosis in cancer screening.Methods: A systematic review was done of primary research studies in PubMed that were published before January 1, 2016, and quantified overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. The studies meeting inclusion criteria were then categorized by their methods to adjust for lead time and to obtain an unscreened reference population. For each approach, we provide an overview of the data required, assumptions made, limitations, and strengths.Results: A total of 442 studies were identified in the initial search. Forty studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative review. We grouped the approaches to adjust for lead time in two main categories: the lead time approach and the excess incidence approach. The lead time approach was further subdivided into the mean lead time approach, lead time distribution approach, and natural history modeling. The excess incidence approach was subdivided into the cumulative incidence approach and early vs late-stage cancer approach. The approaches used to obtain an unscreened reference population were grouped into the following categories: control group of a randomized controlled trial, nonattenders, control region, extrapolation of a prescreening trend, uninvited groups, adjustment for the effect of screening, and natural history modeling.Conclusions: Each approach to adjust for lead time and obtain an unscreened reference population has its own strengths and limitations, which should be taken into consideration when estimating overdiagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We determined the incidence and effects of different screening intervals prior to a true positive recall on the tumour characteristics of screen-detected cancers (SDC) and interval cancers (ICs) at biennial screening mammography.Methods: A consecutive series of 553020 subsequent screens was included, obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. During 2-year follow-up, we obtained data on radiological procedures, pathology and surgical interventions of all recalled women.Results: A total of 13,221 women were recalled (2.4% recall rate), yielding 3662 women with a SDC (6.6 SDCs per 1000 screen). Of these, 3477 (94.9%) had attended their two most recent screens as scheduled (i.e., 2-year screening interval), whereas the interval between the two most recent screens was four years or at least six years in respectively 132 (3.6%) and 53 (1.4%) women. There was a trend of higher cancer detection rates in case of longer screening intervals. The proportions of DCIS versus invasive cancer, as well as tumour histology, tumour size, axillary lymph node status, B&R grading, hormone receptor status and type of surgical treatment (breast conserving surgery or mastectomy) were comparable for women with a 2-year or 4-year interval between their two latest screens. SDCs in women with at least six years between their two latest screens were more frequently estrogen receptor negative or triple negative and were more frequently treated by mastectomy. All tumour characteristics mentioned above were less favourable for ICs than SDCs.Conclusions: A vast majority of women with a SDC had a 2-year screening interval between their two latest screens. A screening interval of at least six years had a slight negative influence on the tumour characteristics and treatment of SDCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the value of adding a third reader for arbitration of discrepant screening mammography assessments. Methods: We included a consecutive series of 84,927 digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Arbitration was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist. Two years' follow-up was performed. Results: Discrepant readings comprised 57.2 % (830/1452) and 29.1 % (346/1188) of recalls at blinded and non-blinded double readings, respectively. At blinded double reading, arbitration would have decreased recall rate (3.4 to 2.2 %, p < 0.001) and programme sensitivity (83.2 to 76.0 %, p = 0.013), would not have influenced the cancer detection rate (CDR; 7.5 to 6.8 per 1,000 screens, p = 0.258) and would have increased the positive predictive value of recall (PPV; 22.3 to 31.2 %, p < 0.001). At non-blinded double reading, arbitration would have decreased recall rate (2.8 to 2.3 %, p < 0.001) and increased PPV (23.2 to 27.5 %, p = 0.021), but would not have affected CDR (6.6 to 6.3 per 1,000 screens, p = 0.604) and programme sensitivity (76.0 to 72.7 %, p = 0.308). Conclusion: Arbitration of discrepant screening mammography assessments is a good tool to improve recall rate and PPV, but is not desirable as it reduces the programme sensitivity at blinded double reading. Key points: • Blinded double reading results in higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded reading. • Discrepant readings occur more often at blinded compared to non-blinded reading. • Arbitration of discrepant readings reduces the recall rate and PPV. • Arbitration would reduce the programme sensitivity at blinded double reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare different methods for measuring breast density, both visual assessments and automated volumetric density, in a breast cancer screening setting. These measures could potentially be implemented in future screening programmes, in the context of personalised screening or screening evaluation. Materials and Methods: Digital mammographic exams (N = 992) of women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (age 50–75y) in 2013 were included. Breast density was measured in three different ways: BI-RADS density (5th edition) and with two commercially available automated software programs (Quantra and Volpara volumetric density). BI-RADS density (ordinal scale) was assessed by three radiologists. Quantra (v1.3) and Volpara (v1.5.0) provide continuous estimates. Different comparison methods were used, including Bland-Altman plots and correlation coefficients (e.g., intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). Results: Based on the BI-RADS classification, 40.8% of the women had ‘heterogeneously or extremely dense’ breasts. The median volumetric percent density was 12.1% (IQR: 9.6–16.5) for Quantra, which was higher than the Volpara estimate (median 6.6%, IQR: 4.4–10.9). The mean difference between Quantra and Volpara was 5.19% (95% CI: 5.04–5.34) (ICC: 0.64). There was a clear increase in volumetric percent dense volume as BI-RADS density increased. The highest accuracy for predicting the presence of BI-RADS c+d (heterogeneously or extremely dense) was observed with a cut-off value of 8.0% for Volpara and 13.8% for Quantra. Conclusion: Although there was no perfect agreement, there appeared to be a strong association between all three measures. Both volumetric density measures seem to be usable in breast cancer screening programmes, provided that the required data flow can be realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In comparison to other European population-based breast cancer screening programmes, the Dutch programme has a low referral rate, similar breast cancer detection and a high breast cancer mortality reduction. The referral rate in the Netherlands has increased over time and is expected to rise further, mainly following nationwide introduction of digital mammography, completed in 2010. This study explores the consequences of the introduction of digital mammography on the balance between referral rate, detection of breast cancer, diagnostic work-up and associated costs. Methods: Detailed information on diagnostic work-up (chart review) was obtained from referred women (n = 988) in 2000–06 (100% analogue mammography) and 2007 (75% digital mammography) in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Results: The average referral rate increased from 15 (2000–06) to 34 (2007) per 1000 women screened. The number of breast cancers detected increased from 5.5 to 7.8 per 1000 screens, whereas the positive predictive value fell from 37% to 23%. A sharp rise in diagnostic work-up procedures and total diagnostic costs was seen. On the other hand, costs of a single work-up slightly decreased, as less surgical biopsies were performed. Conclusion: Our study shows that a low referral rate in combination with the introduction of digital mammography affects the balance between referral rate and detection rate and can substantially influence breast cancer care and associated costs. Referral rates in the Netherlands are now more comparable to other countries. This effect is therefore of value in countries where implementation of digital breast cancer screening has just started or is still under discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To determine the influence of local contrast optimisation on diagnostic accuracy and perceived suspiciousness of digital screening mammograms. Methods: Data were collected from a screening region in the Netherlands and consisted of 263 digital screening cases (153 recalled,110 normal). Each case was available twice, once processed with a tissue equalisation (TE) algorithm and once with local contrast optimisation (PV). All cases had digitised previous mammograms. For both algorithms, the probability of malignancy of each finding was scored independently by six screening radiologists. Perceived case suspiciousness was defined as the highest probability of malignancy of all findings of a radiologist within a case. Differences in diagnostic accuracy of the processing algorithms were analysed by comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves ( A). Differences in perceived case suspiciousness were analysed using sign tests. Results: There was no significant difference in A (TE: 0.909, PV 0.917, P = 0.46). For all radiologists, perceived case suspiciousness using PV was higher than using TE more often than vice versa (ratio: 1.14-2.12). This was significant ( P <0.0083) for four radiologists. Conclusions: Optimisation of local contrast by image processing may increase perceived case suspiciousness, while diagnostic accuracy may remain similar. Key Points: • Variations among different image processing algorithms for digital screening mammography are large. • Current algorithms still aim for optimal local contrast with a low dynamic range. • Although optimisation of contrast may increase sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy is probably unchanged. • Increased local contrast may render both normal and abnormal structures more conspicuous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Residual confounding, after adjustment for age, is the major criticism of observational studies on breast cancer screening effectiveness. We developed realistic scenarios for the prevalence and strength of risk factors on screened and not screened groups, and explored the impact of residual confounding bias. Our results demonstrate that residual confounding bias is a minor issue in screening programme evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which compares the life expectancy between women with screen-detected invasive breast cancer and those invited to breast cancer screening program in Nijmegen, Netherlands (comparison group). It states that survival analyses were done to compare life expectancy differences. Results show that life expectancy of screen-detected invasive breast cancer and comparison group are similar while women with larger tumor diagnosis decreases and is modified by screening history.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) may potentially reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to examine the Dutch population's intended uptake of 3 hypothetical EAC screening test scenarios and preferences for potential future organization. METHODS: A total of 8,350 Dutch individuals aged 45-75 years were invited, of whom 2,258 completed a web-based survey. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 hypothetical screening test scenarios (i.e., transnasal endoscopy, ingestible cell collection device, or breath analysis). The primary outcome was intended uptake. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of screening eligibility criteria and preferences regarding invitation, counseling, and diagnostic follow-up. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which determinants were associated with EAC screening intent. RESULTS: Intended uptake of screening was highest in the breath analysis scenario (95%), followed by conventional upper endoscopy (78%), an ingestible cell collection device (75%), and transnasal endoscopy (68%) (P < 0.001). Anticipating discomfort was most strongly associated with decreased intention to undergo transnasal endoscopy (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.29) or swallow a cell collection device (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.32). Cancer worry and high acceptance of test sensitivity/specificity were consistently associated with a positive intention to participate in screening. Inviting persons for screening based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or the output of a risk prediction model was acceptable to 74%, 69%, and 66%, respectively. Inviting only men was acceptable for only 41% of women. The majority (58%) preferred to be invited by a public health organization, and 32% of the participants preferred to discuss their decision to participate with a healthcare professional. DISCUSSION: Participants in this study self-selected through a web-based survey, potentially introducing selection bias. Participants generally intended to participate in EAC screening, although the level of intent depended on the discomfort and performance associated with the offered screening test. Determining eligibility based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or a risk calculator, but not sex, would be acceptable to most individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncological care was largely derailed due to the reprioritisation of health care services to handle the initial surge of COVID-19 patients adequately. Cancer screening programmes were no exception in this reprioritisation. They were temporarily halted in the Netherlands (1) to alleviate the pressure on health care services overwhelmed by the upsurge of COVID-19 patients, (2) to reallocate staff and personal protective equipment to support critical COVID-19 care, and (3) to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Utilising data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry on provisional cancer diagnoses between 6 January 2020 and 4 October 2020, we assessed the impact of the temporary halt of national population screening programmes on the diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands. A dynamic harmonic regression model with ARIMA error components was applied to assess the observed versus expected number of cancer diagnoses per calendar week. Fewer diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancer were objectified amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands. This effect was most pronounced among the age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes, especially in breast cancer (age group 50–74 years). Encouragingly enough, the observed number of diagnoses ultimately reached and virtually remained at the level of the expected values. This finding, which emerged earlier in age groups not invited for cancer screening programmes, comes on account of the decreased demand for critical COVID-19 care since early April 2020, which, in turn, paved the way forward to resume screening programmes and a broad range of non-critical health care services, albeit with limited operating and workforce capacity. Collectively, transient changes in health-seeking behaviour, referral practices, and cancer screening programmes amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands conjointly acted as an accelerant for fewer breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses in age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes. Forthcoming research is warranted to assess whether the decreased diagnostic scrutiny of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in stage migration and altered clinical management, as well as poorer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk-based breast cancer screening may improve the benefit-harm ratio of screening by tailoring policy to a woman's personal breast cancer risk. This study aims to explore Dutch women's preferences regarding the organisation and implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to uptake.Methods: A total of 5110 participants in the Dutch Personalised RISk-based MAmmography screening (PRISMA) study were invited, of whom 942 completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics; for the second part, women were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical breast cancer risk scenarios (i.e. low, average, moderate, or high) with subsequent tailored screening and prevention advice. Descriptive statistics are used to present women's organisational preferences. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using seven proxy measures for acceptability of risk-based screening (e.g., interest in risk) and risk-based prevention (e.g., willingness to change diet).Results: Interest in breast cancer risk was high (80.3%). Higher assigned risk scenario was most consistently associated with acceptance of tailored screening and prevention recommendations. Increased acceptance of lifestyle changes was additionally associated with higher education. Having a first degree family history of breast cancer decreased women's motivation to participate in preventative lifestyle measures. Acceptability of medication was associated with a woman's general beliefs about the (over)use and benefit-harm balance of medication.Conclusions: Dutch women generally appear in favour of receiving their breast cancer risk estimate with subsequent tailored screening and prevention recommendations. However, women's level of acceptance depends on their assigned risk category. Offering tailored screening and prevention recommendations to low-risk women will be most challenging. Educating women on the benefits and harms of all risk-based screening and prevention strategies is key to acceptability and informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Breast cancer (BC) screening enables early detection of BC, which may lead to improved quality of life (QoL). We aim to compare QoL between women with a screen-detected and clinically detected BC in the Netherlands.We used data from the ‘Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation’ (UMBRELLA) between October 2013 and March 2022. Patients were categorized as screen-detected or clinically detected. We analysed three questionnaires, namely EORTC QLQ C-30, BR23, and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by BC patients shortly after diagnosis (T1) and one-year after treatment (T2). Independent t-tests were performed to compare QoL average differences between the two groups. Bonferroni-corrected p-value significance threshold of 0.00057 was used. The magnitude of differences was calculated using Cohen’s d. The clinical relevance of QLQ-C30 differences was assessed based on interpretation guideline of EORTC-QLQ-C30 results.After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 691 women with screen-detected BC and 480 with clinically detected BC. Generally, screen-detected BC patients reported a better QoL. At T1, their average QLQ-C30 summary score was higher (86.1) than clinically detected BC patients (83.0) (p < 0.0001). Cohen’s d for all items ranged between 0.00 and 0.39. A few QLQ-C30 score differences were clinically relevant, indicating better outcomes in emotional functioning, general health, constipation, and fatigue for women with screen-detected BC.In the Netherlands, women with screen-detected BC reported statistically significant and better QoL than women with clinically detected BC. However, clinical relevance of the differences is limited.Methods: Breast cancer (BC) screening enables early detection of BC, which may lead to improved quality of life (QoL). We aim to compare QoL between women with a screen-detected and clinically detected BC in the Netherlands.We used data from the ‘Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation’ (UMBRELLA) between October 2013 and March 2022. Patients were categorized as screen-detected or clinically detected. We analysed three questionnaires, namely EORTC QLQ C-30, BR23, and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by BC patients shortly after diagnosis (T1) and one-year after treatment (T2). Independent t-tests were performed to compare QoL average differences between the two groups. Bonferroni-corrected p-value significance threshold of 0.00057 was used. The magnitude of differences was calculated using Cohen’s d. The clinical relevance of QLQ-C30 differences was assessed based on interpretation guideline of EORTC-QLQ-C30 results.After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 691 women with screen-detected BC and 480 with clinically detected BC. Generally, screen-detected BC patients reported a better QoL. At T1, their average QLQ-C30 summary score was higher (86.1) than clinically detected BC patients (83.0) (p < 0.0001). Cohen’s d for all items ranged between 0.00 and 0.39. A few QLQ-C30 score differences were clinically relevant, indicating better outcomes in emotional functioning, general health, constipation, and fatigue for women with screen-detected BC.In the Netherlands, women with screen-detected BC reported statistically significant and better QoL than women with clinically detected BC. However, clinical relevance of the differences is limited.Results: Breast cancer (BC) screening enables early detection of BC, which may lead to improved quality of life (QoL). We aim to compare QoL between women with a screen-detected and clinically detected BC in the Netherlands.We used data from the ‘Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation’ (UMBRELLA) between October 2013 and March 2022. Patients were categorized as screen-detected or clinically detected. We analysed three questionnaires, namely EORTC QLQ C-30, BR23, and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by BC patients shortly after diagnosis (T1) and one-year after treatment (T2). Independent t-tests were performed to compare QoL average differences between the two groups. Bonferroni-corrected p-value significance threshold of 0.00057 was used. The magnitude of differences was calculated using Cohen’s d. The clinical relevance of QLQ-C30 differences was assessed based on interpretation guideline of EORTC-QLQ-C30 results.After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 691 women with screen-detected BC and 480 with clinically detected BC. Generally, screen-detected BC patients reported a better QoL. At T1, their average QLQ-C30 summary score was higher (86.1) than clinically detected BC patients (83.0) (p < 0.0001). Cohen’s d for all items ranged between 0.00 and 0.39. A few QLQ-C30 score differences were clinically relevant, indicating better outcomes in emotional functioning, general health, constipation, and fatigue for women with screen-detected BC.In the Netherlands, women with screen-detected BC reported statistically significant and better QoL than women with clinically detected BC. However, clinical relevance of the differences is limited.Conclusions: Breast cancer (BC) screening enables early detection of BC, which may lead to improved quality of life (QoL). We aim to compare QoL between women with a screen-detected and clinically detected BC in the Netherlands.We used data from the ‘Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation’ (UMBRELLA) between October 2013 and March 2022. Patients were categorized as screen-detected or clinically detected. We analysed three questionnaires, namely EORTC QLQ C-30, BR23, and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) completed by BC patients shortly after diagnosis (T1) and one-year after treatment (T2). Independent t-tests were performed to compare QoL average differences between the two groups. Bonferroni-corrected p-value significance threshold of 0.00057 was used. The magnitude of differences was calculated using Cohen’s d. The clinical relevance of QLQ-C30 differences was assessed based on interpretation guideline of EORTC-QLQ-C30 results.After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 691 women with screen-detected BC and 480 with clinically detected BC. Generally, screen-detected BC patients reported a better QoL. At T1, their average QLQ-C30 summary score was higher (86.1) than clinically detected BC patients (83.0) (p < 0.0001). Cohen’s d for all items ranged between 0.00 and 0.39. A few QLQ-C30 score differences were clinically relevant, indicating better outcomes in emotional functioning, general health, constipation, and fatigue for women with screen-detected BC.In the Netherlands, women with screen-detected BC reported statistically significant and better QoL than women with clinically detected BC. However, clinical relevance of the differences is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare projected breast area, image quality, pain experience and radiation dose between mammography performed with and without radiolucent positioning sheets.Methods: 184 women screened in the Dutch breast screening programme (May-June 2012) provided written informed consent to have one additional image taken with positioning sheets. 5 cases were excluded (missing data). Pain was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale. Radiation dose was estimated using the Dance model and projected breast area using computer software. Two radiologists and two radiographers assessed image quality.Results: With positioning sheets significantly more pectoral muscle, lateral and medial breast tissue was projected (CC-views) and more and deeper depicted pectoral muscle (MLO-views). In contrast, visibility of white and darker areas was better on images without positioning sheets, radiologists were therefore better able to detect abnormalities (MLO-views). Women experienced more pain with positioning sheets (MLO-views only, mean difference NRS 0.98; SD 1.71; p=0,00).Conclusion: Mammograms with positioning sheets showed more breast tissue. Increased breast thickness after compression with sheets resulted in less visibility of white and darker areas and thus reduced detection of abnormalities. Also, women experienced more pain (MLO-views) due to the sheet material. A practical consideration is the fact that more subcutaneous fat tissue and skin are being pulled forward leading to folds in the nipple area. On balance, improvement to the current design is required before implementation in screening practice can be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare a conventional 14 decanewton (daN) force-standardized compression protocol with a personalized 10 kilopascal (kPa) pressure-standardized protocol. Methods A new add-on contact area detector, which enables pressure-standardized compression, is validated in a double-blinded intra-individual comparison study. Breast screening participants (433) received one craniocaudal (CC) and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) compression for both breasts. Three of these compressions were force-standardized, and one, blinded and randomly assigned, was pressure-standardized. Participants scored their pain experience on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Three experienced breast-screening radiologists, blinded for compression protocol, indicated which images required retakes. Results An unanticipated under-compression issue that occurred at forces below 5 daN was effectively solved with minimal extra radiographer training during the study. For pressure-standardized compressions obtained at 5 daN or more, the compressed breasts thickness increased on average 4.2% (MLO)—6.3% (CC), average pain scores were reduced by 10% (MLO)—17% (CC) and the proportion of women experiencing severe pain (NRS ≥ 7) was reduced by 27% (MLO)—32% (CC), compared with force-standardized compressions (all p -values <0.05). Average glandular dose (AGD) and proportions of retakes were similar for both protocols. Conclusion Pressure-standardized compressions resulted in AGD values and a retake proportion similar to force-standardized compressions, while pain was significantly reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Digital mammography has been shown to increase the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared to screen-film mammography. The benefits and risks of such an increase were assessed. Methods: Breast cancer detection rates were compared between 502,574 screen-film and 83,976 digital mammograms performed between 2004 and 2006 among Dutch screening participants. The detection rates were then modeled using a baseline model and two extreme models that respectively assumed a high rate of progression and no progression of preclinical DCIS to invasive cancer. With these models, breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis were predicted. Results: The DCIS detection rate was significantly higher at digital mammography (1.2 per 1000 mammograms (95% C.I. 1.0–1.5)) than at screen-film mammography (0.7 per 1000 mammograms (95% C.I. 0.6–0.7)). Consequently, 287 (range progressive- non progressive model: 1–598) extra breast cancer deaths per 1,000,000 women (a 4.4% increase) were predicted to be prevented. An extra 401 (range: 165–2271) cancers would be overdiagnosed (a 21% increase). Conclusion: Modeling predicted that digital mammography screening would further reduce breast cancer mortality by 4.4%, at a 21% increased overdiagnosis rate. The consequences of digital screening, however, are sensitive to underlying assumptions on the natural history of DCIS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The United Kingdom is currently moving the age limit for invitation in its national breast screening programme downwards from 50 to 47. In contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded that, because of borderline statistical significance on effectiveness of mammographic screening, the current evidence is insufficient to advise screening in women aged 40–49. Material and methods: We designed a case-referent study to investigate the effect of biennial mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality for women in their forties. In Nijmegen, the Netherlands, screening started in 1975. A total of 272 breast cancer deaths were identified, and 1360 referents aged 40–69 were sampled from the population invited for screening. Effectiveness was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) indicating the breast cancer death rate in screened versus unscreened women. Results: In women aged 40–49, the effect of screening was OR=0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.30–0.82). This result is similar to those aged 50–59 (OR=0.54; 95% CI=0.35–0.85) and 60–69 (OR=0.65; 95% CI=0.38–1.13). Conclusion: Our results add convincing evidence about the effectiveness of biennial mammographic screening in women aged 40–49. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: More than a decade ago, a mammography screening programme for women aged 50-69 years was initiated in the Netherlands. Our aim was to assess the effect of this programme on breast-cancer mortality rates. Methods: We examined data for 27 948 women who died of breast-cancer aged 55-74 years between 1980 and 1999 (30 560 cases until 2001). We grouped individuals into 93 clusters, depending on where they lived, and analysed data by use of national population statistics. We analysed time trends in breast-cancer mortality, adjusting for gradual implementations at municipality level, taking as year 0 the month and year in which screening began in a particular municipality. We used a Poisson regression model to estimate the time at which the trend started to turn. We assessed indirectly whether this turning point was related to initiation of screening or adjuvant systemic therapy in four clusters defined according to when screening was implemented. Findings: Compared with rates in 1986-88, breast-cancer mortality rates in women aged 55-74 years fell significantly in 1997 and subsequent years as predicted, reaching -19.9% in 2001. Mortality rates had been increasing by an annual 0.3% until screening was introduced; thereafter we noted a decline of 1.7% per year (95% CI 2.39-0.96) in women aged 55-74 years and of 1.2% in those aged 45-54 (2.40 to 0.07). The turning point in mortality trends arose at around year 0. Adjuvant systemic therapy is unlikely to be the cause of this turning point, since the mortality rates continued to rise up to 1 year after implementation in municipalities where screening began after 1995. Interpretation: Routine mammography screening can reduce breast-cancer mortality rates in women aged 55-74 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based cancer screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding cancer screening in countries with organised screening programmes. Organised screening programmes provide screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5-7, 2016), which included discussions from cancer screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based cancer screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]