Search

Objective Screening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett’s oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals’ views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC. Design We invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers. Results A total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50–75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 ‘screening intentions’ describing participants’ motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 ‘risk-based eligibility’ describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 ‘distributive justice’, in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 ‘information needs’ describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals’ preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner. Conclusion Individuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public’s information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the previous cytology-based program, the introduction of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening in 2017 has led to an increased number of referrals. To counter this, triage of hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening can potentially be optimized by taking sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors for cervical abnormalities into account. Therefore, it is essential to gain knowledge of the views of women (30-60 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this qualitative study was to gain insight in the aspects that influence acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening. DESIGN: A focus group study in which participants were recruited via four general medical practices, and purposive sampling was used to maximize heterogeneity with regards to age, education level, and cervical cancer screening experiences. APPROACH: The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 28 women (average age: 45.2 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands participated in seven online focus group discussions. Half of the participants was higher educated, and the participants differed in previous cervical cancer screening participation and screening result. KEY RESULTS: In total, 5 main themes and 17 subthemes were identified that determine the acceptability of risk-stratified triage. The main themes are: 1) adequacy of the screening program: an evidence-based program that is able to minimize cancer incidence and reduce unnecessary referrals; 2) personal information (e.g., sensitive topics and stigma); 3) emotional impact: fear and reassurance; 4) communication (e.g., transparency); and 5) autonomy (e.g., prevention). CONCLUSION: The current stud

Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), including screening for its precursor Barrett's esophagus (BE), has the potential to reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This literature review aimed to explore professionals’ views on the justification for EAC screening. A systematic search of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo, from January 1, 2000 to September 22, 2022, identified 5 original studies and 63 expert opinion articles reporting professionals’ perspectives on EAC screening. Included articles were qualitatively analyzed using the framework method, which was deductively led by modernized screening principles. The analyses showed that many professionals are optimistic about technological advancements in BE detection and treatment. However, views on whether the societal burden of EAC merits screening were contradictory. In addition, knowledge of the long-term benefits and risks of EAC screening is still considered insufficient. There is no consensus on who to screen, how often to screen, which screening test to use, and how to manage non-dysplastic BE. Professionals further point out the need to develop technology that facilitates automated test sample processing and public education strategies that avoid causing disproportionately high cancer worry and social stigma. In conclusion, modernized screening principles are currently insufficiently fulfilled to justify widespread screening for EAC. Results from future clinical screening trials and risk prediction modeling studies may shift professionals’ thoughts regarding justification for EAC screening.

Purpose: We aimed to compare (1) treatments and time intervals between treatments of breast cancer patients diagnosed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the number of treatments started during and before the pandemic. Methods: Women were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. For aim one, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to compare the treatment of women diagnosed within four periods of 2020: pre-COVID (weeks 1–8), transition (weeks 9–12), lockdown (weeks 13–17), and care restart (weeks 18–26), with data from 2018/2019 as reference. Wilcoxon rank-sums test was used to compare treatment intervals, using a two-sided p-value < 0.05. For aim two, number of treatments started per week in 2020 was compared with 2018/2019. Results: We selected 34,097 women for aim one. Compared to 2018/2019, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was less likely for stage I (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11–0.53), stage II (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.47–0.86), and hormone receptor+/HER2− tumors (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41–0.75) diagnosed during transition. Time between diagnosis and first treatment decreased for patients diagnosed during lockdown with a stage I (p < 0.01), II (p < 0.01) or III tumor (p = 0.01). We selected 30,002 women for aim two. The number of neo-adjuvant endocrine therapies and surgeries starting in week 14, 2020, increased by 339% and 18%, respectively. The number of adjuvant chemotherapies decreased by 42% in week 15 and increased by 44% in week 22. Conclusion: The pandemic and subsequently altered treatment recommendations affected multiple aspects of the breast cancer treatment strategy and the number of treatments started per week.

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.