Search

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

The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

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

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

BackgroundThis study illustrates alternative statistical methods for estimating cumulative risk of screening mammography outcomes in longitudinal studies.MethodsData from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and the Nijmegen Breast Cancer Screening Program in the Netherlands were used to compare four statistical approaches to estimating cumulative risk. We estimated cumulative risk of false-positive recall and screen-detected cancer after 10 screening rounds using data from 242,835 women ages 40 to 74 years screened at the BCSC facilities in 1993-2012 and from 17,297 women ages 50 to 74 years screened in Nijmegen in 1990-2012.ResultsIn the BCSC cohort, a censoring bias model estimated bounds of 53.8% to 59.3% for false-positive recall and 2.4% to 7.6% for screen-detected cancer, assuming 10% increased or decreased risk among women screened for one additional round. In the Nijmegen cohort, false-positive recall appeared to be associated with subsequent discontinuation of screening leading to overestimation of risk of a false-positive recall based on adjusted discrete-time survival models. Bounds estimated by the censoring bias model were 11.0% to 19.9% for false-positive recall and 4.2% to 9.7% for screen-detected cancer.ConclusionChoice of statistical methodology can substantially affect cumulative risk estimates. The censoring bias model is appropriate under a variety of censoring mechanisms and provides bounds for cumulative risk estimates under varying degrees of dependent censoring.ImpactThis article illustrates statistical methods for estimating cumulative risks of cancer screening outcomes, which will be increasingly important as screening test recommendations proliferate.

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

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

BackgroundThere is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection.Patients and methodsData were collected during 2004-2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS.ResultsData were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76-3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51-3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70-4.51) for detection of DCIS.ConclusionsConsiderable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care.