Search

Background:  In the Dutch colorectal (CRC) screening program, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive individuals are referred for colonoscopy. If no relevant findings are detected at colonoscopy, individuals are reinvited for FIT screening after 10 years. We aimed to assess CRC risk after a negative colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals., Methods:  In this cross-sectional cohort study, data were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system. Participants with a positive FIT followed by a negative colonoscopy between 2014 and 2018 were included. A negative colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy during which no more than one nonvillous, nonproximal adenoma < 10 mm or serrated polyp < 10 mm was found. The main outcome was interval post-colonoscopy CRC (iPCCRC) risk. iPCCRC risk was reviewed against the risk of interval CRC after a negative FIT (FIT IC) with a 2-year screening interval., Results:  35 052 FIT-positive participants had a negative colonoscopy and 24 iPCCRCs were diagnosed, resulting in an iPCCRC risk of 6.85 (95 %CI 4.60-10.19) per 10 000 individuals after a median follow-up of 1.4 years. After 2.5 years of follow-up, age-adjusted iPCCRC risk was approximately equal to FIT IC risk at 2 years., Conclusion:  Risk of iPCCRC within a FIT-based CRC screening program was low during the first years after colonos-copy but, after 2.5 years, was the same as the risk in FIT-negative individuals at 2 years, when they are reinvited for screening. Colonoscopy quality may therefore require further improvement and FIT screening interval may need to be reduced after negative colonoscopy., Competing Interests: E. Dekker has received endoscopic equipment on loan from Olympus and FujiFilm, and research grant from FujiFilm; she has also received honoraria for consultancy from FujiFilm, Tillots, Olympus, GI Supply, Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals, PAION, and Ambu, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche, GI Supply, PAION, and IPSEN. I. Lansdorp-Vogelaar is an associate editor for Gastroenterology, expert at the Health Council, panel member of the European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer, and visiting scientist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer. M.C.W. Spaander has received research support from Sentinel, Sysmex, Boston Scientific, Norgine, and Medtronic. H.J. van de Schootbrugge-Vandermeer, A.I. Kooyker, P.H.A. Wisse, I.D. Nagtegaal, H.A. Geuzinge, E. Toes-Zoutendijk, L. de Jonge, E.C.H. Breekveldt, A.J. van Vuuren, F.J. van Kemenade, C.R.B. Ramakers, and M.E. van Leerdam declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Importance: Screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women., Objective: To estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985., Interventions: Screening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges., Results: The mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women., Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.

Background: Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown., Methods: We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000., Results: Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier., Conclusions: MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial., Methods: A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30-55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools., Results: 255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23-36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48-60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography)., Discussion: Most women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied., Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied., Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Objective: To assess the effect of an information leaflet on knowledge, explicit attitudes, implicit associations, and attendance for breast cancer screening., Methods: Dutch women (aged 49-75 years) were approached three months before their breast cancer screening invitation. After providing informed consent, participants were randomised to receiving the information leaflet (intervention condition) or not (control condition). Screening knowledge, explicit attitudes, and implicit associations were assessed through web-based questionnaires, at baseline and two weeks later. Actual screening attendance data were collected., Results: In total, 988 women completed both questionnaires. Participants in the leaflet condition scored higher on knowledge (9.9 versus 9.6, p < 0.001, scale 0-11), and more often had positive explicit attitudes (97 % versus 95 %, p = 0.03), than those in the control condition. This contrast was bigger among first-time invitees. Implicit associations were not correlated with explicit attitudes or attendance. Explicit attitudes were moderately correlated with attendance (r=.30, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The information leaflet led to more knowledge and more positive explicit attitudes. Implicit associations towards breast cancer screening were not correlated with attendance., Practice Implications: Encouragement to learn about the screening programme can increase levels of knowledge of invitees and therefore support their decision-making about participation. This might be especially relevant for first-time invitees., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group)., Interpretation: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density., Funding: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)