Impact of single round of low dose CT lung cancer screening on cause of mortality in different socio-economic groups: a post-hoc analysis of long-term follow-up of the UKLS trial.

Background: Lower socioeconomic status, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), is associated with higher rates of smoking-related disease mortality, and with poor uptake of cancer screening. Here we explore whether socioeconomic status impacts the effectiveness of a single round of low-dose-CT screening, or impacts other causes of death, in the UKLS LDCT screening trial. Methods: IMD quintiles were defined according to UK-wide data, with the deprived group defined as the lower two quintiles (Q1-2) and the less deprived as Q3-5. Follow-up data was obtained for lung cancer diagnosis (median follow-up 9.1 years) and cause of death (median follow-up 9.9 years). Outcomes were compared based on IMD group and trial arm (CT or control). Findings: More deprived quintiles were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but this population was more likely to be selected for screening by the LLP risk model. Lower IMD quintiles benefitted from low-dose-CT screening in terms of lung cancer survival (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) to the same extent as upper quintiles (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.26). However, there was a bigger impact on deaths due to COPD and emphysema in more deprived quintiles. Interpretation: Whilst LDCT screening benefit for lung cancer was similar, significant impact on the rates of death from other smoking-related diseases, notably COPD and emphysema, was seen primarily in lower socioeconomic groups. Future research is required to confirm how lung cancer screening benefits other disease outcomes. Funding: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types.

BACKGROUND: Late-stage cancer incidence has been proposed as an early surrogate for mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer screening; however, its validity has not been systematically evaluated across screening RCTs of different cancers. METHODS: We conducted a meta-regression analysis of cancer screening RCTs that reported both late-stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Based on a systematic literature review, we included 33 RCTs of screening programs targeting seven cancer types, including lung (n = 12), colorectal (n = 8), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 4), among others. We regressed the relative reduction of cancer mortality on the relative reduction of late-stage cancer incidence, inversely weighted for each RCT by the variance of estimated mortality reduction. RESULTS: Across cancer types, the relative reduction of late-stage cancer incidence was linearly associated with the relative reduction of cancer mortality. Specifically, we observed this association for lung (R2 = 0.79 and 0.996 in three recent large trials), breast (R2 = 0.94), prostate (R2 = 0.98), and colorectal cancer (R2 = 0.75 for stage III/IV cancers and 0.93 for stage IV cancers). Trials with a 20% or greater reduction in late-stage cancers were more likely to achieve a significant reduction in cancer mortality. Our results also showed that no reduction of late-stage cancer incidence was associated with no or minimal reduction in cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-regression of historical screening RCTs showed a strong linear association between reductions in late-stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality.

Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium.

AIM: The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM). METHODS: MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM. FINDINGS: From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms. INTERPRETATION: Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence.

Effects on Cancer Prevention from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

Beneficial effect of repeated participation in breast cancer screening upon survival.

OBJECTIVES: The benefit of mammography screening in reducing population mortality from breast cancer is well established. In this paper, we estimate the effect of repeated participation at scheduled screens on case survival. METHODS: We analysed incidence and survival data on 37,079 women from nine Swedish counties who had at least one to five invitation(s) to screening prior to diagnosis, and were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1992 and 2016. Of these, 4564 subsequently died of breast cancer. We estimated the association of survival with participation in up to the most recent five screens before diagnosis. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the effect on survival of the number of scheduled screens in which subjects participated prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer. RESULTS: There was successively better survival with an increasing number of screens in which the subject participated. For a woman with five previous screening invitations who participated in all five, the hazard ratio was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.33, p < 0.0001) compared to a woman attending none (86.9% vs 68.9% 20-year survival). Following a conservative adjustment for potential self-selection factors, the hazard ratio was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.43, p < 0.0001), an approximate three-fold reduction in the hazard of dying from breast cancer. CONCLUSION: For those women who develop breast cancer, regular prior participation in mammography screening confers significantly better survival.

A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening.

Objectives: To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results. Methods: A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2). Results: The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain. Conclusions: An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality. Advances in knowledge: Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.

An optimization framework to guide the choice of thresholds for risk-based cancer screening.

It is uncommon for risk groups defined by statistical or artificial intelligence (AI) models to be chosen by jointly considering model performance and potential interventions available. We develop a framework to rapidly guide choice of risk groups in this manner, and apply it to guide breast cancer screening intervals using an AI model. Linear programming is used to define risk groups that minimize expected advanced cancer incidence subject to resource constraints. In the application risk stratification performance is estimated from a case-control study (2044 cases, 1:1 matching), and other parameters are taken from screening trials and the screening programme in England. Under the model, re-screening in 1 year for the highest 4% AI model risk, in 3 years for the middle 64%, and in 4 years for 32% of the population at lowest risk, was expected to reduce the number of advanced cancers diagnosed by approximately 18 advanced cancers per 1000 diagnosed with triennial screening, for the same average number of screens in the population as triennial screening for all. Sensitivity analyses found the choice of thresholds was robust to model parameters, but the estimated reduction in advanced cancers was not precise and requires further evaluation. Our framework helps define thresholds with the greatest chance of success for reducing the population health burden of cancer when used in risk-adapted screening, which should be further evaluated such as in health-economic modelling based on computer simulation models, and real-world evaluations.

Reply to Yaffe, M.J. Correction for Self-Selection in Breast Cancer Screening. Comment on "Dibden et al. Worldwide Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies Measuring the Effect of Mammography Screening Programmes on Incidence-Based Breast Cancer Mortality. Cancers 2020, 12, 976".

In his Comment [...].

Imaging biomarkers are underutilised but highly predictive prognostic factors for the more fatal breast cancer subtypes.

PURPOSE: The development and refinement of breast imaging modalities offer a wealth of diagnostic information such as imaging biomarkers, which are primarily the mammographic appearance of the various breast cancer subtypes. These are readily available preoperatively at the time of diagnosis and can enhance the prognostic value of currently used molecular biomarkers. In this study, we investigated the relative utility of the molecular and imaging biomarkers, both jointly and independently, when predicting long-term patient outcome according to the site of tumour origin. METHODS: We evaluated the association of imaging biomarkers and conventional molecular biomarkers, (ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67), separately and combined, with long-term patient outcome in all breast cancer cases having complete data on both imaging and molecular biomarkers (n = 2236) diagnosed in our Institute during the period 2008-2019. Large format histopathology technique was used to document intra- and intertumoural heterogeneity and select the appropriate foci for evaluating molecular biomarkers. RESULTS: The breast cancer imaging biomarkers were strongly predictive of long-term patient outcome. The molecular biomarkers were predictive of outcome only for unifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast (AAB), but less reliable in the multifocal AAB cases due to variability of molecular biomarkers in the individual tumour foci. In breast cancer of mesenchymal origin (BCMO), conventionally termed classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and in cancers originating from the major lactiferous ducts (ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast, DAB), the molecular biomarkers misleadingly indicated favourable prognosis, whereas the imaging biomarkers in BCMO and DAB reliably indicated the high risk of breast cancer death. Among the 2236 breast cancer cases, BCMO and DAB comprised 21% of the breast cancer cases, but accounted for 45% of the breast cancer deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of imaging biomarkers into the diagnostic workup of breast cancer yields a more precise, comprehensive and prognostically accurate diagnostic report. This is particularly necessary in multifocal AAB cases having intertumoural heterogeneity, in diffuse carcinomas (DAB and BCMO), and in cases with combined DAB and AAB. In such cases, the imaging biomarkers should be prioritised over molecular biomarkers in planning treatment because the latter fail to predict the severity of the disease. In combination with the use of the large section histopathology technique, imaging biomarkers help alleviate some of the current problems in breast cancer management, such as over- and under-assessment of disease extent, which carry the risk of overtreatment and undertreatment.

A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS). FINDINGS: Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative.

Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

The challenging imaging and histopathologic features of diffusely infiltrating breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical, imaging and outcome observations indicate that diffusely infiltrating breast cancer, presenting as a large region of architectural distortion on the mammogram and conventionally termed classic infiltrating lobular carcinoma of diffuse type, represents a very unusual breast malignancy. This article aims to draw attention to the complex clinical, imaging, and large format thin and thick section histopathologic features of this malignancy, which challenges our current diagnostic and therapeutic management practices. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the randomized controlled trial (1977-85) and from the subsequent, ongoing population-based mammography service screening (1985-2019) with more than four decades of follow up in Dalarna County, Sweden provided the database for investigating this breast cancer subtype. Large format thick (subgross) and thin section histopathologic images of breast cancers diagnosed as "diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast" were correlated with their mammographic tumour features (imaging biomarkers) and the long-term patient outcome. RESULTS: This malignancy does not have a distinct tumour mass or focal skin retraction at clinical breast examination; instead, it causes an indistinct "thickening" and eventually shrinks the entire breast. A dominant feature is extensive architectural distortion on the mammograms caused by an excessive amount of cancer-associated connective tissue. Unlike other invasive breast malignancies, this subtype forms concave contours with the surrounding adipose connective tissue, a feature that makes it difficult to detect on mammograms. Women with this diffusely infiltrating breast malignancy have a 60% long-term survival. Its long-term patient outcome is surprisingly poor compared to that expected from its relatively favourable immunohistochemical biomarkers, including a low proliferation index and remains unaffected by adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The unusual clinical, histopathologic and imaging features of this diffusely infiltrating breast cancer subtype are consistent with a site of origin quite different from that of other breast cancers. Additionally, the immunohistochemical biomarkers are deceptive and unreliable because they indicate a cancer with favourable prognostic features predictive of a good long-term outcome. The low proliferation index is usually indicative of a breast cancer with a good prognosis, but in this subtype the prognosis is poor. If we are to improve the dismal outcome of this malignancy, it will be necessary to clarify its true site of origin, which will be a prerequisite for gaining a better understanding why current management efforts often fail and why the fatality rate is so unfortunately high. Breast radiologists should be watchful for the development of subtle signs of architectural distortion at mammography. Large format histopathologic technique enables adequate correlation of the imaging and histopathologic findings.

A case-control study to evaluate the impact of the breast screening programme on breast cancer incidence in England.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about overdiagnosis in mammography screening. METHODS: We aimed to estimate the effect of screening on breast cancer incidence and overdiagnosis in the NHS Breast Screening Programme in England. The study included 57,493 cases and 105,653 controls, with cases defined as women diagnosed at ages 47-89 with primary breast cancer, invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ, in 2010 or 2011. Where possible, two controls were selected per case, matched on date of birth and screening area. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of screening on breast cancer risk, with adjustment for potential self-selection bias. Results were combined with national incidence data to estimate absolute rates of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the cumulative excess of cancers diagnosed in the age group 50-77 in a woman attending three-yearly screening between ages 50 and 70 compared with a woman attending no screens. RESULTS: The estimated number of cases overdiagnosed in women attending all screens in the programme was 679.3 per 100,000 without adjustment for self-selection bias and 261.2 per 100,000 with adjustment. These corresponded to an estimated 9.5% of screen-detected cancers overdiagnosed without adjustment and 3.7% with adjustment for self-selection. CONCLUSIONS: The NHS Breast Screening Programme in England confers at worst modest levels of overdiagnosis.

Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?

OBJECTIVE: The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use. METHODS: Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.

Impact of radiographer immediate reporting of X-rays of the chest from general practice on the lung cancer pathway (radioX): a randomised controlled trial.

The National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway recommends rapid progression from abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) to CT. The impact of the more rapid reporting on the whole pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of immediate reporting of CXRs requested by primary care by radiographers on the time to diagnosis of lung cancer. METHOD: People referred for CXR from primary care to a single acute district general hospital in London attended sessions that were prerandomised to either immediate radiographer (IR) reporting or standard radiographer (SR) reporting within 24 hours. CXRs were subsequently reported by radiologists blind to the radiographer reports to test the reliability of the radiographer report. Radiographer and local radiologist discordant cases were reviewed by thoracic radiologists, blinded to reporter. RESULTS: 8682 CXRs were performed between 21 June 2017 and 4 August 2018, 4096 (47.2%) for IR and 4586 (52.8%) for SR. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 49, with 27 (55.1%) for IR. The median time from CXR to diagnosis of lung cancer for IR was 32 days (IQR 19, 70) compared with 63 days (IQR 29, 78) for SR (p=0.03).8258 CXRs (95.1%) were reported by both radiographers and local radiologists. In the 1361 (16.5%) with discordance, the reviewing thoracic radiologists were equally likely to agree with local radiologist and radiographer reports. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate reporting of CXRs from primary care reduces time to diagnosis of lung cancer by half, likely due to rapid progress to CT. Radiographer reports are comparable to local radiologist reports for accuracy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017.

Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) faces endoscopy capacity challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to lower the screening starting age. This may necessitate modifying the interscreening interval or threshold. METHODS: We analysed data from the English Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) pilot, comprising 27,238 individuals aged 59-75, screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using FIT. We estimated screening sensitivity to CRC, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and mean sojourn time of each pathology by faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) thresholds, then predicted the detection of these abnormalities by interscreening interval and f-Hb threshold. RESULTS: Current 2-yearly screening with a f-Hb threshold of 120 µg/g was estimated to generate 16,092 colonoscopies, prevent 186 CRCs, detect 1142 CRCs, 7086 adenomas and 4259 AAs per 100,000 screened over 15 years. A higher threshold at 180 µg/g would reduce required colonoscopies to 11,500, prevent 131 CRCs, detect 1077 CRCs, 4961 adenomas and 3184 AAs. A longer interscreening interval of 3 years would reduce required colonoscopies to 10,283, prevent 126 and detect 909 CRCs, 4796 adenomas and 2986 AAs. CONCLUSION: Increasing the f-Hb threshold was estimated to be more efficient than increasing the interscreening interval regarding overall colonoscopies per screen-benefited cancer. Increasing the interval was more efficient regarding colonoscopies per cancer prevented.