Impact of altering the invitation package on screening participation among never-screeners in the Flemish population-based cancer screening programs.

BACKGROUND: The total coverage of both the Flemish breast cancer and cervical screening program remain suboptimal, with approximately 63% for both. Of all the women invited to the breast cancer screening program, 14.1% never underwent any type of breast cancer screening (any type of mammogram, ultrasound, or clinical breast examination). For the cervical cancer screening, this proportion of 'never-screeners' is 12.1%. We conducted two randomized controlled trials to assess whether various communication and presentation styles in the invitation package, were effective at motivating women who had never participated to attend. METHODS: The study population was limited to never-screeners (women who had never participated in the screening program). The RCT embedded in the breast cancer screening consisted of seven intervention arms and one control arm (all of them included a fixed appointment by letter). The RCT embedded in the cervical cancer screening consisted of three intervention arms and two control arms. In both RCTs, several content and style adaptations were made to the invitation letter, information leaflet, and envelope. RESULTS: None of the intervention arms in either the breast cancer screening or the cervical cancer screening had a statistically significant impact on the participation rate compared to 'usual care' (the regular invitation package used in the screening program). CONCLUSION: Sending adapted invitation packages to never-screeners, from the Flemish breast and cervical cancer screening program, does not seem to be effective in increasing the proportion of women screened. Innovative methods are needed to motivate never-screeners to be screened.

Flemish population-based cancer screening programs: impact of COVID-19 related shutdown on short-term key performance indicators.

BACKGROUND: Many breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening programs were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the short-term impact of the temporary shutdown (from March until May- June) of the cancer screening programs invitations in Flanders (Belgium) by looking at invitation coverage, percentage of people screened after invitation and the screening interval. METHODS: Yearly invitation coverage was calculated as the number of people who received an invitation, as a proportion of the people who should have received an invitation that year. Weekly response to the invitation was calculated as the number of people who were screened within 40 days of their date of invitation, as a percentage of the people who received an invitation that week (as a proxy for willingness to screen). Weekly screening interval was calculated as the mean number of months between the current screening and the previous screening of all the people who screened that week. The two last indicators were calculated for each week in 2019 and 2020, after which the difference between that week's value in 2020 and 2019 with 95% confidence intervals. Results of these two indicators were also analysed after stratification for gender, age and participation history. RESULTS: Invitation coverage was not impacted in the colorectal and cervical cancer screening program. In the breast cancer screening program invitation coverage went down from 97.5% (2019) to 88.7% (2020), and the backlog of invitations was largely resolved in the first six months of 2021. The willingness to screen was minimally influenced by COVID-19. The breast cancer screening program had a temporary increase in screening interval in the first months following the restart after COVID-19 related shutdown, when it was on average 2.1 months longer than in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to screen was minimally influenced by COVID-19, but there may be an influence on screening coverage because of lower invitation coverage, mainly for the for breast Cancer Screening Program. The increases in screening intervals for the three Cancer Screening Program seem reasonable and would probably not significantly increase the risk of delayed screening cancer diagnoses. When restarting a Cancer Screening Program after a COVID-19 related shutdown, monitoring is crucial.

Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers.

OBJECTIVE: Next to the obvious benefits of tobacco-use cessation, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans has been proposed as a means to lower lung cancer burden. Achieving an impact of any cancer screening program on cancer-specific mortality largely depends on the uptake. The aim of this study was to estimate the acceptability and intention to participate in a lung cancer screening program among Belgian current or former smokers. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among adults from the Belgian population. Sampling took place within an existing online panel. RESULTS: In total, 83.6% of all respondents (n = 2727), including current or former smokers and never smokers, believed that offering lung cancer screening to current or former smokers is a good idea. 84.3% of all current or former smokers (n = 1534) answered that they would likely or very likely participate in a screening program for lung cancer. The majority of current smokers that were willing to be screened said they would also want to receive tobacco-use cessation counseling in parallel with screening (71.8%; n = 486), whereas 9% (n = 61) would decline. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a Belgian lung cancer screening program would be acceptable and could be well-attended by current or former smokers. Further research should focus on how smokers can be best reached to propose screening, and how tobacco-use cessation counseling can be successfully integrated in a lung cancer screening program.

Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening.

A small number of studies have investigated breast cancer (BC) risk among women with a history of false-positive recall (FPR) in BC screening, but none of them has used time-to-event analysis while at the same time quantifying the effect of false-negative diagnostic assessment (FNDA). FNDA occurs when screening detects BC, but this BC is missed on diagnostic assessment (DA). As a result of FNDA, screenings that detected cancer are incorrectly classified as FPR. Our study linked data recorded in the Flemish BC screening program (women aged 50-69 years) to data from the national cancer registry. We used Cox proportional hazards models on a retrospective cohort of 298 738 women to assess the association between FPR and subsequent BC, while adjusting for potential confounders. The mean follow-up was 6.9 years. Compared with women without recall, women with a history of FPR were at an increased risk of developing BC [hazard ratio=2.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.92-2.31)]. However, 22% of BC after FPR was due to FNDA. The hazard ratio dropped to 1.69 (95% confidence interval: 1.52-1.87) when FNDA was excluded. Women with FPR have a subsequently increased BC risk compared with women without recall. The risk is higher for women who have a FPR BI-RADS 4 or 5 compared with FPR BI-RADS 3. There is room for improvement of diagnostic assessment: 41% of the excess risk is explained by FNDA after baseline screening.