Oesophageal cancer awareness and anticipated time to help-seeking: results from a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Modifying public awareness of oesophageal cancer symptoms might help to decrease late-stage diagnosis and, in turn, improve cancer outcomes. This study aimed to explore oesophageal cancer symptom awareness and determinants of lower awareness and anticipated time to help-seeking. METHODS: We invited 18,156 individuals aged 18 to 75 years using random sampling of the nationwide Dutch population registry. A cross-sectional web-based survey containing items adapted from the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure (i.e., cancer symptom awareness, anticipated time to presentation with dysphagia, health beliefs, and sociodemographic variables) was filled out by 3106 participants (response rate: 17%). Descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression analyses were performed to explore determinants of awareness and anticipated presentation (dichotomised as <1 month or ≥1 month). RESULTS: The number of participants that recognised dysphagia as a potential symptom of cancer was low (47%) compared with symptoms of other cancer types (change in bowel habits: 77%; change of a mole: 93%; breast lump: 93%). In multivariable analyses, non-recognition of dysphagia was associated with male gender (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58), lower education (OR 0.44, 0.35-0.54), and non-western migration background (OR 0.43, 0.28-0.67). Anticipated delayed help-seeking for dysphagia was associated with not recognising it as possible cancer symptom (OR 1.58, 1.27-1.97), perceived high risk of oesophageal cancer (OR 2.20, 1.39-3.47), and negative beliefs about oesophageal cancer (OR 1.86, 1.20-2.87). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate a disconcertingly low public awareness of oesophageal cancer symptoms. Educational interventions targeting groups with decreased awareness and addressing negative cancer beliefs may lead to faster help-seeking behaviour, although additional studies are needed to determine the effect on clinical cancer outcomes.

The Public's Intended Uptake of Hypothetical Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Screening Scenarios: A Nationwide Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) may potentially reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to examine the Dutch population's intended uptake of 3 hypothetical EAC screening test scenarios and preferences for potential future organization. METHODS: A total of 8,350 Dutch individuals aged 45-75 years were invited, of whom 2,258 completed a web-based survey. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 hypothetical screening test scenarios (i.e., transnasal endoscopy, ingestible cell collection device, or breath analysis). The primary outcome was intended uptake. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of screening eligibility criteria and preferences regarding invitation, counseling, and diagnostic follow-up. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which determinants were associated with EAC screening intent. RESULTS: Intended uptake of screening was highest in the breath analysis scenario (95%), followed by conventional upper endoscopy (78%), an ingestible cell collection device (75%), and transnasal endoscopy (68%) ( P < 0.001). Anticipating discomfort was most strongly associated with decreased intention to undergo transnasal endoscopy (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.29) or swallow a cell collection device (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.32). Cancer worry and high acceptance of test sensitivity/specificity were consistently associated with a positive intention to participate in screening. Inviting persons for screening based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or the output of a risk prediction model was acceptable to 74%, 69%, and 66%, respectively. Inviting only men was acceptable for only 41% of women. The majority (58%) preferred to be invited by a public health organization, and 32% of the participants preferred to discuss their decision to participate with a healthcare professional. DISCUSSION: Participants in this study self-selected through a web-based survey, potentially introducing selection bias. Participants generally intended to participate in EAC screening, although the level of intent depended on the discomfort and performance associated with the offered screening test. Determining eligibility based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or a risk calculator, but not sex, would be acceptable to most individuals.

Cumulative risks of false positive recall and screen-detected breast cancer after multiple screening examinations.

Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high-quality information on cumulative risks of false-positive (FP) recall and screen-detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005-2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true-positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%-81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44-1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41-1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87-2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower.

Changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Dutch population-based study.

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.

US and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women with Focal Breast Complaints: Results of the Breast US Trial (BUST).

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) followed by targeted US is commonly performed to evaluate women with localized breast complaints. However, the added value of DBT in addition to targeted US is unknown. Omitting DBT may be cost-effective and improve patient comfort but may miss potential breast cancer. Purpose To assess whether an imaging protocol consisting of targeted US alone may be feasible for the diagnostic work-up of women with localized symptoms and to assess the supplemental value of DBT in this reversed setting. Materials and Methods This prospective study enrolled consecutive women aged 30 years or older with focal breast complaints in three hospitals in the Netherlands between September 2017 and June 2019. In all participants, first, targeted US was evaluated, and if needed, biopsy was performed, followed by DBT. The primary outcome was the frequency of breast cancer detected with DBT when US was negative. Secondary outcomes were frequency of cancer detected with DBT elsewhere in the breast and combined overall sensitivity of US plus DBT. The reference standard was 1 year follow-up or histopathologic examination. Results There were 1961 women (mean age ± SD, 47 years ± 12) enrolled. Based on initial US alone, 1587 participants (81%) had normal or benign findings and 1759 (90%) had a definitive accurate diagnosis. In total, 204 breast cancers were detected during initial work-up. The frequency of malignancy was 10% (192 of 1961 participants) with US (US sensitivity, 98.5% [95% CI: 96, 100]; US specificity, 90.8% [95% CI: 89, 92]). DBT depicted three unobserved malignant lesions at the complaint site and 0.41% (eight of 1961 participants) of incidental malignant findings in participants without symptomatic cancer. Conclusion Compared with combined US and DBT, US was accurate as a stand-alone breast imaging modality in the assessment of focal breast complaints. The rate of cancer detection of cancers elsewhere in the breast with DBT is comparable to cancer detection rate of screening mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Optimizing the Pairs of Radiologists That Double Read Screening Mammograms.

Background Despite variation in performance characteristics among radiologists, the pairing of radiologists for the double reading of screening mammograms is performed randomly. It is unknown how to optimize pairing to improve screening performance. Purpose To investigate whether radiologist performance characteristics can be used to determine the optimal set of pairs of radiologists to double read screening mammograms for improved accuracy. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was performed with reading outcomes from breast cancer screening programs in Sweden (2008-2015), England (2012-2014), and Norway (2004-2018). Cancer detection rates (CDRs) and abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) were calculated, with AIR defined as either reader flagging an examination as abnormal. Individual readers were divided into performance categories based on their high and low CDR and AIR. The performance of individuals determined the classification of pairs. Random pair performance, for which any type of pair was equally represented, was compared with the performance of specific pairing strategies, which consisted of pairs of readers who were either opposite or similar in AIR and/or CDR. Results Based on a minimum number of examinations per reader and per pair, the final study sample consisted of 3 592 414 examinations (Sweden, n = 965 263; England, n = 837 048; Norway, n = 1 790 103). The overall AIRs and CDRs for all specific pairing strategies (Sweden AIR range, 45.5-56.9 per 1000 examinations and CDR range, 3.1-3.6 per 1000; England AIR range, 68.2-70.5 per 1000 and CDR range, 8.9-9.4 per 1000; Norway AIR range, 81.6-88.1 per 1000 and CDR range, 6.1-6.8 per 1000) were not significantly different from the random pairing strategy (Sweden AIR, 54.1 per 1000 examinations and CDR, 3.3 per 1000; England AIR, 69.3 per 1000 and CDR, 9.1 per 1000; Norway AIR, 84.1 per 1000 and CDR, 6.3 per 1000). Conclusion Pairing a set of readers based on different pairing strategies did not show a significant difference in screening performance when compared with random pairing. © RSNA, 2023.

Dutch, UK and US professionals' perceptions of screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a concept mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barrett's 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.

Expanding the boundaries of previously obtained informed consent in research: Views from participants in the Personalised Risk-based Mammascreening study.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding participants' concerns and information needs regarding broadened consent is crucial to ensure transparency and participant autonomy. Our study qualitatively examined these issues in women participating in the Personalized RISk-based MAmmascreening study (PRISMA). The original PRISMA informed consent was project-specific (i.e., breast cancer research), limiting the scope of secondary research. We explored participants' needs for broadened consent to preserve informed decision-making while maximising the potential re-use of data. METHODS: Focus groups (FGs) were performed following a semistructured discussion guide. Two independent researchers analysed the data thematically using an inductive approach. FINDINGS: Twenty-three asymptomatic women and 13 women diagnosed with breast cancer were randomly divided into six FGs. Four superordinate themes were identified: (1) Normalization, (2) Attitude towards the pharmaceutical industry, (3) Privacy and (4) Knowledge. Our participants viewed data sharing as an important conduit for advancing medical science. Perceived integrity was more often attributed to noncommercial than commercial parties, with a marked mistrust towards the pharmaceutical industry. Most requested information needs related to data protection. Participants' ideal consent process would confer a range of options; for example, they would be able to choose with whom data can be shared, whether data will be de-identified or anonymous, the expiration date of their consent and how, if requested, general and personal study results would be disclosed. CONCLUSION: Our participants expressed clear information needs and a strong desire to be actively engaged in future data sharing decisions. Given that many researchers collaborate with commercial parties, building public confidence in these institutions would be beneficial. Illustrative examples addressing privacy concerns and clarifying difficult terms would aid consent decision-making. Although our participants displayed great altruism in sharing their data and accepted that broad consent would ultimately facilitate future research, broad consent did not reflect their ideal situation. Dynamic consent may be an option but warrants further feasibility research. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Women were recruited from the general breast cancer screening population. Their perceptions and information needs, as reported in this study, will not only inform broadened consent for PRISMA but ideally guide other consent templates and decisions regarding consent processes.

The effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme.

BACKGROUND: Pre-scheduled appointments can increase attendance in breast cancer screening programmes compared to 'open invitations' but relatively few randomized controlled trials exist. We investigated the effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on uptake in the Flemish population-based mammography screening programme. METHODS: Between September and December 2022, a total of 4798 women were randomly assigned to receive either a pre-scheduled appointment or open invitation. The difference in attendance was compared with Poisson regression analysis for the primary endpoint (attendance ≤92 days after date of invitation), yielding relative risks (RRs). This was done separately for three groups: women invited to a mobile unit and a history of nonattendance (group M-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of nonattendance (group HB-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of irregular attendance (group HB-IA). There were no women invited to a mobile unit and a history of irregular attendance. RESULTS: The RRs in favour of the pre-scheduled appointment were 2.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-2.88], 1.8 (95% CI 1.07-2.97) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.43-2.39), for groups M-NA, HB-NA and HB-IA, respectively. We found no statistically significant difference between the various RRs. The respective absolute gains in attendance between pre-scheduled appointment and open invitation were 8.3%, 4.4% and 15.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Sending an invitation with a pre-scheduled appointment is an effective tool to increase screening attendance in both mobile and hospital-based screening units. The pre-scheduled appointment is associated with a considerable absolute gain in attendance which varies depending on the screening history.

Trends and projections in the incidence of oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: An age-period-cohort analysis from 1989 to 2041.

In Western populations, the incidence of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has been declining, whereas the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) has been increasing. Our study examines temporal trends in the incidence of oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2016, in addition to predicting future trends through 2041. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and Statistics Netherlands were collected to obtain incidence trends of OSCC and OAC for the period 1989 to 2016. Age-period-cohort (APC) modelling was used to estimate the contribution of age, calendar period and birth cohort on the observed incidence trends. To predict the future numbers of new cases of both OSCC and OAC from 2017 to 2041, log-linear APC models were fitted to the trends of 1989 to 2016. The age-standardised incidence rates of OSCC have decreased slightly for men and increased slightly for women. In contrast, a marked increase in the incidence of OAC was observed, ranging from 2.8 per 100 000 persons in 1989 to 10.1 in 2016. This increase in OAC incidence was more prominent in men, and it will result in an increased risk of OAC for successive generations. Future projections indicate that the incidence of OAC will further increase to 13.1 per 100 000 persons in 2037 to 2041, meaning that there will be 13 259 cases of OAC in 2037 to 2041, as compared to 9386 diagnoses in 2017 to 2021. The changing epidemiologic trends in oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands should be reflected in the development of prevention, early detection and treatment strategies.

Added Value of Prereading Screening Mammograms for Breast Cancer by Radiologic Technologists on Early Screening Outcomes.

Background In the Dutch breast cancer screening program, mammograms are preread by technologists to identify possible abnormalities, leading to "warning signals" (an audible and visual alert if the technologist observed an abnormality suspicious for cancer) for radiologists. The best moment to present these warning signals is unknown. Purpose To determine the effect that blinding of technologists' warning signals has on radiologists' early screening outcome measures during interpretation of mammograms. Materials and Methods In this prospective study from September 2017 to May 2019, on alternating months, radiologists were either blinded or nonblinded to the warning signals of the technologist when interpreting screening mammograms for breast cancer. All discrepancies between radiologists and technologists were reviewed during quality assurance sessions every 6 weeks, which could result in secondary recalls. The outcome measures of this study were recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value of recall. A χ2 test was used to test for differences between the two groups. Results During the study period, 109 596 women (mean age, 62 years ± 7 [standard deviation]), including 53 291 in the blinded and 56 305 in the nonblinded groups, participated. The overall recall rate (including secondary recalls) was lower for women in the blinded group than in the nonblinded group (blinded: 1140 of 53 291 women [2.1%], nonblinded: 1372 of 56 305 women [2.4%]; P = .001). There was no evidence of cancer detection rate differences between the groups (blinded: 349 of 53 291 women [6.5 per 1000 screening examinations], nonblinded: 360 of 56 305 women [6.4 per 1000 screening examinations]; P = .75). The blinded group thus had a higher positive predictive value of recall (blinded: 349 of 1140 women [30.6%], nonblinded: 360 of 1372 women [26.2%]; P = .02). Conclusion While interpreting screening mammograms for breast cancer, radiologists blinded to technologists' warning signals had lower recall rates with higher positive predictive values than nonblinded radiologists, yet cancer detection rates seemed to remain unchanged. See also the editorial by Hofvind and Lee in this issue. © RSNA, 2021.

Scan-based competing death risk model for re-evaluating lung cancer computed tomography screening eligibility.

BACKGROUND: A baseline computed tomography (CT) scan for lung cancer (LC) screening may reveal information indicating that certain LC screening participants can be screened less, and instead require dedicated early cardiac and respiratory clinical input. We aimed to develop and validate competing death (CD) risk models using CT information to identify participants with a low LC risk and a high CD risk. METHODS: Participant demographics and quantitative CT measures of LC, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were considered for deriving a logistic regression model for predicting 5-year CD risk using a sample from the National Lung Screening Trial (n=15 000). Multicentric Italian Lung Detection data were used to perform external validation (n=2287). RESULTS: Our final CD model outperformed an external pre-scan model (CD Risk Assessment Tool) in both the derivation (area under the curve (AUC) 0.744 (95% CI 0.727-0.761) and 0.677 (95% CI 0.658-0.695), respectively) and validation cohorts (AUC 0.744 (95% CI 0.652-0.835) and 0.725 (95% CI 0.633-0.816), respectively). By also taking LC incidence risk into consideration, we suggested a risk threshold where a subgroup (6258/23 096 (27%)) was identified with a number needed to screen to detect one LC of 216 (versus 23 in the remainder of the cohort) and ratio of 5.41 CDs per LC case (versus 0.88). The respective values in the validation cohort subgroup (774/2287 (34%)) were 129 (versus 29) and 1.67 (versus 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating both LC and CD risks post-scan may improve the efficiency of LC screening and facilitate the initiation of multidisciplinary trajectories among certain participants.

Women's health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5-4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women's uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women's organisational preferences regarding tailored screening. METHODS: A total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Self-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women's organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening.

Evaluation of reader performance during interpretation of breast cancer screening: the Recall and detection Of breast Cancer in Screening (ROCS) trial study design.

The magnitude of the tradeoff between recall rate (RR) and cancer detection rate (CDR) in breast-cancer screening is not clear, and it is expected to depend on target population and screening program characteristics. Multi-reader multi-case research studies, which may be used to estimate this tradeoff, rely on enriched datasets with artificially high prevalence rates, which may bias the results. Furthermore, readers participating in research studies are subject to "laboratory" effects, which can alter their performance relative to actual practice. The Recall and detection Of breast Cancer in Screening (ROCS) trial uses a novel data acquisition system that minimizes these limitations while obtaining an estimate of the RR-CDR curve during actual practice in the Dutch National Breast Cancer Screening Program. ROCS involves collection of at least 40,000 probability-of-malignancy ratings from at least 20 radiologists during interpretation of approximately 2,000 digital mammography screening cases each. With the use of custom-built software on a tablet, and a webcam, this data was obtained in the usual reading environment with minimal workflow disruption and without electronic access to the review workstation software. Comparison of the results to short- and medium-term follow-up allows for estimation of the RR-CDR and receiver operating characteristics curves, respectively. The anticipated result of the study is that performance-based evidence from practice will be available to determine the optimal operating point for breast-cancer screening. In addition, this data will be useful as a benchmark when evaluating the impact of potential new screening technologies, such as digital breast tomosynthesis or artificial intelligence. KEY POINTS: • The ROCS trial aims to estimate the recall rate-cancer detection rate curve during actual screening practice in the Dutch National Breast Cancer Screening Program. • The study design is aimed at avoiding the influence of the "laboratory effect" in usual observer performance studies. • The use of a tablet and a webcam allows for the acquisition of probability of malignancy ratings without access to the review workstation software.

Recommendations from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer for multigene testing to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer, hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in women with early breast cancer is crucial to optimise adjuvant treatment. Despite the common practice of using multigene tests to predict recurrence, existing recommendations are inconsistent. Our aim was to formulate healthcare recommendations for the question "Should multigene tests be used in women who have early invasive breast cancer, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy?" METHODS: The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guidelines Development Group (GDG), a multidisciplinary guideline panel including experts and three patients, developed recommendations informed by systematic reviews of the evidence. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used. Four multigene tests were evaluated: the 21-gene recurrence score (21-RS), the 70-gene signature (70-GS), the PAM50 risk of recurrence score (PAM50-RORS), and the 12-gene molecular score (12-MS). RESULTS: Five studies (2 marker-based design RCTs, two treatment interaction design RCTs and 1 pooled individual data analysis from observational studies) were included; no eligible studies on PAM50-RORS or 12-MS were identified and the GDG did not formulate recommendations for these tests. CONCLUSIONS: The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 21-RS for lymph node-negative women (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence), recognising that benefits are probably larger in women at high risk of recurrence based on clinical characteristics. The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 70-GS for women at high clinical risk (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and recommends not using 70-GS in women at low clinical risk (strong recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

Combining pulmonary and cardiac computed tomography biomarkers for disease-specific risk modelling in lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Combined assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), COPD and lung cancer may improve the effectiveness of lung cancer screening in smokers. The aims were to derive and assess risk models for predicting lung cancer incidence, CVD mortality and COPD mortality by combining quantitative computed tomography (CT) measures from each disease, and to quantify the added predictive benefit of self-reported patient characteristics given the availability of a CT scan. METHODS: A survey model (patient characteristics only), CT model (CT information only) and final model (all variables) were derived for each outcome using parsimonious Cox regression on a sample from the National Lung Screening Trial (n=15 000). Validation was performed using Multicentric Italian Lung Detection data (n=2287). Time-dependent measures of model discrimination and calibration are reported. RESULTS: Age, mean lung density, emphysema score, bronchial wall thickness and aorta calcium volume are variables that contributed to all final models. Nodule features were crucial for lung cancer incidence predictions but did not contribute to CVD and COPD mortality prediction. In the derivation cohort, the lung cancer incidence CT model had a 5-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 82.5% (95% CI 80.9-84.0%), significantly inferior to that of the final model (84.0%, 82.6-85.5%). However, the addition of patient characteristics did not improve the lung cancer incidence model performance in the validation cohort (CT model 80.1%, 74.2-86.0%; final model 79.9%, 73.9-85.8%). Similarly, the final CVD mortality model outperformed the other two models in the derivation cohort (survey model 74.9%, 72.7-77.1%; CT model 76.3%, 74.1-78.5%; final model 79.1%, 77.0-81.2%), but not the validation cohort (survey model 74.8%, 62.2-87.5%; CT model 72.1%, 61.1-83.2%; final model 72.2%, 60.4-84.0%). Combining patient characteristics and CT measures provided the largest increase in accuracy for the COPD mortality final model (92.3%, 90.1-94.5%) compared to either other model individually (survey model 87.5%, 84.3-90.6%; CT model 87.9%, 84.8-91.0%), but no external validation was performed due to a very low event frequency. CONCLUSIONS: CT measures of CVD and COPD provides small but reproducible improvements to nodule-based lung cancer risk prediction accuracy from 3 years onwards. Self-reported patient characteristics may not be of added predictive value when CT information is available.

How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?

OBJECTIVES: To study how radiologists' perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. RESULTS: Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. KEY POINTS: • Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists' perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.

Impact of the suspension and restart of the Dutch breast cancer screening program on breast cancer incidence and stage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national breast screening program to a halt in week 12, 2020. In week 26, the breast program was resumed at 40% capacity, which increased to 60% in week 34. We examined the impact of the suspension and restart of the screening program on the incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancer. We selected women aged 50-74, diagnosed during weeks 2-35 of 2018 (n = 7250), 2019 (n = 7302), or 2020 (n = 5306), from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Weeks 2-35 were divided in seven periods, based on events occurring at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected tumors was calculated overall and by age group, cT-stage, and cTNM-stage for each period in 2020, and compared to the incidence in the same period of 2018/2019 (averaged). The incidence of screen-detected tumors decreased during weeks 12-13, reached almost zero during weeks 14-25, and increased during weeks 26-35. Incidence of non-screen-detected tumors decreased to a lesser extent during weeks 12-16. The decrease in incidence was seen in all age groups and mainly occurred for cTis, cT1, DCIS, and stage I tumors. Due to the suspension of the breast cancer screening program, and the restart at reduced capacity, the incidence of screen-detected breast tumors decreased by 67% during weeks 9-35 2020, which equates to about 2000 potentially delayed breast cancer diagnoses. Up to August 2020 there was no indication of a shift towards higher stage breast cancers after restart of the screening.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey.

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.

Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.