European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.  They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Communication.

Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The full guideline document covers the entire process of population-based screening. It consists of 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. The 450-page guidelines and the extensive evidence base have been published by the European Commission. The chapter on communication includes 35 graded recommendations. The content of the chapter is presented here to promote international discussion and collaboration by making the principles and standards recommended in the new EU Guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community. Following these recommendations has the potential to enhance the control of colorectal cancer through improvement in the quality and effectiveness of screening programmes and services.

Development of a measurement tool to assess public awareness of cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess cancer awareness in the general population: the cancer awareness measure (CAM). METHODS: Items assessing awareness of cancer warning signs, risk factors, incidence, screening programmes and attitudes towards help seeking were extracted from the literature or generated by expert groups. To determine reliability, the CAM was administered to a university participant panel (n=148), with a sub-sample (n=94) completing it again 2 weeks later. To establish construct validity, CAM scores of cancer experts (n=12) were compared with those of non-medical academics (n=21). Finally, university students (n=49) were randomly assigned to read either a cancer information leaflet or a leaflet with control information before completing the measure, to ensure the CAM was sensitive to change. RESULTS: Cognitive interviewing indicated that the CAM was being interpreted as intended. Internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.77) and test-retest reliability (r=0.81) were high. Scores for cancer experts were significantly higher than those for non-medical academics (t(31)=6.8, P<0.001). CAM scores were higher among students who received an intervention leaflet than the control leaflet (t(47)=4.8, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These studies show the psychometric properties of the CAM and support its validity as a measure of cancer awareness in the general population.

Public awareness of cancer in Britain: a population-based survey of adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess public awareness of cancer warning signs, anticipated delay and perceived barriers to seeking medical advice in the British population. METHODS: We carried out a population-based survey using face-to-face, computer-assisted interviews to administer the cancer awareness measure (CAM), a newly developed, validated measure of cancer awareness. The sample included 2216 adults (970 males and 1246 females) recruited as part of the Office for National Statistics Opinions Survey using stratified probability sampling. RESULTS: Awareness of cancer warning signs was low when open-ended (recall) questions were used and higher with closed (recognition) questions; but on either measure, awareness was lower in those who were male, younger, and from lower socio-economic status (SES) groups or ethnic minorities. The most commonly endorsed barriers to help seeking were difficulty making an appointment, worry about wasting the doctor's time and worry about what would be found. Emotional barriers were more prominent in lower SES groups and practical barriers (e.g. too busy) more prominent in higher SES groups. Anticipated delay was lower in ethnic minority and lower SES groups. In multivariate analysis, higher symptom awareness was associated with lower anticipated delay, and more barriers with greater anticipated delay. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of public education about symptoms and empowerment to seek medical advice, as well as support at primary care level, could enhance early presentation and improve cancer outcomes.

Awareness of cancer symptoms and anticipated help seeking among ethnic minority groups in England.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about ethnic differences in awareness of cancer-warning signs or help-seeking behaviour in Britain. As part of the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI), this study aimed to explore these factors as possible contributors to delay in cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We used quota sampling to recruit 1500 men and women from the six largest minority ethnic groups in England (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African and Chinese). In face-to-face interviews, participants completed the newly developed cancer awareness measure (CAM), which includes questions about warning signs for cancer, speed of consultation for possible cancer symptoms and barriers to help seeking. RESULTS: Awareness of warning signs was low across all ethnic groups, especially using the open-ended (recall) question format, with lowest awareness in the African group. Women identified more emotional barriers and men more practical barriers to help seeking, with considerable ethnic variation. Anticipated delay in help seeking was higher in individuals who identified fewer warning signs and more barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests the need for culturally sensitive, community-based interventions to raise awareness and encourage early presentation.

Interventions to promote cancer awareness and early presentation: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low cancer awareness contributes to delay in presentation for cancer symptoms and may lead to delay in cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to review the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to raise cancer awareness and promote early presentation in cancer to inform policy and future research. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases and reference lists for randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered to individuals, and controlled or uncontrolled studies of interventions delivered to communities. RESULTS: We found some evidence that interventions delivered to individuals modestly increase cancer awareness in the short term and insufficient evidence that they promote early presentation. We found limited evidence that public education campaigns reduce stage at presentation of breast cancer, malignant melanoma and retinoblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions delivered to individuals may increase cancer awareness. Interventions delivered to communities may promote cancer awareness and early presentation, although the evidence is limited.

Mammographic screening for young women with a family history of breast cancer: knowledge and views of those at risk.

Although the effectiveness of mammography for women under the age of 50 years with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC) has not yet been proven, annual screening is being offered to these women to manage breast cancer risk. This study investigates women's awareness and interpretation of their familial risk and knowledge and views about mammographic screening. A total of 2231 women from 21 familial/breast/genetics centres who were assessed as moderate risk (17-30% lifetime risk) or high risk (>30% lifetime risk) completed a questionnaire before their mammographic screening appointment. Most women (70%) believed they were likely, very likely or definitely going to develop breast cancer in their lifetime. Almost all women (97%) understood that the purpose of mammographic screening was to allow the early detection of breast cancer. However, 20% believed that a normal mammogram result meant there was definitely no breast cancer present, and only 4% understood that screening has not been proven to save lives in women under the age of 50 years. Women held positive views on mammography but did not appear to be well informed about the potential disadvantages. These findings suggest that further attention should be paid to improving information provision to women with an FHBC being offered routine screening.

Predictors of breast cancer-related distress following mammography screening in younger women on a family history breast screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study investigated pre-screening factors that predicted breast cancer-specific distress among 1286 women who were undergoing annual mammography screening as part of a UK programme for younger women (i.e., under 50) with a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Women completed questionnaires one month prior to screening, and one and six months after receiving screening results. Factors measured were breast cancer worry, perceived risk, cognitive appraisals, coping, dispositional optimism, and background variables relating to screening history and family history. RESULTS: Pre-screening cancer worry was the most important predictor of subsequent worry, explaining 56/61% and 54/57% of the variance at one and six months follow-up, respectively. Other salient pre-screening predictors included high perceived risk of breast cancer, appraisals of high relevance and threat associated with the family history, and low perceived ability to cope emotionally. Women who had previously been part of the screening programme and those with a relative who had recently died from breast cancer were also vulnerable to longer-term distress. A false positive screening result, pessimistic personality, and coping efforts relating to religion and substance use predicted outcomes of screening at one month follow-up, but were not predictive in the longer-term. CONCLUSION: Early intervention to ameliorate high levels of cancer-related distress and negative appraisals would benefit some women as they progress through the familial breast screening programme.

Identifying symptoms of ovarian cancer: a qualitative and quantitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of ovarian cancer are often vague and consequently a high proportion of women with ovarian cancer are not referred to the appropriate clinic. OBJECTIVE: To identify diagnostic factors for ovarian cancer. DESIGN: A qualitative and quantitative study. SETTING: Four UK hospitals. SAMPLE: One hundred and twenty-four women referred to hospital with suspected ovarian malignancy. METHODS: Women were interviewed prior to diagnosis (n = 63), or soon after. A thematic analysis was conducted. Emergent symptoms were quantitatively analysed to identify distinguishing features of ovarian cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES: Symptoms in women with and without ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Diagnoses comprised 44 malignancies, 59 benign gynaecological pathologies and 21 normal findings. Of the malignancies, 25 women had stage III or more disease, with an average age of 59 years. The benign/normal cohort was significantly younger (48 years). Multivariate analysis revealed persistent abdominal distension (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.5), postmenopausal bleeding (OR 9.2, 95% CI 1.1-76.1), appetite loss (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-9.2), early satiety (OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.6-15.7) and progressive symptoms (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.3-9.8) as independent, statistically significant variables associated with ovarian cancer. Fluctuating distension was not associated with ovarian cancer (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0-4.1). Women frequently used the term bloating, but this represented two distinct events: persistent abdominal distension and fluctuating distension/discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer is not a silent killer. Clinicians should distinguish between persistent and fluctuating distension. Recognition of the significance of symptoms described by women could lead to earlier and more appropriate referral.

Diagnosed with breast cancer while on a family history screening programme: an exploratory qualitative study.

Mammographic screening is offered to many women under 50 in the UK who are at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer because of their family history of the disease. Little is understood about the impact of screening on the emotional well-being of women with a family history of breast cancer. This qualitative study explores the value that women at increased risk placed on screening, both pre- and post-cancer diagnosis and the impact of the diagnosis. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 12 women, aged 35-50, diagnosed with breast cancer while on an annual mammographic screening programme. Women described the strong sense of reassurance gained from screening prior to diagnosis. This faith in screening was reinforced by early detection of their cancer. Reactions to diagnosis ranged from devastation to relief at having finally developed a long-expected condition. Despite their positive attitudes about screening, not all women wanted to continue with surveillance. For some, prophylactic mastectomy was preferable, to reduce future cancer risk and to alleviate anxieties about the detection of another cancer at each subsequent screen. This study illustrates the positive yet diverse attitudes towards mammographic screening in this group of women with a family history of breast cancer.

Detergent solubilisation of baboon histocompatibility antigens and their use in prolonging liver allograft survival.

Histocompatibility antigens have been solubilised from baboon spleen cell membranes by brief exposure to sodium deoxycholate (DOC). Preparations contained a high molecular weight species (DOCH-Ag) excluded by Sephadex G-200, and a low molecular weight species (DOCL-Ag) which eluted in the included fraction (molecular weight 46,000). The low molecular weight antigen was stable and was not sedimented by high speed centrifugation even after dialysis against a low molar salt solution. It elicited a delayed-type hypersensitivity response in sensitised baboons but not in normal animals. DOCL-Ag cultured in vitro with sensitised allogeneic lymphocytes produced a 1.3- to 24.9-fold stimulation, whereas when cultured with normal lymphocytes the maximum stimulation index was 2. Intravenous administration of donor DOCL-Ag (2 mg/kg) at the time of transplantation and without additional immunosuppression significantly prolonged the mean survival time of baboon liver allografts. The same treatment with donor DOCH-Ag did not prolong graft survival.

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To carry out a systematic review to examine the effects of cholesterol, breast and cervical cancer screening on actual or intended health-promoting behaviours and health-related beliefs. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases (between 1980 and 2000). REVIEW METHODS: All English language studies that investigated the impact of cholesterol, breast and cervical screening programmes on health-promoting behaviours and beliefs were assessed for inclusion. The data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed using the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. Data were extracted and a non-quantitative synthesis was conducted. Reviewers categorised the outcomes into those that could be considered beneficial or detrimental to health. This categorisation was based on a value judgement that considered both statistical and clinical significance. RESULTS: The cholesterol studies used prospective designs more frequently, possibly as many focused on observing changes in lifestyle following screening. Participants who went for breast or cervical screening were not offered advice on lifestyle changes and most of the research into cancer screening programmes investigated issues related to uptake of screening services, explanations of why people are or are not screened and interventions to improve uptake. All three screening programmes are associated with high levels of favourable health behaviours and beliefs that have been measured, although there is evidence that recommended follow-up after screening is often not adhered to. There was no literature on the cost-effectiveness regarding the wider implications of screening (only on reduction of disease-specific mortality/morbidity), possibly due to the outcomes being very broad and not easily categorised and classified. CONCLUSIONS: The studies reviewed suggest that cholesterol screening had a positive effect on health behaviours, although participation was voluntary and those screened were possibly more motivated to make changes. These results are therefore not generalisable to the entire population and other factors need to be taken into account. Reduction in blood cholesterol levels was reported in all but two of the studies that assessed this outcome, suggesting that successful lifestyle changes were made. However, as most of the studies only reported follow-up of those screened, some of the reduction can be attributable to regression to the mean. Whether breast and cervical screening affect future health behaviours and beliefs has not been directly measured in many studies and few studies have collected baseline measures. However, evidence suggests that women who attend breast and cervical screening once are likely to reattend and attendance is associated with several positive health behaviours, although it cannot be confirmed whether the associations observed were a result of screening or because these women have a certain set of health behaviours and beliefs irrespective of their experience of screening. Areas of further research include: measuring a much wider range of behaviours and beliefs before and after screening is accepted or declined, examining the subgroup of participants who receive 'desirable' results and the impact of this on health beliefs and health-promoting behaviour, and qualitative research into the experiences of screening and how this interacts with knowledge and beliefs about other aspects of health.

Effect on attendance at breast cancer screening of adding a self administered questionnaire to the usual invitation to breast screening in southern England.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the research described in this paper was to ascertain whether inclusion of a self administered questionnaire with the usual invitation to routine breast screening affected screening uptake. Secondary aims included establishing appropriate questionnaire distribution and collection methods within the framework of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and optimisation of questionnaire design. DESIGN: Randomised study. SETTING: Oxfordshire and West of London Breast Screening Units. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS: 6400 women invited for routine screening mammography were individually randomised to receive either the usual breast screening invitation alone, or to receive the usual invitation accompanied by a self administered questionnaire, to be returned at the time of screening. Participants were then followed up and attendance rates at screening were compared between groups. MAIN RESULTS: Screening attendance rates were similar in women who did and did not receive a questionnaire (71% in each group). Of those who were sent a questionnaire and attended for screening, 77% returned a completed questionnaire. Screening uptake was not affected by the way in which the questionnaire was returned or by whether or not personal details and signed permission for follow up were requested. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a self administered questionnaire accompanying the invitation to breast screening did not adversely affect screening uptake. A high proportion of women completed the questionnaire.

The Opinions, Expectations and Experiences of Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer Who Consult Their GP and Are Referred to Secondary Care.

Objectives: The purpose of this work was to explore the views, expectations and experiences of the increasing number of women with a family history of breast cancer who present to their GP and are referred to secondary care. Methods: A prospective descriptive study was carried out with 193 women referred by their GP regarding a family history of breast cancer to a genetics clinic or breast clinic in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire over a one-year period. Results: Women who presented to primary care about a family history of breast cancer wanted their GP to provide them with information (90%) and to discuss their risks of developing breast cancer (87%). Women often had unrealistic expectations of what they might expect from a referral to secondary care, especially with regards to being offered genetic testing. Within 1 month of attending the secondary care appointment, 11% of women had returned to see their GP regarding their family history and what had happened at the specialist clinic. Conclusions: Women want information and the opportunity to discuss their breast cancer family history concerns in a primary care setting. For women who are referred, information provision in primary care is important to ensure realistic expectations of the secondary care visit and to provide ongoing reassurance and support throughout the often lengthy referral process. For women who are not referred, information provision in primary care is even more important, as this may be their only source of information and advice. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

Written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening: results of a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening. METHODS: Women from eight breast screening centres in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been recalled for further investigation were invited to complete a structured questionnaire about aspects of recall. Four hundred and eighty four consecutive women were invited to be interviewed immediately before assessment. Two weeks after attendance for assessment 2132 consecutive women (including all women who had been interviewed) were sent a postal questionnaire. No reminder was sent. Subjects from four of the centres received an information leaflet with their recall letter, the remainder did not. Letters/ leaflets used by the centres differed markedly. RESULTS: The response rate was 95% for the interview questionnaires and 70% for the postal questionnaires. Women who were prepared in advance for a possible recall were less likely to feel distressed/ very distressed when receiving a recall letter. The more aspects of the recall process included in the recall literature, the more women were likely to think that assessment had been explained (89% of women (544/ 609) receiving six or more items of information compared with 73% of women (269/370) receiving four or fewer items (P < 0.0001). Women who received a leaflet with their recall letter were significantly more likely to find some aspect of the information about recall reassuring than women who did not (61% (313/510) v 50% (278/557); P < 0.0001). Distressed/very distressed women were significantly more likely than somewhat/not distressed women to want further information about the reasons for recall (48% (403/834) v 26% (157/598); P < 0.0001 and how to get more information (29% (237/811) v 19% (116/ 616); P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information can increase satisfaction and reduce distress. The amount of information women needed about recall was consistently underestimated. Inclusion of a leaflet improved satisfaction. Sensitive topics, words, and phrases should be carefully expressed.

Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: It was the original intention of the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) to place women who were not diagnosed with cancer on three yearly routine recall (RR). In 1994-5 approximately 16,500 women, aged 50 to 64, were placed on early recall (ER) at a shorter time interval, of which about 98% will have a normal result. This large number exceeds the expectations of the NHSBSP. OBJECTIVE: To establish the adverse psychological consequences (PCs) for women one month after placement on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty, and if detected, to suggest practical solutions to reduce them. METHODS: Thirteen breast screening centres throughout the UK participated in the study. From March to October 1995 all women who were placed on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were identified and compared with groups of women placed on RR (after mammography, assessment, fine needle aspiration, and a benign biopsy). These women were invited to complete a postal questionnaire one month after they were placed on ER or RR. One reminder was sent. RESULTS: Overall 75% of women completed the questionnaire. The adverse PCs of placing women on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were higher (63%; n = 81 of 130) than those of women placed on RR after mammography (29%; n = 38 of 130) (P < 0.00001) or assessment (50%; n = 64 of 128) (P < 0.05), but lower than the adverse PCs of women who underwent a benign biopsy (87%; n = 26 of 30) (P < 0.05). Factors that were significantly associated with subsequent adverse PCs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The adverse PCs of being placed on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were significantly higher than those of women who turned out to have a false-positive mammographic result after assessment. Possible practical solutions are discussed.

Early rescreen/recall in the UK National Health Service breast screening programme: epidemiological data.

OBJECTIVE: In the United Kingdom in 1994-95 about 16,500 women aged 50 to 64 were asked to come back earlier than the usual three yearly screening interval for further mammography (early rescreen (ES)) or for a range of further investigations at an assessment centre (early recall (ER)). This study aimed at providing epidemiological data on ES/ER, in particular, how often and why it is used, and what the outcome is of using it. SETTING: National Health Service breast screening programme in the United Kingdom. METHODS: All breast screening units were invited to complete a postal questionnaire. Two reminders were sent. The units were asked retrospectively to provide breast screening data about women aged 50 to 64 from their local computer systems. Women placed on ES/ER were followed up for at least one year. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (69/97), of which 14% (10/69) were unable to provide the required data, leaving 59 completed questionnaires (61%). The rate of placing women on ES/ER was above 1.0% for 26/54 (48%) responding breast screening units and above 2.0% for 13/54 (24%) units. Women were placed on ES/ER because of (a) previous breast cancer (21% of cases; cancer detection rate 2.4%), (b) diagnostic uncertainty (51%; cancer detection rate 3.0%), or (c) family history (27%; cancer detection rate 0.6%). Breast screening units with a high rate of placing women on ER were significantly more likely to have a high recall rate (rs = 0.63; n = 53; p < 0.0005) or a high benign surgical biopsy rate (rs = 0.33; n = 49; p < 0.05), or both. The cancer detection rate of ES/ER tended to decrease with increasing ES/ER rates (rs = -0.37; n = 51; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A relatively large number of women were placed on ES or ER for a range of reasons. If the recommendations given are followed, the number of women placed on ER may be reduced while maintaining the cancer detection rate at the required level. The option of ES should not be used.

Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions based in primary care aimed at increasing uptake of breast screening. SETTING: 24 General practices with low uptake in the second round of screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, UK. Participants were all women registered with these practices and eligible for screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial, with practices randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after the practices had been screened and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 6,133 Women were included: 1,721 control; 1,818 letter; 1,232 flag; 1,362 both interventions. Attendance data were obtained for 5,732 (93%) women. The two interventions independently increased breast screening uptake in a logistic regression model adjusted for clustering, with the flag (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.79; p=0.0019) marginally more effective than the letter (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.64; p=0.015). Health service costs per additional attendance were 26 pounds (letter) and 41 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Although both interventions increased attendance for breast screening, the letter was the more cost-effective. Any decision to implement both interventions rather than just the letter will depend on whether the additional (41 pounds) costs are judged worthwhile in terms of the gains in breast screening uptake.

Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter.

Breast screening: a subject for debate.

The National Health Service Breast Screening Programme was instituted in 1988 following the recommendations of the Forrest report in 1986. From the beginning it has been controversial. Is breast cancer screening efficacious? Can the efficacy produced in trials be reproduced nationwide in the UK? Do the benefits of screening outweigh the adverse effects? Answers to all these questions are not yet available but in the light of current evidence, breast screening does appear to offer a realistic opportunity to reduce the mortality from a disease which constitutes a major public health problem in the UK. The role of the general practitioner and the primary care team is considered in the light of the experience gained in the first phase of the screening programme.