Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

A technique to correct a malpositioned nipple within the confines of a well-placed areola.

We present a case where the nipple was malpositioned after a wide local excision for breast cancer. Despite the nipple malposition, the areola was symmetrical with the contralateral side. We were able to reproduce symmetry between both breasts by the use of a transposition flap to reposition the nipple and skin grafting.

An analysis of the motivating and risk factors for conversion from implant-based to total autologous breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Problems with implant-based breast reconstructions can lead to patient dissatisfaction and a request for total autologous reconstruction. This 12-year study aimed to determine the rate of conversion from implant-based to autologous reconstruction, to identify potential risk factors, compare the rate of conversion in implant-only and latissimus dorsi/implant reconstructions, and assess patient satisfaction following conversion. METHODS: Implant-based reconstructions performed between 2000 and 2008 were reviewed. The cohort was then followed prospectively until 2012. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine implant-based reconstructions were performed in 118 patients. Sixty-nine patients underwent latissimus dorsi/implant (80 breasts) and 49 underwent implant-only reconstructions (59 breasts). Twenty-one underwent bilateral reconstructions following risk-reduction surgery. Sixteen percent (19 of 118) of patients and 14 percent of breasts (19 of 139) underwent conversion to autologous tissue. None of the 21 bilateral cases converted (hazard ratio, 4.6; p < 0.05). Median time to conversion was 64 months (range, 18 to 142 months). The main motivating factors for conversion included poor aesthetic result (36.8 percent), capsular contracture (31.6 percent), change in weight (21.1 percent), and implant infection/extrusion (10.5 percent). Implant-only reconstructions were more likely to convert (hazard ratio, 3.6; p < 0.05) and at an earlier stage (p < 0.05) than latissimus dorsi/implant reconstructions. Neither radiotherapy (p = 0.68) nor capsular contracture (p = 0.94) significantly increased the risk of conversion. The BREAST-Q demonstrated high patient satisfaction after conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous tissue conversion offers a definitive means of improving the quality of the result, patient satisfaction, and quality of life in troublesome implant-based breast reconstructions. Latissimus dorsi coverage of implants and bilateral reconstructions appear to be protective. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Postoperative tamoxifen for ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive carcinoma of the breast. The incidence of DCIS has increased substantially over the last twenty years, largely as a result of the introduction of population-based mammographic screening. The treatment of DCIS tumours involves surgery with or without radiotherapy to prevent recurrent DCIS and invasive carcinoma. However, there is clinical uncertainty as to whether postoperative hormonal treatment (tamoxifen) after surgery confers benefit in overall survival and incidence of recurrent carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of postoperative tamoxifen in women having local surgical resection of DCIS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 16 August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing tamoxifen after surgery for DCIS (regardless of oestrogen receptor status), with or without adjuvant radiotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the fixed-effect model and the results were expressed as relative risks (RRs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving 3375 women. Tamoxifen after surgery for DCIS reduced recurrence of both ipsilateral (same side) DCIS (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92) and contralateral (opposite side) DCIS (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87). There was a trend towards decreased ipsilateral invasive cancer (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01) and reduced contralateral invasive cancer (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83). The number needed to treat in order for tamoxifen to have a protective effect against all breast events is 15. There was no evidence of a difference detected in all cause mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.39). Only one study, involving 1799 participants followed-up for 163 months (median) reported on adverse events (i.e. toxicity, mood changes, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, endometrial cancer) with no significant difference between tamoxifen and placebo groups, but there was a non-significant trend towards more endometrial cancer in the tamoxifen group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While tamoxifen after local excision for DCIS (with or without adjuvant radiotherapy) reduced the risk of recurrent DCIS (in the ipsi- and contralateral breast), it did not reduce the risk of overall mortality.

Good medical records: a guide for the foundation year doctor.

Maintaining good medical records is essential for providing safe and effective patient care. The General Medical Council (2006), in Good Medical Practice, suggests that doctors should 'keep clear, accurate, legible and contemporaneous patient records which report the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made, the information given to patients and any drugs or other treatment prescribed'. While good medical practice is necessary throughout one's medical career it is important to develop good qualities early in the training.