Factors determining non-attendance in breast cancer screening among women in the Netherlands: a national study.

Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer among women. National mammography screening programs can detect breast cancer early, but attendance rates have been decreasing in the Netherlands over the past decade. Non-attendees reported that overdiagnosis, the risk of false-negative results, x-ray exposure and mammography pain could be barriers to attendance, but it is not clear whether these disadvantages explain non-attendance and in which situations they are considered barriers. We conducted a national survey among 1227 Dutch women who did not attend mammography screening appointments in 2016. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors that influenced the likelihood of the abovementioned disadvantages leading to non-attendance. The results showed that the doctor's opinion increased the likelihood of the risk of false-negative being perceived as a reason for non-attendance. Moreover, opportunistic screening increased the likelihood that the risk of false-negative, overdiagnosis and x-ray exposure would lead to non-attendance. Women with lower education levels were less likely to consider overdiagnosis and x-ray exposure as reasons for non-attendance, while women who had not undergone mammography screening before were more likely to reject the screening invitation because of concerns about x-ray exposure and mammography pain. These findings indicate how we can address the specific concerns of different groups of women in the Netherlands to encourage them to attend potentially life-saving breast-screening appointments. Screening organizations could provide accurate and unbiased information on the effectiveness of mammography screening to GPs, putting them in a better position to advise their patients.

Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Subjects Undergoing Multiple Rounds of Fecal Immunochemical Testing.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among subjects screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) by the guaiac fecal occult blood test, interval cancers develop in 48% to 55% of the subjects. Data are limited on how many persons screened by fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), over multiple rounds, develop interval cancers. In the Netherlands, a pilot FIT-based biennial CRC screening program was conducted between 2006 and 2014. We collected and analyzed data from the program on CRCs detected during screening (SD-CRC) and CRCs not detected within the screening program (non-SD-CRC; such as FIT interval cancers, colonoscopy interval cancers, and cancer in nonparticipants). METHODS: Screenees with a negative FIT result received a letter explaining that no blood had been detected in the stool sample and were re-invited, if eligible, for screening biennially. Screenees with a positive FIT result (hemoglobin concentration of 10 µg Hb/g feces) were invited for consultation and scheduled for colonoscopy; results were collected. After the fourth round of FIT screening, the cohort was linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry, through March 31, 2015; participant characteristics, data on tumor stage, location (at time of resection), and survival status were collected for all identified CRC cases. A reference group comprised all persons with CRC diagnosed in the Netherlands general population during the same period, in the same age range (50-76 years), who had not been offered CRC screening. The median time between invitations (2.37 years) was used as a cutoff to categorize participants within the FIT interval cancer category. We compared participant characteristics, tumor characteristics, and mortality among subjects with SD-CRC and with non-SD-CRC. RESULTS: A total of 27,304 eligible individuals were invited for FIT screening, of whom 18,716 (69%) participated at least once. Of these, 3005 (16%) had a positive result from the FIT in 1 of the 4 screening rounds. In total, CRC was detected in 261 participants: 116 SD-CRCs and 145 non-SD-CRCs (27 FIT interval cancers, 9 colonoscopy interval cancers, and 109 CRCs in nonparticipants). The FIT interval cancer proportion after 3 completed screening rounds was 23%. Participants with SD-CRC had more early-stage tumors than participants with non-SD-CRCs (P < .001). Of persons with SD-CRC and FIT interval cancers, significantly higher proportions survived (89% and 81%, respectively) compared with persons with colonoscopy interval cancers (44% survival) and nonparticipants with CRC (60% survival) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from a pilot FIT-based biennial screening program, we found that among persons screened by FIT, 23% developed FIT interval cancer. FIT therefore detects CRC with 77% sensitivity. The proportion of FIT interval cancers in FIT screening appears to be lower than that with guaiac fecal occult blood testing. Clinical trial registry: yes, www.trialregister.nl, trial number: NTR5385.

Attendance and diagnostic yield of repeated two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on attendance and additional yield of 2-sample faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) screening during multiple rounds. We therefore conducted a population-based colorectal cancer screening trial comparing attendance and yield of repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings. DESIGN: Two randomly selected groups of average-risk subjects aged 50-74 years were invited for two rounds of either 1-sample (n=5007) or 2-sample (n=3197) FIT (OC-sensor Micro) screening. The test was considered positive if at least one sample was positive (cut-off 50 ng/mL; 10 µg haemoglobin/g). RESULTS: The cumulative attendance rate was similar for repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings (1-sample FIT: 68.1%; 2-sample FIT: 67.1%, p=0.368). The positivity rate in the second round was lower for 1-sample FIT (6.2%, 95% CI 5.4% to 7.2%) than for 2-sample FIT (8.4%, 95% CI 7.1% to 9.8%, p=0.007), whereas the detection rate of advanced neoplasia (AN, 1-sample FIT: 1.9%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.2%; 2-sample FIT: 1.7%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.5%, p=0.861) and the positive predictive value (1-sample FIT: 32%, 95% CI 24% to 40%; 2-sample FIT: 21%, 95% CI 15% to 29%, p=0.075) did not differ. After two rounds of screening, the cumulative diagnostic yield of AN for 1-sample FIT was 29.3 per 1000 invitees, compared with 34.0 for 2-sample FIT (p=0.241). CONCLUSIONS: Using 2-sample FIT instead of 1-sample FIT does not result in a higher detection rate of AN in the second round of repeated FIT screening. Furthermore, both strategies lead to a similar yield of AN over two rounds. These findings imply that 1-sample FIT screening is preferred over 2-sample FIT screening.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: four rounds of faecal immunochemical test-based screening.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programs is highly dependent on consistent participation over multiple rounds. We evaluated adherence to FIT screening over four rounds and aimed to identify determinants of participation behaviour. METHODS: A total of 23 339 randomly selected asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited for biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening between 2006 and 2014. All were invited for every consecutive round, except for those who had moved out of the area, passed the upper age limit, or had tested positive in a previous screening round. A reminder letter was sent to non-responders. We calculated participation rates per round, response rates to a reminder letter, and differences in participation between subgroups defined by age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES). RESULTS: Over the four rounds, participation rates increased significantly, from 60% (95% CI 60-61), 60% (95% CI 59-60), 62% (95% CI 61-63) to 63% (95% CI 62-64; P for trend<0.001) with significantly higher participation rates in women in all rounds (P<0.001). Of the 17 312 invitees eligible for at least two rounds of FIT screening, 12 455 (72%) participated at least once, whereas 4857 (28%) never participated; 8271 (48%) attended all rounds when eligible. Consistent participation was associated with older age, female sex, and higher SES. Offering a reminder letter after the initial invite in the first round increased uptake with 12%; in subsequent screening rounds this resulted in an additional uptake of up to 10%. CONCLUSIONS: In four rounds of a pilot biennial FIT-screening program, we observed a consistently high and increasing participation rate, whereas sending reminders remain effective. The substantial proportion of inconsistent participants suggests the existence of incidental barriers to participation, which, if possible, should be identified and removed.

Attendance and yield over three rounds of population-based fecal immunochemical test screening.

OBJECTIVES: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) requires timely successive rounds for an optimal preventive effect. However, data on attendance and trend in yield over multiple rounds of FIT screening are limited. We therefore conducted a consecutive third round of FIT screening in a population-based CRC screening trial. METHODS: Average-risk subjects aged 50-74 years were approached for three rounds of 1-sample FIT (OC-sensor) screening. Subjects with a hemoglobin level ≥50 ng/ml (≥10 µg Hb/g) feces were referred for colonoscopy. Subjects with a positive FIT in previous rounds were not re-invited for FIT screening. RESULTS: In the first round, 7,501 subjects were invited. The participation rate was 62.6% in the first round, 63.2% in the second round, and 68.3% in the third round (P<0.001). In total, 73% (5,241/7,229) of all eligible subjects participated in at least one of three rounds. The positivity rate was significantly higher in the first (8.4%) round compared with the second (6.0%) and third (5.7%) screening rounds (P<0.001). The detection rate of advanced neoplasia (AN) declined from the first round to subsequent rounds (round 1: 3.3%; round 2: 1.9%; and round 3: 1.3%; P<0.001). The positive predictive value for AN was 40.7% in the first screening round, 33.2% in the second screening round, and 24.0% in the third screening round (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeated biennial FIT screening is acceptable with increased participation in successive screening rounds, and >70% of all eligible subjects participating at least once over three rounds. The decline in screen-detected AN over three screening rounds is compatible with a decreased prevalence of AN as a result of repeated FIT screening. These findings provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of FIT screening and stress the importance of ongoing research over multiple screening rounds.

Effects of a leaflet on breast cancer screening knowledge, explicit attitudes, and implicit associations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an information leaflet on knowledge, explicit attitudes, implicit associations, and attendance for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Dutch women (aged 49-75 years) were approached three months before their breast cancer screening invitation. After providing informed consent, participants were randomised to receiving the information leaflet (intervention condition) or not (control condition). Screening knowledge, explicit attitudes, and implicit associations were assessed through web-based questionnaires, at baseline and two weeks later. Actual screening attendance data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 988 women completed both questionnaires. Participants in the leaflet condition scored higher on knowledge (9.9 versus 9.6, p < 0.001, scale 0-11), and more often had positive explicit attitudes (97 % versus 95 %, p = 0.03), than those in the control condition. This contrast was bigger among first-time invitees. Implicit associations were not correlated with explicit attitudes or attendance. Explicit attitudes were moderately correlated with attendance (r=.30, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The information leaflet led to more knowledge and more positive explicit attitudes. Implicit associations towards breast cancer screening were not correlated with attendance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Encouragement to learn about the screening programme can increase levels of knowledge of invitees and therefore support their decision-making about participation. This might be especially relevant for first-time invitees.

Multiple rounds of one sample versus two sample faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening requires successive rounds for maximum preventive effect. Advanced neoplasia can bleed intermittently and thus might be missed by single faecal sampling. Few studies have been done on two sample FIT (2-FIT) screening over multiple rounds. Therefore, we compared multiple rounds of one sample FIT (1-FIT) with 2-FIT screening with respect to participation, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic yield, and interval colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this population-based study, a random selection of asymptomatic individuals aged 50-74 years in the Rotterdam-Rijnmond region, Netherlands, were invited by post for four rounds (every 2 years) of 1-FIT or 2-FIT screening. Key exclusion criteria were a history or colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, colon imaging in the previous 2 years, and life expectancy of less than 5 years. Per round, invitees received one or two FITs to sample either one or two consecutive bowel movements. OC-Sensor Micro (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Japan) FITs were used by all participants, except the fourth round of screening for the 1-FIT cohort, for which participants used either an OC-Sensor or a FOB-Gold (Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy). A faecal haemoglobin cutoff concentration of 10 µg/g of faeces in at least one test was used for referral for colonoscopy. FINDINGS: Between 2006 and 2015, of 10 008 invited individuals for the 1-FIT cohort, 9787 were eligible for inclusion, of whom 7310 participated at least once in four successive rounds. Of 3197 invited individuals for the 2-FIT cohort, 3131 were eligible for inclusion, and 2269 participated at least once in four successive rounds. In the 1-FIT screening cohort, 74·7% (7310 of 9787) of invitees participated at least once versus 72·5% (2269 of 3131) of invitees in the 2-FIT cohort (p=0·013). Among participants who participated at least once, the cumulative positivity rate over four rounds was 19·2% (1407 of 7310) for the 1-FIT cohort versus 28·5% (647 of 2269) for the 2-FIT cohort (p<0·0001). The cumulative PPV for advanced neoplasia was 33·0% (432 of 1308 colonoscopies) for the 1-FIT cohort versus 24·2% (147 of 607 colonoscopies) for the 2-FIT cohort (p<0·0001). The cumulative diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia among invited individuals was 4·4% (432 of 9787) for 1-FIT versus 4·7% (147 of 3131) for 2-FIT screening (p=0·46)). FIT interval colorectal cancers were detected in eight (0·1%) of 7310 participants in the 1-FIT cohort and two (0·1%) of 2269 with 2-FIT screening (p=1·00). INTERPRETATION: Four rounds of 2-FIT screening with a low faecal haemoglobin cutoff level did not result in a significant increase in diagnostic yield or a decrease in interval colorectal cancers compared with 1-FIT, despite higher colonoscopy demand. Therefore, 1-FIT colorectal cancer screening programmes should be preferred. FUNDING: None.