Factors Influencing Time From Diagnosis to Treatment of Breast Cancer and the Impact of Longer Waiting Time on Survival in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: A Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Longer time between breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and treatment initiation is associated with poorer survival, and this may be a factor behind disparities in global survival rates. We assessed time to BC treatment in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, including factors associated with longer waiting times and their impact on survival. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based study of BC cases recorded in the Kathmandu Valley Population-Based Cancer Registry between 2018 and 2019. Fieldwork survey through telephone was undertaken to collect additional sociodemographic and clinical information. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with longer time to treatment, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression was used to examine survival time and evaluate the association between longer time to treatment and survival. RESULTS: Among the 385 patients with BC, one third waited >4 weeks from diagnosis to initial treatment. Lower education was associated with longer time to treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.60]). The overall 3-year survival rate was 88.6% and survival was not associated with time to treatment (P = .50). However, advanced stage at diagnosis was associated with poorer survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.09 [95% CI, 1.27 to 13.23]). There was some indication that longer time to treatment was associated with poorer survival for advanced-stage patients, but data quality limited that analysis. CONCLUSION: In the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, women with a lower education tend to wait longer from BC diagnosis to treatment. Patients with advanced-stage BC had poorer survival, and longer waiting time may be associated with poorer survival for women diagnosed with advanced-stage disease.

Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual-level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement. METHODS: Four databases were searched for full-text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre-post (n = 13), cross-sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed-methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio-economic group, not being married or co-habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non-significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation. CONCLUSION(S): Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Women's views on using artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: A review and qualitative study to guide breast screening services.

As breast screening services move towards use of healthcare AI (HCAI) for screen reading, research on public views of HCAI can inform more person-centered implementation. We synthesise reviews of public views of HCAI in general, and review primary studies of women's views of AI in breast screening. People generally appear open to HCAI and its potential benefits, despite a wide range of concerns; similarly, women are open towards AI in breast screening because of the potential benefits, but are concerned about a wide range of risks. Women want radiologists to remain central; oversight, evaluation and performance, care, equity and bias, transparency, and accountability are key issues; women may be less tolerant of AI error than of human error. Using our recent Australian primary study, we illustrate both the value of informing participants before collecting data, and women's views. The 40 screening-age women in this study stipulated four main conditions on breast screening AI implementation: 1) maintaining human control; 2) strong evidence of performance; 3) supporting familiarisation with AI; and 4) providing adequate reasons for introducing AI. Three solutions were offered to support familiarisation: transparency and information; slow and staged implementation; and allowing women to opt-out of AI reading. We provide recommendations to guide both implementation of AI in healthcare and research on public views of HCAI. Breast screening services should be transparent about AI use and share information about breast screening AI with women. Implementation should be slow and staged, providing opt-out options if possible. Screening services should demonstrate strong governance to maintain clinician control, demonstrate excellent AI system performance, assure data protection and bias mitigation, and give good reasons to justify implementation. When these measures are put in place, women are more likely to see HCAI use in breast screening as legitimate and acceptable.

Simulated arbitration of discordance between radiologists and artificial intelligence interpretation of breast cancer screening mammograms.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been retrospectively evaluated as replacement for one radiologist in screening mammography double-reading; however, methods for resolving discordance between radiologists and AI in the absence of 'real-world' arbitration may underestimate cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. In 108,970 consecutive screens from a population screening program (BreastScreen WA, Western Australia), 20,120 were radiologist/AI discordant without real-world arbitration. Recall probabilities were randomly assigned for these screens in 1000 simulations. Recall thresholds for screen-detected and interval cancers (sensitivity) and no cancer (false-positive proportion, FPP) were varied to calculate mean CDR and recall rate for the entire cohort. Assuming 100% sensitivity, the maximum CDR was 7.30 per 1000 screens. To achieve >95% probability that the mean CDR exceeded the screening program CDR (6.97 per 1000), interval cancer sensitivities ≥63% (at 100% screen-detected sensitivity) and ≥91% (at 80% screen-detected sensitivity) were required. Mean recall rate was relatively constant across sensitivity assumptions, but varied by FPP. FPP > 6.5% resulted in recall rates that exceeded the program estimate (3.38%). CDR improvements depend on a majority of interval cancers being detected in radiologist/AI discordant screens. Such improvements are likely to increase recall, requiring careful monitoring where AI is deployed for screen-reading.

Uptake of Breast Cancer Screening Practices in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer worldwide and the leading cause of cancer mortality in women. Uptake of breast cancer screening and early-detection practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not been synthesized. We aimed to systematically quantify uptake of breast cancer screening in LMICs. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational population-based studies that reported the uptake of screening or early-detection practices. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases to January 2024. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis, and explored heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. FINDINGS: 174 population-based studies encompassing >78 million women were included. Pooled prevalence of self-reported uptake of screening mammography, self-reported having had clinical breast examination for screening, and self-reported regular breast self-examination (relevant for breast awareness in LMICs) were 22.7% (95% CI: 18.6-27.2), 23.1% (95% CI: 19.5-27.0), and 14.6% (95% CI: 11.6-17.9) respectively. Uptake of breast cancer screening practices was lowest in Africa and low and lower-middle income countries. Uptake of breast cancer screening practices remained stable over time or slightly decreased. Women who lived in rural area, were single, had lower income level, had low educational attainment, were unemployed, were uninsured and had no family history of breast cancer were generally least likely to self-report uptake of breast cancer screening. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis identified concerningly low uptake of breast cancer screening practices in LMICs. Governments should prioritize developing context-appropriate strategies to address this low uptake to support population-level stage-shifting of breast cancer in LMICs.

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited. CONCLUSIONS: In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.

Frequency and characteristics of errors by artificial intelligence (AI) in reading screening mammography: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and quantify the types of AI errors to better understand the consequences of implementing this technology. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for external validation studies of the accuracy of AI algorithms in real-world screening mammograms. Descriptive synthesis was performed on error types and frequency. False negative proportions (FNP) and false positive proportions (FPP) were pooled within AI positivity thresholds using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies (447,676 examinations; published 2019-2022) met inclusion criteria. Five studies reported AI error as false negatives or false positives. Pooled FPP decreased incrementally with increasing positivity threshold (71.83% [95% CI 69.67, 73.90] at Transpara 3 to 10.77% [95% CI 8.34, 13.79] at Transpara 9). Pooled FNP increased incrementally from 0.02% [95% CI 0.01, 0.03] (Transpara 3) to 0.12% [95% CI 0.06, 0.26] (Transpara 9), consistent with a trade-off with FPP. Heterogeneity within thresholds reflected algorithm version and completeness of the reference standard. Other forms of AI error were reported rarely (location error and technical error in one study each). CONCLUSION: AI errors are largely interpreted in the framework of test accuracy. FP and FN errors show expected variability not only by positivity threshold, but also by algorithm version and study quality. Reporting of other forms of AI errors is sparse, despite their potential implications for adoption of the technology. Considering broader types of AI error would add nuance to reporting that can inform inferences about AI's utility.

Factors associated with private or public breast cancer screening attendance in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

This study aimed to estimate participation in private breast screening in Queensland, Australia, where public-funded screening is implemented, and to identify factors associated with the screening setting, using an online survey (999 female respondents aged 40-74). Screening-specific and socio-demographic factors were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with screening setting (public vs private) and screening recency (<2 vs ≥2 years). Participation estimates were 53.2% (95% confidence interval, CI: 50.0%-56.3%) and 10.9% (9.0%-13.0%) for national screening program and private screening, respectively. In the screening setting model, participation in private screening was significantly associated with longer time since last screening (>4 versus <2 years, odds ratio (OR) = 7.3, 95%CI: 4.1-12.9, p < 0.001), having symptoms (OR = 9.5, 5.8-15.5, p < 0.001), younger age (40-49 versus 50-74 years, OR = 1.8, 1.1-3.0, p = 0.018) and having children <18 years in household (OR = 2.4, 1.5-3.9, p < 0.001). In the screening recency model, only screening setting was statistically significant and private screening was associated with screening recency ≥2 years (OR = 4.0, 2.8-5.7, p < 0.001). Around one in nine women screen outside of the BreastScreen Queensland program. Clinical and socio-demographic factors associated with participation in private screening were identified, providing knowledge relevant to the program's endeavours to improve screening participation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic characteristics for breast cancers in populations with digital vs film mammography indicate the transition may have increased both early detection and overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Film mammography has been replaced by digital mammography in breast screening programs globally. This led to a small increase in the rate of detection, but whether the detection of clinically important cancers increased is uncertain. We aimed to assess the impact on tumor characteristics of screen-detected and interval breast cancers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched seven databases from inception to October 08, 2023, for publications comparing film and digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women at population (average) risk of breast cancer. We recorded reported tumor characteristics and assessed risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool. We synthesized results using meta-analyses of random effects. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the analysis from 8 countries, including 11,592,225 screening examinations (8,117,781 film; 3,474,444 digital). There were no differences in tumor size, morphology, grade, node status, receptor status, or stage in the pooled differences for screen-detected and interval invasive cancer tumor characteristics. There were statistically significant increases in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) across all grades: 0.05 (0.00-0.11), 0.14 (0.05-0.22), and 0.19 (0.05-0.33) per 1000 screens for low, intermediate, and high-grade DCIS, respectively. There were similar (non-statistically significant) increases in screen-detected invasive cancer across all grades. CONCLUSION: The increased detection of all grades of DCIS and invasive cancer may indicate both increased early detection of more aggressive disease and increased overdiagnosis.

Factors influencing the time to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Shorter time from symptoms recognition to diagnosis and timely treatment would be expected to improve the survival of patients with breast cancer (BC). This review identifies and summarizes evidence on time to diagnosis and treatment, and associated factors to inform an improved BC care pathways in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Global Health, covering publications between January 1, 2010, and November 6, 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies published in English from LMICs that reported on time from symptoms recognition to diagnosis and/or from diagnosis to treatment, as well as factors influencing these timelines. Study quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using a standard checklist. Pre-contact, post-contact and treatment intervals and delays in these intervals are presented. Barriers and facilitators for shorter time to diagnosis and treatment found by individual studies after adjusting with covariates are summarized. RESULTS: The review identified 21 studies across 14 countries and found that BC cases took a longer time to diagnosis than to treatment. However, time to treatment also exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended period for optimal survival. There was inconsistency in terminology and benchmarks for defining delays in time intervals. Low socioeconomic status and place of residence emerged as frequent barriers, while initial contact with a private health facility or specialist was commonly reported as a facilitator for shorter time to diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines or consensus recommendations are essential for defining the optimal time intervals to BC diagnosis and treatment. Our review supported WHO's Global Breast Cancer Initiative recommendations. Increasing public awareness, strengthening of healthcare professional's capacities, partial decentralization of diagnostic services and implementation of effective referral mechanisms are recommended to achieve a shorter time to diagnosis and treatment of BC in LMICs.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Breast Cancer Stage and Size Detected with Film versus Digital Mammography in New South Wales, Australia: A Population-Based Study Using Routinely Collected Data.

BACKGROUND: Digital mammography has replaced film mammography in breast-screening programs globally, including Australia. This led to an increase in the rate of detection, but whether there was increased detection of clinically important cancers is uncertain. METHODS: In this population-wide retrospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia spanning 2004 to 2016 and including 4,631,656 screens, there were 22,965 cancers in women screened with film (n = 11,040) or digital mammography (n = 11,925). We examined the change in tumor characteristics overall and how these rates changed over time, accounting for changes in background rates using an interrupted time-series. Comparisons were made with unscreened women (n = 26,326) during this time. RESULTS: We found increased detection of in situ cancer (3.36 per 10,000 screens), localized invasive, and smaller-sized breast cancers attributable to the change in mammography technology, whereas screen-detected intermediate-sized and metastatic breast cancers decreased. Rates of early-stage and intermediate-sized interval cancers increased, and late-stage (-1.62 per 10,000 screens) and large interval cancers decreased. In unscreened women, there were small increases in the temporal trends of cancers across all stages. CONCLUSIONS: At least some of the increased detection of smaller early-stage cancers may have translated into a reduction in larger and late-stage cancers, indicating beneficial detection of cancers that would have otherwise progressed. However, the increased detection of smaller early-stage and small cancers may also have increased over-diagnosis of lesions that would otherwise have not caused harm. IMPACT: Robust evaluation of potential benefits and harms is needed after changes to screening programs. See related In the Spotlight, p. 638.

Effectiveness of hybrid digital breast tomosynthesis/digital mammography compared to digital mammography in women presenting for routine screening at Maroondah BreastScreen: Study protocol for a co-designed, non-randomised prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening has been shown in international trials to increase cancer detection compared with mammography; however, results have varied across screening settings, and currently there is limited and conflicting evidence on interval cancer rates (a surrogate for screening effectiveness). Australian pilot data also indicated substantially longer screen-reading time for DBT posing a barrier for adoption. There is a critical need for evidence on DBT to inform its role in Australia, including evaluation of potentially more feasible models of implementation, and quantification of screening outcomes by breast density which has global relevance. METHODS: This study is a prospective trial embedded in population-based Australian screening services (Maroondah BreastScreen, Eastern Health, Victoria) comparing hybrid screening comprising DBT (mediolateral oblique view) and digital mammography (cranio-caudal view) with standard mammography screening in a concurrent group attending another screening site. All eligible women aged ≥40 years attending the Maroondah service for routine screening will be enrolled (unless they do not provide verbal consent and opt-out of hybrid screening; are unable to provide consent; or where a 'pushback' image on hybrid DBT cannot be obtained). Each arm will enrol 20,000 women. The primary outcomes are cancer detection rate (per 1000 screens) and recall rate (percentage). Secondary outcomes include 'opt-out' rate; cohort characteristics; cancer characteristics; assessment outcomes; screen-reading time; and interval cancer rate at 24-month follow-up. Automated volumetric breast density will be measured to allow stratification of outcomes by mammographic density. Stratification by age and screening round will also be undertaken. An interim analysis will be undertaken after the first 5000 screens in the intervention group. DISCUSSION: This is the first Australian prospective trial comparing hybrid DBT/mammography with standard mammography screening that is powered to show differences in cancer detection. Findings will inform future implementation of DBT in screening programs world-wide and provide evidence on whether DBT should be adopted in the broader BreastScreen program in Australia or in subgroups of screening participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR, ACTRN12623001144606, https://www.anzctr.org.au/). Registration will be updated to reflect trial progress and protocol amendments.

Breast cancer highlights from 2023: Knowledge to guide practice and future research.

This narrative work highlights a selection of published work from 2023 with potential implications for breast cancer practice. We feature publications that have provided new knowledge immediately relevant to patient care or for future research. We also highlight guidelines that have reported evidence-based or consensus recommendations to support practice and evaluation in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. The scope of selected highlights represents various domains and disciplines in cancer control, from prevention to treatment of early and advanced breast cancer.

Decline in the Incidence of Distant Recurrence of Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Health Record Linkage Study, Australia 2001-2016.

BACKGROUND: We investigated differences in cumulative incidence of first distant recurrence (DR) following non-metastatic breast cancer over a time period when new adjuvant therapies became available in Australia. METHODS: We conducted a health record linkage study of females with localized (T1-3N0) or regional (T4 or N+) breast cancer in the New South Wales Cancer Registry in 2001 to 2002 and 2006 to 2007. We linked cancer registry records with administrative records from hospitals, dispensed medicines, radiotherapy services, and death registrations to estimate the 9-year cumulative incidence of DR and describe use of adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: The study included 13,170 women (2001-2002 n = 6,338, 2006-2007 n = 6,832). The 9-year cumulative incidence of DR was 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3%-4.9%] lower for 2006-2007 diagnoses (15.0%) than 2001-2002 (18.6%). Differences in the annual hazard of DR between cohorts were largest in year two. DR incidence declined for localized and regional disease. Decline was largest for ages <40 years (absolute difference, 14.4%; 95% CI, 8.3%-20.6%), whereas their use of adjuvant chemotherapy (2001-2002 49%, 2006-2007 75%) and HER2-targeted therapy (2001-2002 0%, 2006-2007 16%) increased. DR did not decline for ages ≥70 years (absolute difference, 0.9%; 95% CI, -3.6%-1.8%) who had low use of adjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This whole-of-population study suggests that DR incidence declined over time. Decline was largest for younger ages, coinciding with changes to adjuvant breast cancer therapy. IMPACT: Study findings support the need for trials addressing questions relevant to older people and cancer registry surveillance of DR to inform cancer control programs.

Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mammography-Based Future Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To summarize the literature regarding the performance of mammography-image based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, with and without additional clinical data, for future breast cancer risk prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using six databases (medRixiv, bioRxiv, Embase, Engineer Village, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) from 2012 through September 30, 2022. Studies were included if they used real-world screening mammography examinations to validate AI algorithms for future risk prediction based on images alone or in combination with clinical risk factors. The quality of studies was assessed, and predictive accuracy was recorded as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Sixteen studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 14 studies provided AUC values. The median AUC performance of AI image-only models was 0.72 (range 0.62-0.90) compared with 0.61 for breast density or clinical risk factor-based tools (range 0.54-0.69). Of the seven studies that compared AI image-only performance directly to combined image + clinical risk factor performance, six demonstrated no significant improvement, and one study demonstrated increased improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Early efforts for predicting future breast cancer risk based on mammography images alone demonstrate comparable or better accuracy to traditional risk tools with little or no improvement when adding clinical risk factor data. Transitioning from clinical risk factor-based to AI image-based risk models may lead to more accurate, personalized risk-based screening approaches.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Characteristics and post-metastasis survival of recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time - An Australian population-based record linkage study, 2001-2016.

AIM: To assess population-level characteristics and post-metastasis survival of people with recurrent metastatic breast cancer (rMBC) during a period when new publicly-subsidised adjuvant and metastatic systemic therapies became available. METHODS: Record linkage study of females in NSW Cancer Registry (NSWCR) diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) in 2001-2002 (C1) and 2006-2007 (C2). We identified first rMBC from NSWCR, administrative hospital records, dispensed medicines and radiotherapy services (2001-2016). We used death registrations to estimate cumulative incidence of BC death. RESULTS: The analysis included 2267 women with rMBC (C1:1210, C2:1057). Compared to C1, C2 had access to adjuvant HER2-targeted therapy and were more likely to have received adjuvant chemotherapy (C1:38%, C2:47%) and aromatase inhibitors (C1:52%, C2:73%, of those dispensed endocrine therapy). Five-year probability of BC death was 65% (95%CI:62-68%) in C1 and 63% (95%CI:60-66%) in C2. Regional disease (T4 or N + ) at initial BC diagnosis (C1:62%, C2:68%), and age ≥ 70 years at first metastasis (C1:27%, C2:31%) were more common in C2 and had poorer prognosis. Five-year probability of BC death was lower in C2 than C1 for treatment-defined HER2-positive BC (C1:72% 95%CI:63-79%; C2:52% 95%CI 45-60%) and those dispensed chemotherapy alone (C1:76% 95%CI:69-82, C2:67% 95%CI:59-74%, p = 0.01), but not treatment-defined hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative BC (C1:60% 95%CI 56-63%, C2:64% 95%CI 60-68%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite less favourable prognostic characteristics in C2, BC-related survival following rMBC was similar between the two cohorts; and improved for women with HER2-positive tumours. These findings support the real-world benefits of newer treatments for rMBC.

Health benefits and harms of mammography screening in older women (75+ years)-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the outcomes of mammography screening in women aged 75 years and older. METHODS: A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 27 observational studies and 9 modelling studies. Many of the included studies used no or uninformative comparison groups resulting in a potential bias towards the benefits of screening. Despite this, there was mixed evidence about the benefits and harms of continuing mammography screening beyond the age of 75 years. Some studies showed a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality, and other studies showed no effect on mortality. Some studies showed some harms (false positive tests and recalls) being comparable to those in younger age-groups, with other studies showing increase in false positive screens and biopsies in older age-group. Although reported in fewer studies, there was consistent evidence of increased overdiagnosis in older age-groups. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence available to make a recommendation for/against continuing breast screening beyond the age of 75 years. Future studies should use more informative comparisons and should estimate overdiagnosis given potentially substantial harm in this age-group due to competing causes of death. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203131).

Preoperative breast MRI positively impacts surgical outcomes of needle biopsy-diagnosed pure DCIS: a patient-matched analysis from the MIPA study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of preoperative breast MRI on mastectomy and reoperation rates in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: The MIPA observational study database (7245 patients) was searched for patients aged 18-80 years with pure unilateral DCIS diagnosed at core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy (CNB/VAB) and planned for primary surgery. Patients who underwent preoperative MRI (MRI group) were matched (1:1) to those who did not receive MRI (noMRI group) according to 8 confounding covariates that drive referral to MRI (age; hormonal status; familial risk; posterior-to-nipple diameter; BI-RADS category; lesion diameter; lesion presentation; surgical planning at conventional imaging). Surgical outcomes were compared between the matched groups with nonparametric statistics after calculating odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of 1005 women with pure unilateral DCIS at CNB/VAB (507 MRI group, 498 noMRI group), 309 remained in each group after matching. First-line mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 20.1% (62/309 patients, OR 2.03) compared to 11.0% in the noMRI group (34/309 patients, p = 0.003). The reoperation rate was 10.0% in the MRI group (31/309, OR for reoperation 0.40) and 22.0% in the noMRI group (68/309, p < 0.001), with a 2.53 OR of avoiding reoperation in the MRI group. The overall mastectomy rate was 23.3% in the MRI group (72/309, OR 1.40) and 17.8% in the noMRI group (55/309, p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those going directly to surgery, patients with pure DCIS at CNB/VAB who underwent preoperative MRI had a higher OR for first-line mastectomy but a substantially lower OR for reoperation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When confounding factors behind MRI referral are accounted for in the comparison of patients with CNB/VAB-diagnosed pure unilateral DCIS, preoperative MRI yields a reduction of reoperations that is more than twice as high as the increase in overall mastectomies. KEY POINTS: • Confounding factors cause imbalance when investigating the influence of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes of pure DCIS. • When patient matching is applied to women with pure unilateral DCIS, reoperation rates are significantly reduced in women who underwent preoperative MRI. • The reduction of reoperations brought about by preoperative MRI is more than double the increase in overall mastectomies.