How follow-up rates in cervical cancer screening depend on organizational factors: A comparison of two population-based organized screening programmes.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the follow-up rates of non-normal cervical screening samples between Denmark and Flanders (Belgium) to illuminate whether organizational differences between the health systems might affect the follow-up rates, e.g. sending of reminders in Denmark since 2012 compared to Flanders with no such system in place. METHODS: The study population included 48,082 Danish women and 22,271 Flemish women who received abnormal or inadequate primary screening results from 2014 to 2016. The participants were followed for 24 months, and the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommended follow-up, according to national guidelines, were evaluated. RESULTS: After 18 months over 90% of the Danish women had received some form of follow-up, while in Flanders, this level is achieved only for those who test positive for human papillomavirus. The analysis also revealed that 10-28% of follow-ups were performed too early, with Danish women showing the highest proportions. In both regions, general practitioners (GPs) exhibited better follow-up rates compared to gynaecologists, with gynaecologists displaying a tendency towards earlier re-testing than recommended. CONCLUSIONS: An important factor influencing the follow-up rate may be the sending of reminders in Denmark since 2012, as the follow-up rates in general were higher in this period. It is noteworthy that a reminder system is currently being implemented in Flanders and further studies on the potential effects should be studied. Additionally, the organization of the health system might influence the follow-up rate, as engaging the GP for screening in Denmark may have had a positive effect.

Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening.

Women with false-positive mammography screening results have a two- to four-fold higher risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to investigate if the subsequent risk of breast cancer after a false-positive mammography screening is associated with the received diagnostic assessment. The study population consisted of women who underwent false-positive mammography screening from January 2010 to June 2019. They were categorised into seven groups depending on the elements in the assessment (standard care: additional mammography, ultrasound, and if they had a relevant biopsy). Risks of interval cancer, next-round screen-detected cancer, and long-term breast cancer for non-standard care assessments were compared to standard care assessments using Binomial and Cox regression models. We included 44,279 women with a false-positive result. Invasive assessments that lacked an ultrasound or additional mammography were not more associated with an increased risk of subsequent cancers compared to that of 'all three elements'. The few assessments that included 'only ultrasound' or 'only mammography' resulted in higher relative risks of next-round screen-detected cancer of 1.52 (95% CI: 0.93-2.47) and 1.67 (95% CI: 0.54-5.16), respectively, compared to that of standard care. The increased subsequent risk of breast cancer among women with a previous false-positive result was not found to be correlated with the choice of elements in the assessment process.