The potential utility of abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) as a tool for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To synthesise evidence comparing abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (abMRI) to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in multiple databases. Cohort studies without enrichment, presenting accuracy data of abMRI in screening, for any level of risk (population, moderate, high risk) were included. Level of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses (bivariate random effects model) were performed for abMRI, with fpMRI and histology from fpMRI-positive cases as reference standard, and with follow-up to symptomatic detection added to the fpMRI. The review also covers evidence comparing abMRI with mammographic techniques. RESULTS: The title and abstract review retrieved 23 articles. Five studies (six articles) were included (2,763 women, 3,251 screening rounds). GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low because the reference standard was interpreted with knowledge of the index test and biopsy was not obtained for all abMRI positives. The overall sensitivity for abMRI, with fpMRI (and histology for fpMRI positives) as reference standard, was 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85.5-98.2) and specificity as 94.6% (95% CI: 91.5-96.6). Three studies (1,450 women, 1,613 screening rounds) presented follow-up data, enabling comparison between abMRI and fpMRI. Sensitivities and specificities for abMRI did not differ significantly from those for fpMRI (p=0.83 and p=0.37, respectively). CONCLUSION: A very low level of evidence suggests abMRI could be accurate for breast cancer screening. Research is required, with follow-up to interval cancer, to determine the effect its use could have on clinical outcome.

Identifying latent tuberculosis in high-risk populations: systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy.

BACKGROUND: The relative accuracy of interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) and the tuberculin skin test (TST) in identifying latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is uncertain.OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sensitivity and specificity of IGRAs and TST for the prediction of progression to clinical tuberculosis (TB).METHODS: We searched electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE and EMBASE) from December 2009 to September 2018 for prospective studies that followed up individuals who had undergone testing with commercial IGRAs and/or TST but had not received treatment based on the test result. The sensitivity and specificity estimates were pooled using a Bayesian bivariate random-effects model.RESULTS: Twenty-five studies, mostly with moderate to high risk of bias and a mean follow-up time ranging from 1 to 5 years were included. TST (10-15 mm) tended to have lower sensitivity and higher specificity than QuantiFERON® Gold In-Tube, T-SPOT®.TB and TST (5 mm). The evidence did not indicate that any test outperformed the others due to wide and overlapping 95% credible intervals.CONCLUSION: The evidence following individuals who had undergone testing for LTBI and had progressed to clinical TB is sparse. We did not find that IGRAs were superior to TST or vice versa; however, as our findings are based on a small number of studies with methodological limitations and great uncertainty around the pooled estimates, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Does preoperative axillary staging lead to overtreatment of women with screen-detected breast cancer?

AIM: To determine the impact of preoperative axillary ultrasound staging in a screen-detected breast cancer population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ultrasound and needle biopsy staging results alongside reference standard sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection were extracted retrospectively from the unit's computer records between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2015. Axillary staging was compared with final histopathology and treatment. RESULTS: Of the 215,661 screening examinations performed, 780 invasive cancers were diagnosed, which had preoperative axillary staging data, of which 162 (20.7%) were node positive. Thirty-six (4.6%) had a heavy nodal burden (three or more nodes). Ninety (11.5%) had an abnormal axillary ultrasound and axillary biopsy of which 54 were positive for cancer (33.3% of the node positive cases) and triaged to axillary lymph node dissection avoiding a sentinel lymph node biopsy. Of these 22 (40.7%) had neoadjuvant treatment, and 32 (59.3%) proceeded directly to axillary lymph node dissection. The sensitivity of axillary ultrasound and biopsy to detect women with a heavy nodal burden (three or more nodes) was 41.7% (15 of 36); however, 17 (53%) of the 32 women with a positive axillary biopsy had a low burden of axillary disease (two or fewer positive nodes) at axillary lymph node dissection, the mean number of nodes obtained was 14.6. CONCLUSION: Significant numbers of women are being potentially overtreated or denied entry into positive sentinel node: adjuvant therapy only versus adjuvant therapy and clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) because of routine preoperative axillary staging.

FIT for the future: a case for risk-based colorectal cancer screening using the faecal immunochemical test.

Worldwide, the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) is being replaced with the more accurate faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. From January 2016, the National Screening Committee in the UK has recommended a change from the gFOBT to the FIT following a successful Bowel Cancer Screening Programme pilot study with over 40 000 participants. Although the test has shown improved uptake and the ability to detect significantly more colorectal cancers and advanced adenomas, the higher uptake and test positivity will challenge the capacity of colonoscopy services. One of the main advantages of the FIT is that it provides a quantitative haemoglobin concentration which has been shown to relate to the risk of CRC. Risk scoring systems which combine the FIT concentration with risk factor assessment have been shown to improve the sensitivity of the test. This individualized approach to screening could enable those at greatest risk to be referred for colonoscopy, optimizing resource use and ultimately patient outcomes.

Screening for type 2 diabetes: a short report for the National Screening Committee.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been increasing, owing to increases in overweight and obesity, decreasing physical activity and the changing demographic structure of the population. People can develop T2DM without symptoms and up to 20% may be undiagnosed. They may have diabetic complications, such as retinopathy, by the time they are diagnosed, or may suffer a heart attack, without warning. Undiagnosed diabetes can be detected by raised blood glucose levels. AIM: The aim of this review was to provide an update for the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) on screening for T2DM. METHODS: As this review was undertaken to update a previous Health Technology Assessment review published in 2007, and a more recent Scottish Public Health Network review, searches for evidence were restricted from 2009 to end of January 2012, with selected later studies added. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE-in-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index. The case for screening was considered against the criteria used by the NSC to assess proposed population screening programmes. RESULTS: Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria. Criterion 12, on optimisation of existing management, has not been met. A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) gives details of shortcomings. Criterion 13 requires evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials that screening is beneficial. This has not been met. The Ely trial of screening showed no benefit. The ADDITION trial was not a trial of screening, but showed no benefit in cardiovascular outcomes from intensive management in people with screen-detected T2DM. Criterion 18 on staffing and facilities does not appear to have been met, according to the NAO report. Criterion 19 requires that all other options, including prevention, should have been considered. A large proportion of cases of T2DM could be prevented if people avoided becoming overweight or obese. The first stage of selection would use risk factors, using data held on general practitioner computer systems, using the QDiabetes Risk Score, or by sending out questionnaires, using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC). Those at high risk would have a measure of blood glucose. There is no perfect screening test. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing has advantages in not requiring a fasting sample, and because it is a predictor of vascular disease across a wider range than just the diabetic one. However, it lacks sensitivity and would miss some people with diabetes. Absolute values of HbA1c may be more useful as part of overall risk assessment than a dichotomous 'diabetes or not diabetes' diagnosis. The oral glucose tolerance test is more sensitive, but inconvenient, more costly, has imperfect reproducibility and is less popular, meaning that uptake would be lower. CONCLUSIONS: When considered against the NSC criteria, the case for screening is less strong than it was in the 2007 review. The main reason is the absence of cardiovascular benefit in the two trials published since the previous review. There is a case for selective screening as part of overall vascular risk assessment. Population screening for T2DM does not meet all of the NSC criteria. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Use of prior mammograms in the transition to digital mammography: a performance and cost analysis.

Breast screening in Europe is gradually changing from film to digital imaging and reporting of cases. In the transition period prior mammograms (from the preceding screening round) are films thereby potentially causing difficulties in comparison to current digital mammograms. To examine this breast screening performance was measured at a digital mammography workstation with prior mammograms displayed in different formats, and the associated costs calculated. 160 selected difficult cases (41% malignant) were read by eight UK qualified mammography readers in three conditions: with film prior mammograms; with digitised prior mammograms; or without prior mammograms. Lesion location and probability of malignancy were recorded, alongside a decision of whether to recall each case for further tests. JAFROC analysis showed a difference between conditions (p=.006); performance with prior mammograms in either film or digitised formats was superior to that without prior mammograms (p<.05). There was no difference in the performance when the prior mammograms were presented in film or digitised form. The number of benign or normal cases recalled was 26% higher without prior mammograms than with digitised or film prior mammograms (p<.05). This would correspond to an increase in recall rate at the study hospital from 4.3% to 5.5% with no associated increase in cancer detection rate. The cost of this increase was estimated to be £11,581 (€13,666) per 10,000 women screened, which is higher than the cost of digitised (£11,114/€13,115), or film display (£6451/€7612) of the prior mammograms. It is recommended that, where available, prior mammograms are used in the transition to digital breast screening.

Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Breast screening specificity is improved if previous mammograms are available, which presents a challenge when converting to digital mammography. Two display options were investigated: mounting previous film mammograms on a multiviewer adjacent to the workstation, or digitising them for soft copy display. Eight qualified screen readers were videotaped undertaking routine screen reading for two 45-min sessions in each scenario. Analysis of gross eye and head movements showed that when digitised, previous mammograms were examined a greater number of times per case (p = 0.03), due to a combination of being used in 19% more cases (p = 0.04) and where used, looked at a greater number of times (28% increase, p = 0.04). Digitising previous mammograms reduced both the average time taken per case by 18% (p = 0.04) and the participants' perceptions of workload (p < 0.05). Digitising previous analogue mammograms may be advantageous, in particular in increasing their level of use.