Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer.

An abundance of laboratory-based experiments has described a vigilance decrement of reducing accuracy to detect targets with time on task, but there are few real-world studies, none of which have previously controlled the environment to control for bias. We describe accuracy in clinical practice for 360 experts who examined >1 million women's mammograms for signs of cancer, whilst controlling for potential biases. The vigilance decrement pattern was not observed. Instead, test accuracy improved over time, through a reduction in false alarms and an increase in speed, with no significant change in sensitivity. The multiple-decision model explains why experts miss targets in low prevalence settings through a change in decision threshold and search quit threshold and propose it should be adapted to explain these observed patterns of accuracy with time on task. What is typically thought of as standard and robust research findings in controlled laboratory settings may not directly apply to real-world environments and instead large, controlled studies in relevant environments are needed.

Atypia detected during breast screening and subsequent development of cancer: observational analysis of the Sloane atypia prospective cohort in England.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how the number and type of breast cancers developed after screen detected atypia compare with the anticipated 11.3 cancers detected per 1000 women screened within one three year screening round in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Observational analysis of the Sloane atypia prospective cohort in England. SETTING: Atypia diagnoses through the English NHS breast screening programme reported to the Sloane cohort study. This cohort is linked to the English Cancer Registry and the Mortality and Birth Information System for information on subsequent breast cancer and mortality. PARTICIPANTS: 3238 women diagnosed as having epithelial atypia between 1 April 2003 and 30 June 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of invasive breast cancers detected at one, three, and six years after atypia diagnosis by atypia type, age, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: There was a fourfold increase in detection of atypia after the introduction of digital mammography between 2010 (n=119) and 2015 (n=502). During 19 088 person years of follow-up after atypia diagnosis (until December 2018), 141 women developed breast cancer. Cumulative incidence of cancer per 1000 women with atypia was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 2.69), 14.2 (10.3 to 19.1), and 45.0 (36.3 to 55.1) at one, three, and six years after atypia diagnosis, respectively. Women with atypia detected more recently have lower rates of subsequent cancers detected within three years (6.0 invasive cancers per 1000 women (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 10.9) in 2013-18 v 24.3 (13.7 to 40.1) in 2003-07, and 24.6 (14.9 to 38.3) in 2008-12). Grade, size, and nodal involvement of subsequent invasive cancers were similar to those of cancers detected in the general screening population, with equal numbers of ipsilateral and contralateral cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Many atypia could represent risk factors rather than precursors of invasive cancer requiring surgery in the short term. Women with atypia detected more recently have lower rates of subsequent cancers detected, which might be associated with changes to mammography and biopsy techniques identifying forms of atypia that are more likely to represent overdiagnosis. Annual mammography in the short term after atypia diagnosis might not be beneficial. More evidence is needed about longer term risks.

Development and quality appraisal of a new English breast screening linked data set as part of the age, test threshold, and frequency of mammography screening (ATHENA-M) study.

OBJECTIVES: To build a data set capturing the whole breast cancer screening journey from individual breast cancer screening records to outcomes and assess data quality. METHODS: Routine screening records (invitation, attendance, test results) from all 79 English NHS breast screening centres between January 1, 1988 and March 31, 2018 were linked to cancer registry (cancer characteristics and treatment) and national mortality data. Data quality was assessed using comparability, validity, timeliness, and completeness. RESULTS: Screening records were extracted from 76/79 English breast screening centres, 3/79 were not possible due to software issues. Data linkage was successful from 1997 after introduction of a universal identifier for women (NHS number). Prior to 1997 outcome data are incomplete due to linkage issues, reducing validity. Between January 1, 1997 and March 31, 2018, a total of 11 262 730 women were offered screening of whom 9 371 973 attended at least one appointment, with 139 million person-years of follow-up (a median of 12.4 person years for each woman included) with 73 810 breast cancer deaths and 1 111 139 any-cause deaths. Comparability to reference data sets and internal validity were demonstrated. Data completeness was high for core screening variables (>99%) and main cancer outcomes (>95%). CONCLUSIONS: The ATHENA-M project has created a large high-quality and representative data set of individual women's screening trajectories and outcomes in England from 1997 to 2018, data before 1997 are lower quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the most complete data set of English breast screening records and outcomes constructed to date, which can be used to evaluate and optimize screening.

Evidence-informed recommendations on managing breast screening atypia: perspectives from an expert panel consensus meeting reviewing results from the Sloane atypia project.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential to maximize patient benefit and to reduce clinical uncertainty and inconsistency in clinical practice. Gaps in the evidence base can be addressed by data acquired in routine practice. At present, there is no international consensus on management of women diagnosed with atypical lesions in breast screening programmes. Here, we describe how routine NHS breast screening data collected by the Sloane atypia project was used to inform a management pathway that maximizes early detection of cancer and minimizes over-investigation of lesions with uncertain malignant potential. A half-day consensus meeting with 11 clinical experts, 1 representative from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, 6 representatives from NHS England (NHSE) including from Commissioning, and 2 researchers was held to facilitate discussions of findings from an analysis of the Sloane atypia project. Key considerations of the expert group in terms of the management of women with screen detected atypia were: (1) frequency and purpose of follow-up; (2) communication to patients; (3) generalizability of study results; and (4) workforce challenges. The group concurred that the new evidence does not support annual surveillance mammography for women with atypia, irrespective of type of lesion, or woman's age. Continued data collection is paramount to monitor and audit the change in recommendations.

Impact of changes to invite methodology on equality of access to the National Breast Screening Programme in the South of England.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a temporary change in policy was implemented in 2020. Breast screening services in England were advised to change from timed appointments to an open invitation for invitees to contact the service and arrange an appointment. This change to invitation methodology had potential benefits and risks including impacting inequalities in uptake. Qualitative data were collected by online questionnaire from 23 service providers and routinely collected quantitative uptake data were analysed to investigate the impact of open invitations on the National Programme in the South of England. Office for National Statistics and general practitioner (GP) practice profile data enabled the modelling of sociodemographic characteristics of breast screening invitees at each GP practice. Most services changed to open invitations (17/23), 82% of which altered administrative capacity and/or procedures to accommodate this change. Logistic benefits were reported including a more consistent flow of participants, fewer long gaps and fewer wasted slots. The change to open invitations was associated with a 7.2% reduction in the percentage of participants screened, accounting for participant sociodemographics and historical screening provider uptake. The inequality in screening uptake experienced by participants of minority ethnic background was exacerbated by the change to open invitations. Open invitations, whilst affording logistic benefits in an unprecedented pandemic era, were associated with reduced overall uptake and exacerbation of existing health inequality experienced by women of minority ethnic background. The broader impact on services highlighted the need for sustainability of measures taken to accommodate such operational changes.

Cohort profile of the Sloane Project: methodology for a prospective UK cohort study of >15 000 women with screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia.

PURPOSE: The introduction of breast screening in the UK led to an increase in the detection of non-invasive breast neoplasia, predominantly ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a non-obligatory precursor of invasive breast cancer. The Sloane Project, a UK prospective cohort study of screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia, commenced in 2003 to evaluate the radiological assessment, surgical management, pathology, adjuvant therapy and outcomes for non-invasive breast neoplasia. Long-term follow-up and accurate data collection are essential to examine the clinical impact. Here, we describe the establishment, development and analytical processes for this large UK cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with non-invasive breast neoplasia via the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) from 01 April 2003 are eligible, with a minimum age of 46 years. Diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up data collected via proformas, complement date and cause of death from national data sources. Accrual for patients with DCIS ceased in 2012 but is ongoing for patients with epithelial atypia/in situ neoplasia, while follow-up for all continues long term. FINDINGS TO DATE: To date, patients within the Sloane cohort comprise one-third of those diagnosed with DCIS within the NHSBSP and are representative of UK practice. DCIS has a variable outcome and confirms the need for longer-term follow-up for screen-detected DCIS. However, the radiology and pathology features of DCIS can be used to inform patient management. We demonstrate validation of follow-up information collected from national datasets against traditional, manual methods. FUTURE PLANS: Conclusions derived from the Sloane Project are generalisable to women in the UK with screen-detected DCIS. The follow-up methodology may be extended to other UK cohort studies and routine clinical follow-up. Data from English patients entered into the Sloane Project are available on request to researchers under data sharing agreement. Annual follow-up data collection will continue for a minimum of 20 years.

The presentation, management and outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (invasion ≤1 mm in size)-results from the UK Sloane Project.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis, management and prognosis of microinvasive breast carcinoma remain controversial. METHODS: We analysed the outcomes of patients with DCIS with and without microinvasion diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 within the Sloane project. RESULTS: Microinvasion was recorded in 521 of 11,285 patients (4.6%), with considerable variation in reported incidence among screening units (0-25%). Microinvasion was associated with high-grade DCIS, larger DCIS size, comedo necrosis and solid, cribriform architecture (all P < 0.001). Microinvasion was more frequent in patients who underwent mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (6.9% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), and in those undergoing axillary nodal surgery (60.4% vs 30.3%, P < 0.001) including the subset undergoing BCS (43.4% vs 8.5%, P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis rate was low and not statistically significant difference from the DCIS only group (P = 0.68). Following median follow-up of 110 months, 3% of patients had recurrent ipsilateral high-grade DCIS, and 4.2% developed invasive carcinoma. The subsequent ipsilateral invasion was of Grade 3 in 71.4% of patients with microinvasion vs 30.4% in DCIS without microinvasion (P = 0.02). Distant metastasis and breast cancer mortality were higher with microinvasion compared with DCIS only (1.2% vs 0.3%, P = 0.01 and 2.1% vs 0.8%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The higher breast cancer mortality with microinvasion indicates a more aggressive disease.

The projected impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on breast cancer deaths in England due to the cessation of population screening: a national estimation.

BACKGROUND: Population breast screening services in England were suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we estimate the number of breast cancers whose detection may be delayed because of the suspension, and the potential impact on cancer deaths over 10 years. METHODS: We estimated the number and length of screening delays from observed NHS Breast Screening System data. We then estimated additional breast cancer deaths from three routes: asymptomatic tumours progressing to symptomatically diagnosed disease, invasive tumours which remain screen-detected but at a later date, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) progressing to invasive disease by detection. We took progression rates, prognostic characteristics, and survival rates from published sources. RESULTS: We estimated that 1,489,237 women had screening delayed by around 2-7 months between July 2020 and June 2021, leaving 745,277 outstanding screens. Depending on how quickly this backlog is cleared, around 2500-4100 cancers would shift from screen-detected to symptomatic cancers, resulting in 148-452 additional breast cancer deaths. There would be an additional 164-222 screen-detected tumour deaths, and 71-97 deaths from DCIS that progresses to invasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 148-687 additional breast cancer deaths may occur as a result of the pandemic-related disruptions. The impact depends on how quickly screening services catch up with delays.

Breast screening atypia and subsequent development of cancer: protocol for an observational analysis of the Sloane database in England (Sloane atypia cohort study).

INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme aims to detect cancer earlier when treatment is more effective but can harm women by over diagnosing and overtreating cancers which would never have become symptomatic. As well as breast cancer, a spectrum of atypical epithelial proliferations (atypia) can also be detected as part of screening. This spectrum of changes, while not cancer, may mean that a woman is more likely to develop breast cancer in the future. Follow-up of atypia is not evidence based. We currently do not know which atypia should be detected to avoid future cancer. This study will explore how atypia develops into breast cancer in terms of number of women, time of cancer development, cancer type and severity, and whether this varies for different types of atypia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Sloane cohort study began in April 2003 with ongoing data collection including atypia diagnosed through screening at screening units in the UK. The database for England has 3645 cases (24 September 2020) of epithelial atypia, with follow-up from 1 to 15 years. The outcomes include subsequent invasive breast cancer and the nature of subsequent cancer. Descriptive statistics will be produced. The observed rates of breast cancer at 1, 3 and 6 years for types of atypia will be reported with CIs, to enable comparison to women in the general population. Time to event methods will be used to describe the time to breast cancer diagnosis for the types of atypia, including flexible parametric modelling if appropriate. Patient representatives from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice are included at every stage of the research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received research ethics approval from the University of Warwick Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 10/20-21, 8 October 2020), Public Health England office for data release approvals (ODR1718_313) and approval from the English Breast Research Advisory Committee (BSPRAC_031). The findings will be disseminated to breast screening clinicians (via journal publication and conference presentation), to the NHS Breast Screening Programme to update their guidelines on how women with atypia should be followed up, and to the general public.

Unresected screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: Outcomes of 311 women in the Forget-Me-Not 2 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is poorly understood. The aim of this cohort study was to determine the outcomes of women who had no surgery for screen-detected DCIS in the 6 months following diagnosis. METHODS: English breast screening databases were retrospectively searched for women diagnosed with DCIS without invasive cancer at screening and who had no record of surgery within 6 months of diagnosis. These were cross-referenced with cancer registry data. Details of the potentially eligible women were sent to the relevant breast screening units for verification and for completion of data forms detailing clinical, radiological and pathological findings, non-surgical treatment and subsequent clinical course. RESULTS: Data for 311 eligible women (median age 62 years) were available. 60 women developed invasive cancer, 56 ipsilateral and 4 contralateral. Ipsilateral invasion risk increased approximately linearly with time for at least 10 years. The 10-year cumulative risk of ipsilateral invasion was 9% (95% CI 4-21%), 39% (24-58%) and 36% (24-50%) for low, intermediate and high grade DCIS respectively and was higher in younger women, in those with larger DCIS lesions and in those with microinvasion. Most invasive cancers that developed were grade 2 or 3. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that active surveillance may be a reasonable alternative to surgery in patients with low grade DCIS but that women with intermediate or high grade disease should continue to be offered surgery. This highlights the importance of reproducible grading of DCIS to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment.

Optimum screening mammography reading volumes: evidence from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: Minimum caseload standards for professionals examining breast screening mammograms vary from 480 (US) to 5000 (Europe). We measured the relationship between the number of women's mammograms examined per year and reader performance. METHODS: We extracted routine records from the English NHS Breast Screening Programme for readers examining between 1000 and 45,000 mammograms between April 2014 and March 2017. We measured the relationship between the volume of cases read and screening performance (cancer detection rate, recall rate, positive predictive value of recall (PPV) and discrepant cancers) using linear logistic regression. We also examined the effect of reader occupational group on performance. RESULTS: In total, 759 eligible mammography readers (445 consultant radiologists, 235 radiography advanced practitioners, 79 consultant radiographers) examined 6.1 million women's mammograms during the study period. PPV increased from 12.9 to 14.4 to 17.0% for readers examining 2000, 5000 and 10000 cases per year respectively. This was driven by decreases in recall rates from 5.8 to 5.3 to 4.5 with increasing volume read, and no change in cancer detection rate (from 7.6 to 7.6 to 7.7). There was no difference in cancer detection rate with reader occupational group. Consultant radiographers had higher recall rate and lower PPV compared to radiologists (OR 1.105, p = 0.012; OR 0.874, p = 0.002, unadjusted). CONCLUSION: Positive predictive value of screening increases with the total volume of cases examined per reader, through decreases in numbers of cases recalled with no concurrent change in numbers of cancers detected. KEY POINTS: • In the English Breast Screening Programme, readers who examined a larger number of cases per year had a higher positive predictive value, because they recalled fewer women for further tests but detected the same number of cancers. • Reader type did not affect cancer detection rate, but consultant radiographers had a higher recall rate and lower positive predictive value than consultant radiologists, although this was not adjusted for length of experience.

Invasive breast cancer and breast cancer mortality after ductal carcinoma in situ in women attending for breast screening in England, 1988-2014: population based observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long term risks of invasive breast cancer and death from breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed through breast screening. DESIGN: Population based observational cohort study. SETTING: Data from the NHS Breast Screening Programme and the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. PARTICIPANTS: All 35 024 women in England diagnosed as having DCIS by the NHS Breast Screening Programme from its start in 1988 until March 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident invasive breast cancer and death from breast cancer. RESULTS: By December 2014, 13 606 women had been followed for up to five years, 10 998 for five to nine years, 6861 for 10-14 years, 2620 for 15-19 years, and 939 for at least 20 years. Among these women, 2076 developed invasive breast cancer, corresponding to an incidence rate of 8.82 (95% confidence interval 8.45 to 9.21) per 1000 women per year and more than double that expected from national cancer incidence rates (ratio of observed rate to expected rate 2.52, 95% confidence interval 2.41 to 2.63). The increase started in the second year after diagnosis of DCIS and continued until the end of follow-up. In the same group of women, 310 died from breast cancer, corresponding to a death rate of 1.26 (1.13 to 1.41) per 1000 women per year and 70% higher than that expected from national breast cancer mortality rates (observed:expected ratio 1.70, 1.52 to 1.90). During the first five years after diagnosis of DCIS, the breast cancer death rate was similar to that expected from national mortality rates (observed:expected ratio 0.87, 0.69 to 1.10), but it then increased, with values of 1.98 (1.65 to 2.37), 2.99 (2.41 to 3.70), and 2.77 (2.01 to 3.80) in years five to nine, 10-14, and 15 or more after DCIS diagnosis. Among 29 044 women with unilateral DCIS undergoing surgery, those who had more intensive treatment (mastectomy, radiotherapy for women who had breast conserving surgery, and endocrine treatment in oestrogen receptor positive disease) and those with larger final surgical margins had lower rates of invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: To date, women with DCIS detected by screening have, on average, experienced higher long term risks of invasive breast cancer and death from breast cancer than women in the general population during a period of at least two decades after their diagnosis. More intensive treatment and larger final surgical margins were associated with lower risks of invasive breast cancer.

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

OBJECTIVE: To record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit. DESIGN: Online survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional qualitative free-text responses. Surveys were completed by a staff member from each centre. RESULTS: There were no regional trends in the use of telephone results services, (X² (14, n=63)=11.55, p=0.64), Centres who telephoned results routinely did not deliver results sooner than centres who deliver results in-person (X² (16, n=63)=12.76, p=0.69).When delivering cancer results, 76.2% of centres never telephone results and 23.8% of centres occasionally telephone results. No centres reported delivering cancer results routinely by telephone. Qualitative content analysis suggests that cancer results are only telephoned at the patient request and under exceptional circumstances.When delivering non-cancer results, 12.7% of centres never telephoned results, 38.1% occasionally telephoned results and 49.2% routinely telephoned results. Qualitative content analysis revealed different processes for delivering telephone results, including patient choice and scheduling an in-person results appointment for all women attending breast assessment, then ringing non-cancer results unexpectedly ahead of this prebooked appointment. CONCLUSIONS: In the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, breast assessment results that are cancer are routinely delivered in-person. However, non-cancer breast assessment results are often routinely delivered by telephone, despite breast screening policy recommendations. More research is needed to understand the impact of telephoning results on women attending breast assessment, particularly women who receive a non-cancer result. Future research should also consider how women themselves might prefer to receive their results.

Communicating benign biopsy results by telephone in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: a protocol for a cluster randomised crossover trial.

INTRODUCTION: One of the main harms from breast cancer screening is the anxiety caused by false positive results. Various factors may be associated with false-positive anxiety. One modifiable factor may be the method of communication used to deliver results. The aim of this study is to measure the effect on anxiety of receiving benign biopsy results in-person or by telephone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multi-centre cluster randomised crossover trial in the English National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) involving repeated survey measures at four time points. Participants will be women of screening age who have a biopsy following a suspicious mammography result, who ultimately receive a benign or normal (B1) result. Centres will trial both telephone and in-person results on a month-by-month basis, being randomised to which communication method will be trialled first. Women will be blinded to the method of communication they will receive. The analysis will compare women who have received telephone results and women who have received in-person results. The primary outcome measure will be anxiety (measured by the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire) after receiving results, while controlling for baseline anxiety. Secondary outcome measures will include anxiety at 3 and 6 months post-results, understanding of results and patient preferences for how results are communicated. Qualitative telephone interviews will also be conducted to further explore women's reasons for communication preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated after initial separate analysis using the pillar integration process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Public Health England Breast Screening Programme Research Advisory Committee, (BSPRAC_0013, ODR1718_040) and the National Health Service Health Research Authority (HRA) West Midlands-Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0313). The findings from this study will be disseminated to key stakeholders within the NHSBSP and via academic publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN36997684 TRIAL SPONSOR: This research is part of a PhD award and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Warwick and Public Health England. The sponsor for this research is Jane Prewett (sponsorship@warwick.ac.uk).

Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Attending and receiving a result from screening can be an anxious process. Using an appropriate method to deliver screening results could improve communication and reduce negative outcomes for screening attendees. Screening programmes are increasingly communicating results by letter or telephone rather than in-person. We investigated the impact of communication methods on attendees. We systematically reviewed the literature on the communication methods used to deliver results in cancer screening programmes for women, focusing on screening attendee anxiety, understanding of results and preferences for results communication. We included qualitative and quantitative research. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Embase. Results were analysed using framework synthesis. 10,558 papers were identified with seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Several key ideas emerged from the synthesis including speed, accuracy of results, visual support, ability to ask questions, privacy of results location and managing expectations. Verbal communication methods (telephone and in-person) were preferred and facilitated greater understanding than written methods, although there was considerable variability in attendee preferences. Findings for anxiety were mixed, with no clear consensus on which method of communication might minimise attendee anxiety. The low number of identified studies and generally low quality evidence suggest we do not know the most appropriate communication methods in the delivery of cancer screening results. More research is needed to directly compare methods of results communication, focusing on what impact each method may have on screening attendees.

Impact of Digital Mammography on Cancer Detection and Recall Rates: 11.3 Million Screening Episodes in the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Purpose To report the impact of changing from screen-film mammography to digital mammography (DM) in a large organized national screening program. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected annual screening data from 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 for the 80 facilities of the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program, together with estimates of DM usage for three time periods, enabled the effect of DM to be measured in a study of 11.3 million screening episodes in women aged 45-70 years (mean age, 59 years). Regression models were used to estimate percentage and absolute change in detection rates due to DM. Results The overall cancer detection rate was 14% greater with DM (P < .001). There were higher rates of detection of grade 1 and 2 invasive cancers (both ductal and lobular), but no change in the detection of grade 3 invasive cancers. The recall rate was almost unchanged by the introduction of DM. At prevalent (first) screening episodes for women aged 45-52 years, DM increased the overall detection rate by 19% (P < .001) and for incident screening episodes in women aged 53-70 years by 13% (P < .001). Conclusion The overall cancer detection rate was 14% greater with digital mammography with no change in recall rates and without confounding by changes in other factors. There was a substantially higher detection of grade 1 and grade 2 invasive cancers, including both ductal and lobular cancers, but no change in the detection of grade 3 invasive cancers. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by C.I. Lee and J.M. Lee in this issue.

Management and 5-year outcomes in 9938 women with screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: the UK Sloane Project.

BACKGROUND: Management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with DCIS diagnosed through the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (1st April 2003 to 31st March 2012) was linked to national databases and case note review to analyse patterns of care, recurrence and mortality. RESULTS: Screen-detected DCIS in 9938 women, with mean age of 60 years (range 46-87), was treated by mastectomy (2931) or breast conserving surgery (BCS) (7007; 70%). At 64 months median follow-up, 697 (6.8%) had further DCIS or invasive breast cancer after BCS (7.8%) or mastectomy (4.5%) (p < 0.001). Breast radiotherapy (RT) after BCS (4363/7007; 62.3%) was associated with a 3.1% absolute reduction in ipsilateral recurrent DCIS or invasive breast cancer (no RT: 7.2% versus RT: 4.1% [p < 0.001]) and a 1.9% absolute reduction for ipsilateral invasive breast recurrence (no RT: 3.8% versus RT: 1.9% [p < 0.001]), independent of the excision margin width or size of DCIS. Women without RT after BCS had more ipsilateral breast recurrences (p < 0.001) when the radial excision margin was <2 mm. Adjuvant endocrine therapy (1208/9938; 12%) was associated with a reduction in any ipsilateral recurrence, whether RT was received (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.80) or not (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91) after BCS. Women who developed invasive breast recurrence had a worse survival than those with recurrent DCIS (p < 0.001). Among 321 (3.2%) who died, only 46 deaths were attributed to invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Recurrent DCIS or invasive cancer is uncommon after screen-detected DCIS. Both RT and endocrine therapy were associated with a reduction in further events but not with breast cancer mortality within 5 years of diagnosis. Further research to identify biomarkers of recurrence risk, particularly as invasive disease, is indicated.

Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains uncertain. The risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected DCIS are unclear. METHODS: Women diagnosed with DCIS on needle biopsy after 1997 who did not undergo surgical resection for ≥1 year after diagnosis were identified by breast centres and the cancer registry and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine women with DCIS diagnosed 1998-2010 were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 75 (range 44-94) years with median follow-up (diagnosis to death, invasive disease or last review) of 59 (12-180) months. Twenty-nine women (33%) developed invasive breast cancer after a median interval of 45 (12-144) months. 14/29 (48%) with high grade, 10/31 (32%) with intermediate grade and 3/17 (18%) with low grade DCIS developed invasive cancer after median intervals of 38, 60 and 51 months. The cumulative incidence of invasion was significantly higher in high grade DCIS than other grades (p = .0016, log-rank test). Invasion was more frequent in lesions with calcification as the predominant feature (23/50 v. 5/25; p = .042) and in younger women (p = .0002). Endocrine therapy was associated with a lower rate of invasive breast cancer (p = .048). CONCLUSIONS: High cytonuclear grade, mammographic microcalcification, young age and lack of endocrine therapy were risk factors for DCIS progression to invasive cancer. Surgical excision of high grade DCIS remains the treatment of choice. Given the uncertain long-term natural history of non-high grade DCIS, the option of active surveillance of women with this condition should be offered within a clinical trial.

Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Interpreting screening mammograms is a difficult repetitive task that can result in missed cancers and false-positive recalls. In the United Kingdom, 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digital mammograms in batches. However, a vigilance decrement (reduced detection rate with time on task) has been observed in similar settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of changing the order for the second film reader of batches of screening mammograms on rates of breast cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, double-blind, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 46 specialized breast screening centers from the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England for 1 year (all between December 20, 2012, and November 3, 2014). Three hundred sixty readers participated (mean, 7.8 readers per center)-186 radiologists, 143 radiography advanced practitioners, and 31 breast clinicians, all fully qualified to report mammograms in the NHS breast screening program. INTERVENTIONS: The 2 readers examined each batch of digital mammograms in the same order in the control group and in the opposite order to one another in the intervention group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was cancer detection rate; secondary outcomes were rates of recall and disagreements between readers. RESULTS: Among 1,194,147 women (mean age, 59.3; SD, 7.49) who had screening mammograms (596,642 in the intervention group; 597,505 in the control group), the images were interpreted in 37,688 batches (median batch size, 35; interquartile range [IQR]; 16-46), with each reader interpreting a median of 176 batches (IQR, 96-278). After completion of all subsequent diagnostic tests, a total of 10,484 cases (0.88%) of breast cancer were detected. There was no significant difference in cancer detection rate with 5272 cancers (0.88%) detected in the intervention group vs 5212 cancers (0.87%) detected in the control group (difference, 0.01% points; 95% CI, -0.02% to 0.04% points; recall rate, 24,681 [4.14%] vs 24,894 [4.17%]; difference, -0.03% points; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.04% points; or rate of reader disagreements, 20,471 [3.43%] vs 20,793 [3.48%]; difference, -0.05% points; 95% CI, -0.11% to 0.02% points). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interpretation of batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers using a different order vs the same order for the second reading resulted in no significant difference in rates of detection of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN46603370.