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.

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.