Addressing Misinformation About the Canadian Breast Screening Guidelines.

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 41% in screened women ages 40-69 years. There is misinformation about breast screening and the Canadian breast screening guidelines. This can decrease confidence in screening mammography and can lead to suboptimal recommendations. We review some of this misinformation to help radiologists and referring physicians navigate the varied international and provincial guidelines. We address the ages to start and stop breast screening. We explore how these recommendations may vary for specific populations such as patients who are at increased risk, transgender patients and minorities. We identify who would benefit from supplemental screening and review the available supplemental screening modalities including ultrasound, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography and others. We describe emerging technologies including the potential use of artificial intelligence for breast screening. We provide background on why screening policies vary across the country between provinces and territories. This review is intended to help radiologists and referring physicians understand and navigate the varied international and provincial recommendations and guidelines and make the best recommendations for their patients.

Imaging, Paternalism and the Worried Patient: Rethinking Our Approach.

The Covid pandemic has taught many lessons, including the importance of mental health. The value of the radiologist in holistic patient care may be underestimated and underresearched. Barriers to the acceptance of imaging as an important component in reassurance may be rooted in old ideas minimizing the importance of mental health.

How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?

The biased randomization and other quality concerns about the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies (CNBSS) were documented and criticized for decades, even by several individuals very close to the research. CNBSS were the outlier studies among several RCTs of the era and yet were given equal weighting and occasionally higher importance than the remainder of the canon of mammography RCTs. These studies have had an ongoing influence on subsequent evidence review, guideline formation, and, ultimately, patient access to screening. This article explores possible reasons for the ongoing inclusion of CNBSS in the body of mammography screening evidence, discusses the lack of expertise in critical healthcare guideline processes, and, ultimately, suggests several actions and reforms.

The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not-A cautionary tale.

Two randomized trials were conducted in Canada in the 1980s to test the efficacy of breast cancer screening. Neither of the trials demonstrated benefit. Concerns were raised regarding serious errors in trial design and conduct. Here we describe the conditions that could allow subversion of randomization to occur and the inclusion of many symptomatic women in a screening trial. We examine anomalies in data where the balance would be expected between trial arms. "Open book" randomization and performance of clinical breast examination on all women before allocation to a trial arm allowed women with palpable findings to be mis-randomized into the mammography arm. Multiple indicators raising suspicion of subversion are present including a large excess in poor-prognosis cancers in the mammography trial arm at prevalence screen. Personnel described shifting of women from the control group into the mammography group. There is compelling evidence of subversion of randomization in Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Mis-randomization of even a few women with advanced breast cancer could markedly affect measured screening efficacy. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study trials should not influence breast screening policies.

Errors in Conduct of the CNBSS Trials of Breast Cancer Screening Observed by Research Personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate why the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS) did not show mortality reduction with mammography. This study explored long-standing concerns related to the validity of the randomization process, methods of recruiting women to participate in the trials, and training of the staff working in the CNBSS. METHODS: Surviving former CNBSS personnel, whose roles involved direct recruitment, enrollment, randomization, clinical examination, image interpretation, and management of patients in the CNBSS were interviewed. Individuals were contacted and consented to provide firsthand accounts of daily operations and adherence to research protocols via standardized questions. Consistency of observational data with quantitative results from the CNBSS trials was evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven of 28 (39.3%) staff confirmed that women with preexisting symptoms of breast cancer were systematically recruited at some centers; 57.1% (16/28) confirmed that personnel performing screening in CNBSS had very limited training and experience; 39.3% (11/28) verified that imaging equipment was often substandard; 50% (14/28) indicated that mammography image quality was generally poor; and 28.6% (8/28) corroborated that in some cases surgeons were unwilling to perform biopsies or surgeries for women with suspicious abnormalities found only on screening mammography that lacked a palpable correlate. CONCLUSION: These firsthand accounts provide new information confirming that the CNBSS did not consistently and rigorously assess the true efficacy of screening mammography. The staff accounts clarify reasons why the CNBSS results were outliers compared with the six other randomized trials of screening mammography and should not be used as credible scientific evidence to inform health policy.