Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies.

Years of life lost due to cancer in the United Kingdom from 1988 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the application of years of life lost (YLL) in routine cancer statistics using cancer mortality data from 1988 to 2017. METHODS: Cancer mortality data for 17 cancers and all cancers in the UK from 1988 to 2017 were provided by the UK Association of Cancer Registries by sex, 5-year age group, and year. YLL, age-standardised YLL rate (ASYR) and age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) were estimated. RESULTS: The annual average YLL due to cancer, in the time periods 1988-1992 and 2013-2017, were about 2.2 and 2.3 million years, corresponding to 4510 and 3823 ASYR per 100,000 years, respectively. During 2013-2017, the largest number of YLL occurred in lung, bowel and breast cancer. YLL by age groups for all cancers showed a peak between 60-64 and 75-79. The relative contributions to incidence, mortality, and YLL differ between cancers. For instance, pancreas (in women and men) made up a smaller proportion of incidence (3%) but bigger proportion of mortality (6 and 5%) and YLL (5 and 6%), whereas prostate cancer (26% of incidence) contributed 13% mortality and 9% YLL. CONCLUSION: YLL is a useful measure of the impact different cancers have on society and puts a higher weight on cancer deaths in younger individuals.

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. METHODS: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7-14 days after the Cytosponge test. STUDY COHORT: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. RESULTS: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5-2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03-4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71-7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14-5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

Use of a Cytosponge biomarker panel to prioritise endoscopic Barrett's oesophagus surveillance: a cross-sectional study followed by a real-world prospective pilot.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: We first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance. FINDINGS: The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: Cytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.

A case-control study to evaluate the impact of the breast screening programme on mortality in England.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 30 years since the implementation of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, improvements in diagnostic techniques and treatments have led to the need for an up-to-date evaluation of its benefit on risk of death from breast cancer. An initial pilot case-control study in London indicated that attending mammography screening led to a mortality reduction of 39%. METHODS: Based on the same study protocol, an England-wide study was set up. Women aged 47-89 years who died of primary breast cancer in 2010 or 2011 were selected as cases (8288 cases). When possible, two controls were selected per case (15,202 controls) and were matched by date of birth and screening area. RESULTS: Conditional logistic regressions showed a 38% reduction in breast cancer mortality after correcting for self-selection bias (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56-0.69) for women being screened at least once. Secondary analyses by age group, and time between last screen and breast cancer diagnosis were also performed. CONCLUSIONS: According to this England-wide case-control study, mammography screening still plays an important role in lowering the risk of dying from breast cancer. Women aged 65 or over see a stronger and longer lasting benefit of screening compared to younger women.

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): final results of a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate. We aimed to estimate the effect of mammographic screening at ages 40-48 years on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled trial involving 23 breast screening units across Great Britain. We randomly assigned women aged 39-41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2 ratio, to yearly mammographic screening from the year of inclusion in the trial up to and including the calendar year that they reached age 48 years (intervention group), or to standard care of no screening until the invitation to their first National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) screen at approximately age 50 years (control group). Women in the intervention group were recruited by postal invitation. Women in the control group were unaware of the study. The primary endpoint was mortality from breast cancers (with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) diagnosed during the intervention period, before the participant's first NHSBSP screen. To study the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. Women were included in the primary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis). This Article reports on long-term follow-up analysis. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN24647151. FINDINGS: 160 921 women were recruited between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 24, 1997. 53 883 women (33·5%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 106 953 (66·5%) to the control group. Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up for a median of 22·8 years (IQR 21·8-24·0). We observed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up, with 83 breast cancer deaths in the intervention group versus 219 in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·58-0·97]; p=0·029). No significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 deaths versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0·98 [0·79-1·22]; p=0·86). INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or 41 years, was associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years, although the absolute reduction remained constant. Reducing the lower age limit for screening from 50 to 40 years could potentially reduce breast cancer mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting.

US guidelines recommend that most women older than 65 years cease cervical screening after two consecutive negative cotests (concurrent HPV and cytology tests) in the previous 10 years, with one in the last 5 years. However, this recommendation was based on expert opinion and modeling rather than empirical data on cancer risk. We therefore estimated the 5-year risks of cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3]) after one, two and three negative cotests among 346,760 women aged 55-64 years undergoing routine cotesting at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2003-2015). Women with a history of excisional treatment or CIN2+ were excluded. No woman with one or more negative cotests was diagnosed with cancer during follow-up. Five-year risks of CIN3 after one, two, and three consecutive negative cotests were 0.034% (95% CI: 0.023%-0.046%), 0.041% (95% CI: 0.007%-0.076%) and 0.016% (95% CI: 0.000%-0.052%), respectively (ptrend < 0.001). These risks did not appreciably differ by a positive cotest result prior to the one, two or three negative cotest(s). Since CIN3 risks after one or more negative cotests were significantly below a proposed 0.12% CIN3+ risk threshold for a 5-year screening interval, a longer screening interval in these women is justified. However, the choice of how many negative cotests provide sufficient safety against invasive cancer over a woman's remaining life represents a value judgment based on the harms versus benefits of continued screening. Ideally, this guideline should be informed by longer-term follow-up given that exiting is a long-term decision.

Impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence: A population-based case-control study in the United States.

Cervical cancer is widely preventable through screening, but little is known about the duration of protection offered by a negative screen in North America. A case-control study was conducted with records from population-based registries in New Mexico. Cases were women diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2006-2016, obtained from the Tumor Registry. Five controls per case from the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry were matched to cases by sex, age and place of residence. Dates and results of all cervical screening and diagnostic tests since 2006 were identified from the pap registry. We estimated the odds ratio of nonlocalized (Stage II+) and localized (Stage I) cervical cancer associated with attending screening in the 3 years prior to case-diagnosis compared to women not screened in 5 years. Of 876 cases, 527 were aged 25-64 years with ≥3 years of potential screening data. Only 38% of cases and 61% of controls attended screening in a 3-year period. Women screened in the 3 years prior to diagnosis had 83% lower risk of nonlocalized cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.12-0.24) and 48% lower odds of localized cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.72), compared to women not screened in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Women remained at low risk of nonlocalized cancer for 3.5-5 years after a negative screen compared to women with no negative screens in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Routine cervical screening is effective at preventing localized and nonlocalized cervical cancers; 3 yearly screening prevents 83% of nonlocalized cancers, with no additional benefit of more frequent screening. Increasing screening coverage remains essential to further reduce cervical cancer incidence.

A state-wide population-based evaluation of cervical cancers arising during opportunistic screening in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Despite widespread cervical screening, an estimated 13,800 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the United States in 2020. To inform improvements, the screening histories of women diagnosed with cervical cancer in New Mexico were assessed. METHODS: Data were collected on all cervical screening, diagnostic tests and treatment procedures for all women diagnosed with cervical cancer aged 25-64 yrs. in New Mexico from 2006 to 2016. Women were categorized by their screening attendance in the 5-40 months (screening interval) and 1-4 months (peri-diagnostic interval) prior to cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 504 women diagnosed between May 2009-December 2016, 64% were not screened or had only inadequate screening tests in the 5-40 months prior to diagnosis, and 90 of 182 screened women (49%) had only negative screens in this period. Only 32% (N = 162) of cervical cancers were screen-detected. Women with adenocarcinomas were more likely to have had a recent negative screen (41/57 = 722%) than women with squamous cancers (50/112 = 45%). Both older women (aged 45-64 years) and women with more advanced cancers were less likely to have been screened, and if screened, were more likely to have a false-negative outcome. Only 9% of cancers were diagnosed in women who did not attend biopsy or treatment after positive tests requiring clinical management. Screening currently prevents 35% of cancers, whereas full screening coverage could prevent 61% of cervical cancers. CONCLUSION: Improved screening coverage has the largest potential for reducing cervical cancer incidence, though there is also a role for improved recall procedures and screening sensitivity.

What cervical screening is appropriate for women who have been vaccinated against high risk HPV? A simulation study.

Women vaccinated against HPV16/18 are approaching the age for cervical screening; however, an updated screening algorithm has not been agreed. We use a microsimulation model calibrated to real published data to determine the appropriate screening intensity for vaccinated women. Natural histories in the absence of vaccination were simulated for 300,000 women using 10,000 sets of transition probabilities. Vaccination with (i) 100% efficacy against HPV16/18, (ii) 15% cross-protection, (iii) 22% cross-protection, (iv) waning vaccine efficacy and (v) 100% efficacy against HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 was added, as were a range of screening scenarios appropriate to the UK. To benchmark cost-benefits of screening for vaccinated women, we evaluated the proportion of cancers prevented per additional screen (incremental benefit) of current cytology and likely HPV screening scenarios in unvaccinated women. Slightly more cancers are prevented through vaccination with no screening (70.3%, 95% CR: 65.1-75.5) than realistic compliance to the current UK screening programme in the absence of vaccination (64.3%, 95% CR: 61.3-66.8). In unvaccinated women, when switching to HPV primary testing, there is no loss in effectiveness when doubling the screening interval. Benchmarking supports screening scenarios with incremental benefits of ≥2.0%, and rejects scenarios with incremental benefits ≤0.9%. In HPV16/18-vaccinated women, the incremental benefit of offering a third lifetime screen was at most 3.3% (95% CR: 2.2-4.5), with an incremental benefit of 1.3% (-0.3-2.8) for a fourth screen. For HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-vaccinated women, two lifetime screens are supported. It is important to know women's vaccination status; in these simulations, HPV16/18-vaccinated women require three lifetime screens, HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-vaccinated women require two lifetime screens, yet unvaccinated women require seven lifetime screens.

Challenges in risk estimation using routinely collected clinical data: The example of estimating cervical cancer risks from electronic health-records.

Electronic health-records (EHR) are increasingly used by epidemiologists studying disease following surveillance testing to provide evidence for screening intervals and referral guidelines. Although cost-effective, undiagnosed prevalent disease and interval censoring (in which asymptomatic disease is only observed at the time of testing) raise substantial analytic issues when estimating risk that cannot be addressed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Based on our experience analysing EHR from cervical cancer screening, we previously proposed the logistic-Weibull model to address these issues. Here we demonstrate how the choice of statistical method can impact risk estimates. We use observed data on 41,067 women in the cervical cancer screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2003-2013, as well as simulations to evaluate the ability of different methods (Kaplan-Meier, Turnbull, Weibull and logistic-Weibull) to accurately estimate risk within a screening program. Cumulative risk estimates from the statistical methods varied considerably, with the largest differences occurring for prevalent disease risk when baseline disease ascertainment was random but incomplete. Kaplan-Meier underestimated risk at earlier times and overestimated risk at later times in the presence of interval censoring or undiagnosed prevalent disease. Turnbull performed well, though was inefficient and not smooth. The logistic-Weibull model performed well, except when event times didn't follow a Weibull distribution. We have demonstrated that methods for right-censored data, such as Kaplan-Meier, result in biased estimates of disease risks when applied to interval-censored data, such as screening programs using EHR data. The logistic-Weibull model is attractive, but the model fit must be checked against Turnbull non-parametric risk estimates.

Range of pathologies diagnosed using a minimally invasive capsule sponge to evaluate patients with reflux symptoms.

AIMS: Reflux symptoms are highly prevalent and non-specific; hence, in the absence of alarm symptoms, endoscopy referral decisions are challenging. This study evaluated whether a non-endoscopic Cytosponge could detect benign oesophageal pathologies and thus have future potential in triaging patients with persistent symptoms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two complementary cohorts were recruited: (i) patients with reflux symptoms and no prior endoscopy (n = 409), and (ii) patients with reflux symptoms referred for endoscopy (n = 411). All patients were investigated using the Cytosponge and endoscopy. Significant epithelial inflammation was present in 130 (16%) Cytosponge samples, 32 of which had ulcer slough. Candida and significant inflammation was detected in a further 22 (2.3%) cases; epithelial infiltration with >15 eosinophils/high-power field reflecting possible eosinophilic oesophagitis (EOE) in five (0.6%); and viral inclusions suggestive of herpes oesophagitis in one (0.1%). No significant pathology was detected in the majority, 662 (81%), of Cytosponge samples. Cytosponge and endoscopy findings were in agreement in 574 (70%) cases, in 165 (67%) of the discordant cases one investigation showed mild inflammation while the other was negative, with an additional 22 (8.9%) differing on the extent of inflammation. Eighteen cases with severe inflammation, six with candida and two with EOE were detected only at endoscopy, while 18 with candida and significant inflammation, 13 with ulcer slough, one probable EOE and one viral oesophagitis were identified on the Cytosponge only. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge detects a range of benign oesophageal pathologies, and therefore has potential clinical utility in the triaging of patients with troublesome reflux symptoms. This warrants further investigation.

Is cervical screening preventing adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix?

While the incidence of squamous carcinoma of the cervix has declined in countries with organised screening, adenocarcinoma has become more common. Cervical screening by cytology often fails to prevent adenocarcinoma. Using prospectively recorded cervical screening data in England and Wales, we conducted a population-based case-control study to examine whether cervical screening leads to early diagnosis and down-staging of adenocarcinoma. Conditional logistic regression modelling was carried out to provide odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on 12,418 women with cervical cancer diagnosed between ages 30 and 69 and 24,453 age-matched controls. Of women with adenocarcinoma of the cervix, 44.3% were up to date with screening and 14.6% were non-attenders. The overall OR comparing women up to date with screening with non-attenders was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.39-0.55) for adenocarcinoma. The odds were significantly decreased (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.15-0.33) in up to date women with Stage 2 or worse adenocarcinoma, but not for women with Stage1A adenocarcinoma 0.71 (95% CI: 0.46-1.09). The odds of Stage 1A adenocarcinoma was double among lapsed attenders (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.52-3.62) compared to non-attenders. Relative to women with no negative cytology within 7 years of diagnosis, women with Stage1A adenocarcinoma were very unlikely to be detected within 3 years of a negative cytology test (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.05-0.13); however, the odds doubled 3-5 years after a negative test (OR: 2.30, 95% CI: 1.67-3.18). ORs associated with up to date screening were smaller for squamous and adenosquamous cervical carcinoma. Although cytology screening is inefficient at preventing adenocarcinomas, invasive adenocarcinomas are detected earlier than they would be in the absence of screening, substantially preventing Stage 2 and worse adenocarcinomas.

Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A case-control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy. In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%-83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%-90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%-94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%-94.7%). The case-control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.

An ongoing case-control study to evaluate the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in both males and females in England. A national bowel cancer screening programme was rolled out in England between 2006 and 2010. In the post-randomised controlled trials epoch, assessment of the impact of the programme using observational studies is needed. This study protocol was set up at the request of the UK Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis to evaluate the effect of the current bowel cancer screening programme on incidence of advanced primary colorectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: All incident cases of primary colorectal cancer in England will be included. Cases will be matched to controls with respect to sex, age, area of registration and year of first invitation to screening. Each evaluation round will cover a 2-year period, starting from January 2012, and ongoing thereafter. In the first instance, a pilot will be carried out in a single region. Variables related to colorectal tumour pathology will be obtained to enable selection and matching of cases and controls, and to allow analyses stratification by anatomical subsite within the bowel. Cases at Duke's stage B or worse will be considered as "advanced stage". The influence of sex will also be investigated. The incidence ratio observed in randomised controlled trials between controls (not invited) and non-attender invitees will be used to correct for self-selection bias overall. Screening participation at other national screening programmes (cervical, breast) will also be collected to derive a more contemporaneous adjustment factor for self-selection bias and assess consistency in self-selection correction in female patients.Full ethical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority. DISCUSSION: The case-control design is potentially prone to a number of biases. The size of the planned study, the design specifications and the development of analytical strategies to cope with bias should enable us to obtain accurate estimates of reduction in incidence of advanced stage disease. The results of analyses by sex and anatomical subsite may highlight the potential need for sex-specific recommendations in the programme.

Opportunistic offering of self-sampling to non-attenders within the English cervical screening programme: a pragmatic, multicentre, implementation feasibility trial with randomly allocated cluster intervention start dates (YouScreen).

Background: Self-sampling has game-changing potential to tackle the declining participation and inequities seen in many organised cervical screening programmes. Wide variation in uptake between settings and mode of kit offer highlight the importance of local piloting. Furthermore, harnessing the benefits of self-sampling in real-world settings has been surprisingly challenging. The YouScreen study estimated the impact of offering self-sampling to non-attenders within the English Programme and evaluated large-scale opportunistic offering of self-sampling in primary care. Methods: A pragmatic modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial with randomly-allocated cluster intervention start dates at primary care practices in England (133 participating, 62 non-participating). Eligible women were aged 25-64 years and ≥6 months overdue for screening ("non-attenders"). Between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021 self-sampling kits were distributed to non-attenders via an opportunistic offer in primary care when they consulted for any reason and direct mailout to those unscreened 15-months after routine invitation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of non-attenders screened each month; change in coverage; and uptake (90 days). YouScreen is registered with ISRCTN:12759467. Findings: 8338 women provided self-samples following recruitment between January 13, 2021 and 30 November, 2021. Self-samples were returned from 65.5% (6061/9248) who accepted an opportunistically offered kit and 12.9% (2777/17,604) directly-mailed kits. Responders were representative of the ethnically diverse and deprived underlying non-attendee population (64% ethnic minority groups, 60% from the two most deprived national quintiles). The self-sampling intervention resulted in a 22% (95% CI 18-26) increase in non-attenders screened per month (per-protocol analysis) and 12% (95% CI 9-15) (intention-to-treat analysis). Change in coverage at participating (mean intervention duration 7.5 months) vs non-participating practices was 1.6% (95% CI 0.4-2.8). Adverse effects were not formally collected. Interpretation: Opportunistically offering self-sampling to under-screened women in primary care could increase coverage in England and potentially reach underserved populations. Funding: North Central London and North East London Cancer Alliance.