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.

Liverpool Lung Project lung cancer risk stratification model: calibration and prospective validation.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of lung cancer saves lives, as demonstrated by the two largest published low-dose CT screening trials. Optimal implementation depends on our ability to identify those most at risk. METHODS: Version 2 of the Liverpool Lung Project risk score (LLPv2) was developed from case-control data in Liverpool and further adapted when applied for selection of subjects for the UK Lung Screening Trial. The objective was to produce version 3 (LLPv3) of the model, by calibration to national figures for 2017. We validated both LLPv2 and LLPv3 using questionnaire data from 75 958 individuals, followed up for lung cancer over 5 years. We validated both discrimination, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and absolute incidence, by comparing deciles of predicted incidence with observed incidence. We calculated proportionate difference as the percentage excess or deficit of observed cancers compared with those predicted. We also carried out Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. RESULTS: There were 599 lung cancers diagnosed over 5 years. The discrimination of both LLPv2 and LLPv3 was significant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.82). However, LLPv2 overestimated absolute risk in the population. The proportionate difference was -58.3% (95% CI -61.6% to -54.8%), that is, the actual number of cancers was only 42% of the number predicted.In LLPv3, calibrated to national 2017 figures, the proportionate difference was -22.0% (95% CI -28.1% to -15.5%). CONCLUSIONS: While LLPv2 and LLPv3 have the same discriminatory power, LLPv3 improves the absolute lung cancer risk prediction and should be considered for use in further UK implementation studies.

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.

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake.

Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Purpose To determine whether low levels of recall lead to increased interval cancers and the magnitude of this effect. Materials and Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme during a 36-month period (April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2008), with 3-year follow-up in women aged 50-70 years. Data on recall, cancers detected at screening, and interval cancers were available for each of the 84 breast screening units and for each year (n = 252). The association between interval cancers and recalls was modeled by using Poisson regression on aggregated data and according to age (5-year intervals) and screening type (prevalent vs incident). Results The authors analyzed 5 126 689 screening episodes, demonstrating an average recall to assessment rate (RAR) of 4.56% (range, 1.64%-8.42%; standard deviation, 1.15%), cancer detection rate of 8.1 per 1000 women screened, and interval cancer rate (ICR) of 3.1 per 1000 women screened. Overall, a significant negative association was found between RAR and ICR (Poisson regression coefficient: -0.039 [95% confidence interval: -0.062, -0.017]; P = .001), with approximately one fewer interval cancer for every additional 80-84 recalls. Subgroup analysis revealed similar negative correlations in women aged 50-54 years (P = .002), 60-64 years (P = .01), and 65-69 years (P = .008) as well as in incident screens (P = .001) and prevalent screens (P = .04). No significant relationship was found in women aged 55-59 years (P = .46). Conclusion There was a statistically significant negative correlation between RAR and ICR, which suggests the merit of a minimum threshold for RAR. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England does not involve general practitioners (GPs). Uptake is ∼58%. The Practice Endorsed Additional Reminder Letter (PEARL) study piloted a GP-endorsed reminder letter. METHODS: General practices in Wessex with uptake <55% (prevalent invitations) were invited to participate. Subjects who had been invited for screening, sent a standard 28-day BCSP reminder letter but had not returned a test kit within 30 days of the standard reminder were sent a second reminder letter bearing the GP's letterhead and signature. Uptake was compared between PEARL and non-PEARL practices by standardised uptake ratio (standardised for prior prevalent uptake and other confounders). In addition, 25 non-PEARL practices were matched with PEARL practices for prior prevalent uptake and number of invitees. RESULTS: Twenty-five practices agreed to participate. A total of 3149 GP-endorsed reminders were sent. Uptake in the PEARL practices was 54% compared with 51% in the matched-control practices. The adjusted RR for uptake was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.11, P<0.001) for all invitees and 2.18 (1.79, 2.66, P<0.001) for invitees who had not returned a kit following the standard reminder. CONCLUSIONS: The GP-endorsed reminder was associated with significantly increased uptake among subjects not responding to the standard reminder letter.

Impact of single round of low dose CT lung cancer screening on cause of mortality in different socio-economic groups: a post-hoc analysis of long-term follow-up of the UKLS trial.

Background: Lower socioeconomic status, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), is associated with higher rates of smoking-related disease mortality, and with poor uptake of cancer screening. Here we explore whether socioeconomic status impacts the effectiveness of a single round of low-dose-CT screening, or impacts other causes of death, in the UKLS LDCT screening trial. Methods: IMD quintiles were defined according to UK-wide data, with the deprived group defined as the lower two quintiles (Q1-2) and the less deprived as Q3-5. Follow-up data was obtained for lung cancer diagnosis (median follow-up 9.1 years) and cause of death (median follow-up 9.9 years). Outcomes were compared based on IMD group and trial arm (CT or control). Findings: More deprived quintiles were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but this population was more likely to be selected for screening by the LLP risk model. Lower IMD quintiles benefitted from low-dose-CT screening in terms of lung cancer survival (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) to the same extent as upper quintiles (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.26). However, there was a bigger impact on deaths due to COPD and emphysema in more deprived quintiles. Interpretation: Whilst LDCT screening benefit for lung cancer was similar, significant impact on the rates of death from other smoking-related diseases, notably COPD and emphysema, was seen primarily in lower socioeconomic groups. Future research is required to confirm how lung cancer screening benefits other disease outcomes. Funding: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Recovery of the breast screening programme following pandemic-related delays: Should we focus on round length or uptake?

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Breast Screening programme is recovering from the hiatus in screening in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, open rather than timed invitations are issued, which leads to lower uptake but more rapid coverage of the eligible population by invitation and therefore closer adherence to a round length of 3 years. We aimed to estimate the likely effect on numbers of cancers detected at incident screens of a range of round lengths and uptake rates. METHODS: We assumed exponential distributions of time to incidence of preclinical screen-detectable cancer and of time to progression thereafter to symptomatic clinical disease. We derived numerical values of these, along with screening sensitivity, from published research results and statistics from the NHS Breast Screening programme. These were used to calculate numbers of cancers detected at incident screens at ages 51-70 by round length and uptake rates. RESULTS: We found that in a homogeneous population of cancers, a 4-year round length with uptake of 62%, as observed with timed appointments in London before the pandemic, would result in 295 cancers screen detected per 10,000 invited, compared to 222 cancers with a 3-year round and uptake of 46%, as observed in London during the recovery period. Similar results were found when we posited two populations, one of rapidly progressing and one of slowly progressing cancers. CONCLUSIONS: It may be more productive in terms of early detection to focus on uptake rather than round length in the programme's recovery from the pandemic.

Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For some common cancers, survival is lower in the UK than in comparable high-income countries. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a targeted postal intervention (to promote awareness of cancer symptoms and earlier help seeking) on patient consultation rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients aged 50-84 years registered at 23 general practices in rural and urban areas of Greater London, Greater Manchester, and the North East of England. METHOD: Patients who had not had a consultation at their general practice in the previous 12 months and had at least two other risk factors for late presentation with cancer were randomised to intervention and control arms. The intervention consisted of a posted letter and leaflet. Primary outcome was the number of consultations at the practice with patients randomised to each arm in the 6 months subsequent to posting the intervention. All patients with outcome data were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1513 patients were individually randomised to the intervention (n = 783) and control (n = 730) arms between Nov 2016 - May 2017; outcome data were available for 749 and 705 patients, respectively, with a statistically significantly higher rate of consultation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm: 436 versus 335 consultations (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.77, P = 0.004). There was, however, no difference in the numbers of patients consulting. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions of this nature can change behaviour; there is a need to develop interventions that can be more effective at engaging patients with primary care. This study demonstrates that targeted interventions promoting both awareness of possible cancer symptoms and earlier health seeking, can change behaviour. There is a need to develop and test interventions that can be more effective at engaging the most at-risk patients.

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial. METHODS: From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence. FINDINGS: 1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials. INTERPRETATION: The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT.

BACKGROUND: There remains disagreement on the long-term effect of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years. OBJECTIVES: The long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial that offered annual mammography to women aged 40-49 years. The estimation of the effect of these mammograms on breast cancer and other-cause mortality, and the effect on incidence, with implications for overdiagnosis. DESIGN: An individually randomised controlled trial comparing offering annual mammography with offering usual care in those aged 40-48 years, and thus evaluating the effect of annual screening entirely taking place before the age of 50 years. There was follow-up for an average of 23 years for breast cancer incidence, breast cancer death and death from other causes. We analysed the mortality and incidence data by Poisson regression and estimated overdiagnosis formally using Markov process models. SETTING: Twenty-three screening units in England, Wales and Scotland within the NHS Breast Screening Programme. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 39-41 years were recruited between 1990 and 1997. After exclusions, a total of 53,883 women were randomised to undergo screening (the intervention group) and 106,953 women were randomised to have usual care (the control group). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group was invited to an annual breast screen with film mammography, two view at first screen and single view thereafter, up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday. The control group received no intervention. Both groups were invited to the National Programme from the age of 50 years, when screening is offered to all women in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase of the trial (i.e. before the first National Programme screen at 50 years), mortality from all breast cancers diagnosed after randomisation, all-cause mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, and the incidence of breast cancer. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase at 10 years' follow-up (relative rate 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97; p = 0.03). No reduction was observed thereafter (relative rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.22). Overall, there was a statistically non-significant 12% reduction (relative rate 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.03; p = 0.1). The absolute benefit remained approximately constant over time, at one death prevented per 1000 women screened. There was no effect of intervention on other-cause mortality (relative rate 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.07; p = 0.4). The intervention group had a higher incidence of breast cancer than the control group during the intervention phase of the trial, but incidence equalised immediately on the first National Programme screen at the age of 50-52 years. LIMITATIONS: There was 31% average non-compliance with screening and three centres had to cease screening for resource and capacity reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Annual mammographic screening at the age of 40-49 years resulted in a relative reduction in mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years. It is likely that digital mammography with two views at all screens, as practised now, could improve this further. There was no evidence of overdiagnosis in addition to that which already results from the National Programme carried out at later ages. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for research on the effects of modern mammographic protocols and additional imaging in this age group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24647151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Other funding in the past has been received from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care, the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.

It is known that breast cancer screening with mammography (i.e. X-ray of the breasts) in women aged ≥ 50 years leads to a reduction in the number of deaths from breast cancer. In the UK, the NHS Breast Screening Programme offers regular screening to women aged 50­70 years. There is still some disagreement about the effect of such screening on the risk of death from breast cancer for those aged 40­49 years. There is also concern about overdiagnosis, that is, the finding of breast cancer that would not have been diagnosed in a woman's lifetime if she had not been screened. This study recruited 160,921 women aged 39­41 years and randomly assigned one in three of the women to be offered annual mammographic screening from age 40 to 48 years. The women were followed up for occurrence of breast cancer, death from breast cancer and death from all other causes. We found that the women who were offered the screening were 25% less likely to die of breast cancer in the first 10 years in the trial. This mortality reduction was reduced with later follow-up, with a 12% reduction after an average of 23 years. There was no effect of offering screening on death from other causes. During the early years of the trial, the women offered screening had larger numbers of breast cancers diagnosed, but this excess disappeared after the first National Programme screen. This suggests that there is no overdiagnosis from screening those aged 40­49 years over and above that which already results from screening those aged ≥ 50 years.

Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme.

OBJECTIVES: This Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme is a response to high rates of lung cancer and respiratory diseases locally and aims to diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage by proactive approach to those at high risk of lung cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the programme in terms of its likely effect on mortality from lung cancer and its delivery to deprived populations. METHODS: Persons aged 58-75 years, with a history of smoking or a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)2 according to general practice records were invited for lung health check in a community health hub setting. A detailed risk assessment and spirometry were performed in eligible patients. Those with a 5% or greater five-year risk of lung cancer were referred for a low dose CT3 scan. RESULTS: A total of 4 566 subjects attended the appointment for risk assessment and 3 591 (79%) consented to data sharing. More than 80% of the patients were in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation. Of those attending, 63% underwent spirometry and 43% were recommended for a CT scan. A total of 25 cancers were diagnosed, of which 16 (64%) were stage I. Comparison with the national stage distribution implied that the programme was reducing lung cancer mortality by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Community based proactive approaches to early diagnosis of lung cancer in health deprived regions are likely to be effective in early detection of lung cancer.

Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

INTRODUCTION: Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening is associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality when offered as a one-off test to men and women aged 55-64. The test, also referred to as the 'bowel scope screening' (BSS) test, was added to England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in March 2013, where it is offered to men and women aged 55. Since its implementation, uptake of the BSS test has been low, with only 43% of the eligible population attending an appointment. Sending non-participants a reminder at age 56 has been shown to improve uptake by up to nine percentage points at a single centre in London; we hypothesise that adding a general practitioners (GPs) endorsement to the reminder could improve uptake even further. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial which will examine the effectiveness of adding a GPs endorsement to a reminder for BSS non-participants aged 56. All screening-eligible adults who have not responded to a BSS appointment at London North West Healthcare NHS Trust within 12 months of their initial invitation will be randomised to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter or reminder letter without GP endorsement. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals screened within each group 8 weeks after the reminder. Statistical comparisons will be made using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with 'uptake' as the outcome variable, GP reminder group as the exposure and sociodemographic variables as covariates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Yorkshire & Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (16/YH/0298) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0162). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal in accordance with the Consort statement and will be made available to the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82867861.