National Breast Screening Programme Research Articles

A stakeholder analysis to prepare for real-world evaluation of integrating artificial intelligent algorithms into breast screening (PREP-AIR study): a qualitative study using the WHO guide

BackgroundThe national breast screening programme in the United Kingdom is under pressure due to workforce shortages and having been paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform how healthcare is delivered by improving care processes and patient outcomes. Research on the clinical and organisational benefits of artificial intelligence is still at an early stage, and numerous concerns have been raised around its implications, including patient safety, acceptance, and accountability for decisions. Reforming the breast screening programme to include artificial intelligence is a complex endeavour because numerous stakeholders influence it. Therefore, a stakeholder analysis was conducted to identify relevant stakeholders, explore their views on the proposed reform (i.e., integrating artificial intelligence algorithms into the Scottish National Breast Screening Service for breast cancer detection) and develop strategies for managing ‘important’ stakeholders.MethodsA qualitative study (i.e., focus groups and interviews, March-November 2021) was conducted using the stakeholder analysis guide provided by the World Health Organisation and involving three Scottish health boards: NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, NHS Grampian and NHS Lothian. The objectives included: (A) Identify possible stakeholders (B) Explore stakeholders’ perspectives and describe their characteristics (C) Prioritise stakeholders in terms of importance and (D) Develop strategies to manage ‘important’ stakeholders. Seven stakeholder characteristics were assessed: their knowledge of the targeted reform, position, interest, alliances, resources, power and leadership.ResultsThirty-two participants took part from 14 (out of 17 identified) sub-groups of stakeholders. While they were generally supportive of using artificial intelligence in breast screening programmes, some concerns were raised. Stakeholder knowledge, influence and interests in the reform varied. Key advantages mentioned include service efficiency, quicker results and reduced work pressure. Disadvantages included overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of cancer, inequalities in detection and the self-learning capacity of the algorithms. Five strategies (with considerations suggested by stakeholders) were developed to maintain and improve the support of ‘important’ stakeholders.ConclusionsHealth services worldwide face similar challenges of workforce issues to provide patient care. The findings of this study will help others to learn from Scottish experiences and provide guidance to conduct similar studies targeting healthcare reform.Study registrationresearchregistry6579, date of registration: 16/02/2021.

Lessons Learnt from Imaging Review of Interval Breast Cancers in a Single Center in the UK National Breast Screening Program.

False-negative mammograms are a part of any screening program and the National Breast Screening Program in the United Kingdom is no exception. Every year, 2.5 million women have screening mammograms in the United Kingdom. Around 8 per 1,000 women screened are diagnosed with a breast cancer and 3 per 1,000 women will present with an interval breast cancer following a negative screening mammogram and before their next mammogram. Robust quality standards have to be adhered to at every stage in the screening pathway in order to maintain the fine balance between detecting cancers early and avoiding unnecessary false-positive results. As part of this process, there is a mandatory requirement for screening units to review all breast cancers. We present a pictorial illustration of the lessons learnt from such a review in this essay. The cases described here are from one large breast screening unit in the North of England. In this unit, 30,000 to 40,000 women have a screening mammogram each year and these are all double read by human readers. All cases requiring recall and those where there is a disagreement between the first and second human reader go through a consensus/arbitration process involving a minimum of two human readers. Interval cancers are identified through a consistent process outlined by the screening program and are then subjected to a review by a minimum of two reviewers. In this process, the reviewers have access to the false-negative mammograms along with all priors that were available at the time of initial read. The reviewers make a decision on whether the initial mammogram is normal or abnormal without seeing the diagnostic mammogram with the interval cancer. They also categorize the density of the breast and describe the mammographic abnormality if there is any on a standardized interval cancer data collection form. Finally, they categorize the interval cancer into one of three types-"satisfactory," "satisfactory with learning points," or "unsatisfactory."

Mammography-based deep learning model for coronary artery calcification.

Mammography, commonly used for breast cancer screening in women, can also predict cardiovascular disease. We developed mammography-based deep learning models for predicting coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores, an established predictor of coronary events. We evaluated a subset of Korean adults who underwent image mammography and CAC computed tomography and randomly selected approximately 80% of the participants as the training dataset, used to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict detectable CAC. The sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and overall accuracy of the model's performance were evaluated. The training and validation datasets included 5235 and 1208 women, respectively [mean age, 52.6 (±10.2) years], including non-zero cases (46.8%). The CNN-based deep learning prediction model based on the Resnet18 model showed the best performance. The model was further improved using contrastive learning strategies based on positive and negative samples: sensitivity, 0.764 (95% CI, 0.667-0.830); specificity, 0.652 (95% CI, 0.614-0.710); AUROC, 0.761 (95% CI, 0.742-0.780); and accuracy, 70.8% (95% CI, 68.8-72.4). Moreover, including age and menopausal status in the model further improved its performance (AUROC, 0.776; 95% CI, 0.762-0.790). The Framingham risk score yielded an AUROC of 0.736 (95% CI, 0.712-0.761). Mammography-based deep learning models showed promising results for predicting CAC, performing comparably to conventional risk models. This indicates mammography's potential for dual-risk assessment in breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Further research is necessary to validate these findings in diverse populations, with a particular focus on representation from national breast screening programmes.

Cost-effectiveness requirements for implementing artificial intelligence technology in the Women’s UK Breast Cancer Screening service

The UK NHS Women’s National Breast Screening programme aims to detect breast cancer early. The reference standard approach requires mammograms to be independently double-read by qualified radiology staff. If two readers disagree, arbitration by an independent reader is undertaken. Whilst this process maximises accuracy and minimises recall rates, the procedure is labour-intensive, adding pressure to a system currently facing a workforce crisis. Artificial intelligence technology offers an alternative to human readers. While artificial intelligence has been shown to be non-inferior versus human second readers, the minimum requirements needed (effectiveness, set-up costs, maintenance, etc) for such technology to be cost-effective in the NHS have not been evaluated. We developed a simulation model replicating NHS screening services to evaluate the potential value of the technology. Our results indicate that if non-inferiority is maintained, the use of artificial intelligence technology as a second reader is a viable and potentially cost-effective use of NHS resources.

Who does not benefit from our national breast screening programme and who should have oversight?

The recent report on the delays for mammography encountered by women in the Wellington Region reminds us that the organisation of cancer screening is far from straightforward, and we highlight these complexities in our viewpoint article. Screening can reduce mortality from cancer, but it is costly, and the benefits are many years in the future. Cancer screening can result in some individuals being over-diagnosed and over-treated, can impact on the services for symptomatic patients and can exacerbate inequities. Reviewing the quality, safety and acceptability of our breast screening programme is important but there is a need to acknowledge the role of the resulting clinical services, including the opportunity cost to symptomatic patients who seek healthcare in the same system.

What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study

BackgroundRisk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England’s NHS Breast Screening Programme.MethodsIndividual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2–4.99%), above average (moderate; 5–7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwo themes were produced: ‘From risk expectations to what’s my future health story?’ highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. ‘Being a good (woman) citizen’ where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up supportConclusionsRisk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.

A Brief Intervention for Improving Alcohol Literacy and Addressing Harmful Alcohol Use Among Women Attending an Australian Breast Screening Service (Health4her): Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

Alcohol consumption is a major modifiable risk factor for female breast cancer, even in small amounts. However, awareness of this risk remains low. National breast screening programs are uniquely positioned to provide timely and targeted health information and behavior change strategies to improve alcohol literacy and reduce consumption. A breast screening service is a novel health care setting for brief alcohol intervention, with the potential for extensive reach. This study aimed to conduct a formative evaluation with breast screening service consumers to understand the need for, and acceptability of, brief alcohol intervention in the breast screening setting and collaboratively design a brief alcohol intervention (Health4Her); to test the effectiveness of Health4Her in improving knowledge of alcohol as a breast cancer risk factor (primary outcome), improving alcohol literacy, and reducing consumption among women attending a breast screening service; and to examine the implementation strategy through process evaluation. This was a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation trial comprising a randomized controlled trial (RCT) alongside a mixed methods program evaluation guided by applicable elements of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Formative evaluation comprised a retrospective analysis of alcohol consumption data (n=49,240), a web-based survey (n=391), and focus groups and interviews (n=31) with breast screening service consumers. Women attending routine mammography, drinking at any level, were recruited to the single-site, double-blind RCT (n=558), and completed a baseline assessment before randomization (1:1) to receive Health4Her (alcohol brief intervention + lifestyle information) or control (lifestyle information) via animation on an iPad. Follow-up assessments were performed 4 and 12 weeks after randomization. The process evaluation included evaluation of trial administrative data, participant quantitative (n=497) and qualitative feedback (n=30), and site staff qualitative feedback (n=11). This research was funded in March and May 2019. Data collection for the formative evaluation and trial recruitment occurred between January and April 2020 and February and August 2021, respectively, with finalization of follow-up data collection in December 2021. Quantitative process evaluation data were collected during trial implementation, and collection of participant and staff feedback was finalized in December 2021. Results of the retrospective analysis of alcohol consumption data from breast screening service consumers is anticipated to be published in March 2023 and the results of the RCT to be published in March 2023. This study is anticipated to generate new substantial knowledge on the alcohol consumption and literacy needs of women attending breast screening and the extent to which these can be addressed using a novel, tailored brief alcohol intervention. The study design permits the evaluation of the effectiveness and implementation of Health4Her to predict and facilitate uptake in breast screening services. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04715516; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04715516. RR1-10.2196/44867.

One-year results of the national breast and cervical cancer screening program: Giresun province in the black sea region

Background/Aim: Increasing the survival rate of patients with breast and cervical cancers is possible by early diagnosis through screening individuals for cancer in the asymptomatic period. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the possibility of early diagnosis in breast and cervical cancers has decreased due to the decrease in cancer screening applications. The aim of cancer screening is to increase the survival of patients by detecting precancerous lesions early. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the application and results of breast and cervical cancer screening in the Black Sea region’s Giresun province. Methods: This is a cross-sectional and descriptive study. The results of patients who were admitted to the Giresun Early Diagnosis Cancer Screening and Education Center between July 1, 2021, and June 28, 2022, were examined. The mammography report results of women aged 40–69 years who applied to the cancer screening center for breast cancer screening, and the HPV and Pap smear results of the patients aged 30–65 years who applied for cervical cancer screening, were evaluated retrospectively through the public health management system. Mammography results were evaluated with BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Dated System) scoring. The type of HPV and the cytology results from cervical swab samples were analyzed for cervical cancer screening. Results: A total of 3567 people underwent mammography. Per the mammography results, the percentage of those with BIRADS 0 was 7.7% (n=278), the percentage of those with BIRADS 1–2 was 91% (n=3256), the percentage of those with BIRADS 4 was 0.7% (n=25), and the percentage of those with BIRADS 5 was 0.14% (n=5). HPV-DNA and cervical cytology examinations were performed for cervical cancer screening in 2326 patients. As a result of cervical cancer screening, HPV positivity was found in 6.44% (n=150) patients, and 14 different HPV types were found in the positive samples. When HPV types were examined, the two most common types were HPV type 16 (13.6%) and type 56 (11.9%). When the HPV types were examined in the positive samples, the two most common types were HPV type 16 (13.6%) and type 56 (11.9%). HPV type 18 was the least detected HPV type in patients (3.7%). When the Pap smear screening results of the 150 cases with positive screening results were examined, 3.33% were ASC-US (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), 22% were reported as infection, and 62.6% were normal. Conclusion: The role of primary care physicians directing patients registered in their coverage area to cancer screening programs is especially effective in raising society’s awareness and education on the issue. As a result, it is important that primary care physicians and related specialist physicians, together with cancer early detection and screening centers, adopt a supportive stance towards these programs in order for them to be implemented effectively.

Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage.

The development of screening mammography over 30 years has remarkedly reduced breast cancer-associated mortality by 20%-30% through detection of small cancer lesions at early stages. Yet breast screening programmes may function differently in each nation depending on the incidence rate, national legislation, local health infrastructure and training opportunities including feedback on performance. Mammography has been the frontline breast cancer screening tool for several decades; however, it is estimated that there are 15% to 35% of cancers missed on screening which are owing to perceptual and decision-making errors by radiologists and other readers. Furthermore, mammography screening is not available in all countries and the increased speed in the number of new breast cancer cases among less developed countries exceeds that of the developed world in recent decades. Studies conducted through the BreastScreen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST) training tools for breast screening readers have documented benchmarking and significant variation in diagnostic performances in screening mammogram test sets in different countries. The performance of the radiologists from less well-established breast screening countries such as China, Mongolia and Vietnam were significant lower in detecting early-stage cancers than radiologists from developed countries such as Australia, USA, Singapore, Italy. Differences in breast features and cancer presentations, discrepancies in the level of experiences in reading screening mammograms, the availability of high-quality national breast screening program and breast image interpretation training courses between developed and less developed countries are likely to have impact on the variation of readers' performances. Hence dedicated education training programs with the ability to tailor to different reader cohorts and different population presentations are suggested to ameliorate challenges in exposure to a range of cancer cases and improve the interpretation skills of local radiologists. Findings from this review provide a good understanding of the radiologist' performances and their improvement using the education interventions, primarily the BREAST program, which has been deployed in a large range of developing and developed countries in the last decade. Self-testing and immediate feedback loops have been shown to have important implications for benchmarking and improving the diagnostic accuracy in radiology worldwide for better breast cancer control.

Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.

Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.

The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a ‘think-aloud’ study

BackgroundRisk stratified breast cancer screening is being considered as a means of improving the balance of benefits and harms of mammography. Stratified screening requires the communication of risk estimates. We aimed to co-develop personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications for women attending routine mammography.MethodsWe conducted think-aloud interviews on prototype breast cancer risk letters and accompanying information leaflets with women receiving breast screening through the UK National Breast Screening Programme. Risk information was redesigned following feedback from 55 women in three iterations. A deductive thematic analysis of participants’ speech is presented.ResultsOverall, participants appreciated receiving their breast cancer risk. Their comments focused on positive framing and presentation of the risk estimate, a desire for detail on the contribution of individual risk factors to overall risk and effective risk management strategies, and clearly signposted support pathways.ConclusionProvision of breast cancer risk information should strive to be personal, understandable and meaningful. Risk information should be continually refined to reflect developments in risk management. Receipt of risk via letter is welcomed but concerns remain around the acceptability of informing women at higher risk in this way, highlighting a need for co-development of risk dissemination and support pathways.

Leadership in breast screening and the importance of appropriate communication during the early onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionIn England, the NHS National Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) offers routine breast screening to all women, some trans men and non-bionary people, between the ages of 50 years and up to their 71 st birthday, every 3 years. The unfolding Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 was understandably a time of great anxiety and concern. Culturally we were seeing strong behavioural shifts such as social distancing and a general change in all our daily life patterns. Conceptually, and as leaders, we understood the vulnerability we observed, but felt that we did not have the 'right language' and in fact lacked the relevant experience of how to address and communicate with staff and clients during this crisis. MethodsA semiotic, observational research project was utilised that aimed at providing insight how cultural behaviour was being shaped and expressed during the early onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in England. The recommendations of the project were then integrated and implemented into an action plan and subsequent practice. ResultsSemiotic analysis revealed that several factors (positive and negative) impacted on peoples' confidence and had practical and emotional implications. Eleven main codes which are belief systems about oneself and others were identified and expressed in a multitude of different ways revealing three main themes or needs i.e. Reassurance, Trust and Clarity. An action plan was developed in response to the project findings and recommendation were implemented. ConclusionsEffective leadership relies on situational awareness. Our semiotic project enabled us to find the 'right' language and communication style so that we could connect with staff at the time of crisis. Using our own expert staff, we empowered them by providing the correct, easily digestible resources to facilitate confidence across the service teams which in turn supported the delivery of high-quality breast screening at a time of great uncertainty. Implication for practice: We must learn to be agile and adaptive, both in our operational delivery and our communication styles.

Number of Convolution Layers and Convolution Kernel Determination and Validation for Multilayer Convolutional Neural Network: Case Study in Breast Lesion Screening of Mammographic Images

Mammography is a low-dose X-ray imaging technique that can detect breast tumors, cysts, and calcifications, which can aid in detecting potential breast cancer in the early stage and reduce the mortality rate. This study employed a multilayer convolutional neural network (MCNN) to screen breast lesions with mammographic images. Within the region of interest, a specific bounding box is used to extract feature maps before automatic image segmentation and feature classification are conducted. These include three classes, namely, normal, benign tumor, and malignant tumor. Multiconvolution processes with kernel convolution operations have noise removal and sharpening effects that are better than other image processing methods, which can strengthen the features of the desired object and contour and increase the classifier’s classification accuracy. However, excessive convolution layers and kernel convolution operations will increase the computational complexity, computational time, and training time for training the classifier. Thus, this study aimed to determine a suitable number of convolution layers and kernels to achieve a classifier with high learning performance and classification accuracy, with a case study in the breast lesion screening of mammographic images. The Mammographic Image Analysis Society Digital Mammogram Database (United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program) was used for experimental tests to determine the number of convolution layers and kernels. The optimal classifier’s performance is evaluated using accuracy (%), precision (%), recall (%), and F1 score to test and validate the most suitable MCNN model architecture.

Can breast care nurses improve discussions had about fertility preservation?

Of the women who are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, around 7% are under the age of 40 (Paluch-Shimon, et at. 2017). Excluding trials, the National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom starts at the age of 50, which means that younger women who present with a breast cancer are usually symptomatic and diagnosed at a later stage (Ribnikar et al, 2015) and due to this can be recommended a course of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy which commences promptly after diagnosis (Chollet-Hinton et al. 2016). Chemotherapy, among other treatments for breast cancer, are known to impact fertility which means it is of paramount importance that they are given the opportunity to discuss this in a timely manner with a fertility specialist (Paluch-Shimon et al, 2017). In the last ten years, only 55% of young women who commenced on treatments known to affect fertility were found to have been offered a referral to a fertility specialist at all (Banerjee and Tsiapali, 2016) and as few as 20.6% of young women were actually referred to discuss preservation (Goodman et al, 2012). Pennery (2015) conducted a study of 50 clinicians, of which 26% felt they did not have an appropriate referral pathway. Abe et al. (2016) found that clinicians felt that fertility preservation would delay breast cancer treatment and therefore did not prioritise preservation. Can breast care nurses assist in facilitating conversations around this topic, to enable informed decision making around the preservation of fertility?

Screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ, 2008-2020: An observational study.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the grade distribution of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in Ireland, in the context of the clinical trials currently underway to determine if active surveillance is a feasible management option for low-risk DCIS. BreastCheck is the national breast screening programme in Ireland, offering screening to women aged 50 to 69 every two years. This study was a secondary analysis of data collected by BreastCheck on all screen-detected DCIS diagnosed in the 12 years of nationwide screening. Incidence and detection rates were calculated. Descriptive analysis of the cases was performed and, for comparative analysis, grade of DCIS was analysed as a binary variable (high vs. low/intermediate) in keeping with the inclusion criteria for active surveillance trials. Analysis was performed in IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 26. Between 2008 and 2020, 2240 women were diagnosed with DCIS through BreastCheck; 876 (39.1%) were low/intermediate-grade. The overall incidence rate has remained relatively stable during this period. Women with low/intermediate-grade DCIS were younger than women with high-grade DCIS (56 (interquartile range: 56-61) years v 57 (interquartile range: 53-61) years; p < 0.001). They were also more likely to have been diagnosed at an initial screening episode compared with those who had high-grade lesions (42.5% v 29.0%; p < 0.001). If current clinical trials recommend active surveillance as a feasible option for DCIS, up to 40% of women with screen-detected DCIS may be eligible. These women are younger and often diagnosed on initial screening episode, so may require longer active follow-up.

The financial implications of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms in a national breast cancer screening program.

Objectives To determine the total annual screening and further-investigation costs of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms in the Australian population breast-screening program. Methods This economic analysis used aggregate-level retrospective cohort data of women screened at a breast-screening clinic. Counts and frequencies of each diagnostic workup-sequence recorded were scaled up to national figures and costed by estimating per-patient costs of procedures using screening clinic cost data. Main outcomes and measures estimated were percentage share of total annual screening and further-investigation costs for the Australian population breast-screening program of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms. Secondary outcomes determined were average costs of investigating each false-positive and true-positive mammogram. Sensitivity analyses involved recalculating results excluding subgroups of patients below and above the screening age range of 50-74 years. Results Of 8235 patients, the median age was 60.35 years with interquartile range of 54.17-67.17 years. A total of 15.4% (ranging from 13.4 to 15.4% under different scenarios) of total annual screening and further-investigation costs were from investigating false-positive mammograms. This exceeded the share of costs from investigating true-positives (13%). Conclusions We have developed a transparent and non-onerous approach for estimating the costs of false-positive and true-positive mammograms associated with the national breast-screening program. While determining an optimal balance between false-positives and true-positive rates must rely primarily on health outcomes, costs are an important consideration. We recommend that future research adopts and refines similar approaches to facilitate better monitoring of these costs, benchmark against estimates from other screening programs, and support optimal policy development.

Identifying barriers to Irish traveller women attending breast screening

IntroductionBreast cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in women, however Irish Traveller women have lower breast screening rates than that of the general population. This work aims to address the gap in knowledge of Irish Traveller womens’ perceptions of breast screening and the perceived barriers and enablers to attendance. MethodsThis phenomenological qualitative study involves interviews with Irish Traveller women and Health Care Professionals and discusses the incentives and barriers to attending breast screening mammography in Ireland. The work investigated attitudes and decision making amongst the Irish Traveller women across breast screening and breast health. The research investigated the participants knowledge, experience and opinions about the topic of Irish Traveller womens’ attendance at BreastCheck and breast health ResultsInfluences that create barriers to breast screening for Irish Traveller women include inequality and family/community support, fear, literacy and education, embarrassment and the health care professional, stress and appointment suitability. Findings also demonstrate inadequate data and information is available in Ireland regarding Irish Traveller women attending breast screening. ConclusionIrish Traveller women face several influences when it comes to attending breast screening. The existing Irish national breast screening programme provides a health promotion service however, it is impossible to assess poor attendance at screening without the presence of an ethnic identifier. It would be very beneficial for screening promotion to record the ethnicity of attendees for statistical progress. This would benefit Irish Traveller women by recording the progress of attendance in the breast screening programme and creating a need for awareness and education within the annual reports. Implications for practiceCreating awareness and educating Irish Traveller women about the breast screening programme may remove barriers and lead to improved attendance rates.

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in Ireland, 2008-2020: Screening Data related to Low-Risk Management Trials

Abstract Background Four clinical trials are on-going to determine if active surveillance is a feasible management option for patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), in response to concerns that breast cancer screening programmes have increased the incidence of DCIS, some of which may never progress to invasive cancer. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of screen-detected DCIS in Ireland through the BreastCheck, the national breast screening programme in Ireland (commenced 2000 but fully national since 2008). Methods This was a cross-sectional analysis of anonymised BreastCheck data provided by the National Screening Service, including all cases of screen-detected DCIS between 2008 and 2020. Statistical tests included Mann-Whitney U, Chi square, and multivariable logistic regression. Results 2,240 women were diagnosed with DCIS through BreastCheck between 2008 and 2020 (1353 (60.4%) high-grade and 876 (39.1%) low/intermediate grade). The overall rate of screen-detected DCIS incidence has remained relatively stable during this time. Women with high- grade DCIS were older than women with low/intermediate DCIS (57 (IQR 53-61) years v 56 (IQR 56-61) years; p &amp;lt; 0.001). They were also more likely to have been diagnosed at a subsequent screening episode than at an initial episode (71.0% v 57.5%; p &amp;lt; 0.001). After adjustment (deprivation score, screening unit and year) the odds ratio for high-grade was 1.62 (95% CI 1.30-2.03; p &amp;lt; 0.001) for subsequent compared with initial screening episode. Conclusions When trial results are available, these data will assist with service planning should active surveillance be approved as a management option. Based on trial inclusion criteria, up to 40% of women diagnosed with DCIS through BreastCheck may be eligible for consideration for active surveillance. These women are younger and often diagnosed on initial screening episode, so may require longer active follow-up. Key messages Majority of DCIS in national screening programme is high grade. Randomised controlled trial evidence will provide guidance on management of low-risk DCIS.

The relationship between missed breast cancers on mammography in a test-set based assessment scheme and real-life performance in a National Breast Screening Programme

PurposeThis retrospective study determined whether a test-set based assessment scheme (PERFORMS) used in a national breast screening programme could be used to predict real-life performance by investigating if the number of cancers missed by mammography readers in real-life related to the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set and whether real-life reading volumes affected performance. MethodData was obtained from consenting readers in the screening programme in England (NHSBSP) where double reading is standard. The rate of cancers missed by individual first readers but correctly identified by second readers was compared with the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set over a 3-year period. NHSBSP readers are required to interpret at least 1500 cases per year as a first reader, so results were compared between readers who exceeded this target and those that did not. Parametric and non-parametric correlations were calculated. ResultsAmongst the 536 readers, there was a highly significant positive correlation between the real-life and PERFORMS test-set missed cancer metrics (Pearson Correlation = 0.228, n = 536, p < .0001, Spearman's rho = 0.265, n = 536, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in rates of missed cancers between the 452 readers who exceeded the 1500 first read per year target and those who did not (t(94.2) = −1.87, p = .0643, r = 0.19). ConclusionsThe use of a test-set based assessment scheme accurately reflects real-life mammography reading performance, indicating that it can be a useful tool in identifying poor reader performance.

Impact of the suspension and restart of the Dutch breast cancer screening program on breast cancer incidence and stage during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national breast screening program to a halt in week 12, 2020. In week 26, the breast program was resumed at 40% capacity, which increased to 60% in week 34. We examined the impact of the suspension and restart of the screening program on the incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancer. We selected women aged 50–74, diagnosed during weeks 2–35 of 2018 (n = 7250), 2019 (n = 7302), or 2020 (n = 5306), from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Weeks 2–35 were divided in seven periods, based on events occurring at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected tumors was calculated overall and by age group, cT-stage, and cTNM-stage for each period in 2020, and compared to the incidence in the same period of 2018/2019 (averaged). The incidence of screen-detected tumors decreased during weeks 12–13, reached almost zero during weeks 14–25, and increased during weeks 26–35. Incidence of non-screen-detected tumors decreased to a lesser extent during weeks 12–16. The decrease in incidence was seen in all age groups and mainly occurred for cTis, cT1, DCIS, and stage I tumors. Due to the suspension of the breast cancer screening program, and the restart at reduced capacity, the incidence of screen-detected breast tumors decreased by 67% during weeks 9–35 2020, which equates to about 2000 potentially delayed breast cancer diagnoses. Up to August 2020 there was no indication of a shift towards higher stage breast cancers after restart of the screening.