Influence on screening performance of second reading strategies in two lowvolume programs

BACKGROUND: The European Guidelines specify a minimum of 5,000 screening cases to be read yearly by radiologists carrying out second reading in non-centralized programs. This professional requirement is difficult to reach and/or to implement in regional programs covering a sparse population with a high number of participating radiology units, so that alternative blind double reading strategies must be devised. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on breast cancer screening performances of two second reading strategies used in non-centralized, low-volume programs. METHODS: Reading performances in two Swiss regional breast cancer screening programs (cantons of Wallis and Vaud), covering female populations, aged 50-69, of about 31'000 and 72'000 inhabitants were computed and compared. Both programs had similar screening regimens and organizations, but differed with respect to second reading. One setting applied a selective strategy whereby only experienced radiologists performed second reading; the other elicited not to restrict second readers on the basis of their individual screening activity. Analysis included some 140,000 mammograms performed between 1999 and 2005. RESULTS: Overall, screening performances improved with increasing total volume of reading, albeit not in a linear fashion. Regardless of setting, radiologists attained a higher level of screening accuracy when performing second rather than first readings, and incident rather than prevalent screening cases. The effect of a selective, small group of second readers appeared to impact favorably on the false-positive rate and other indicators of screening quality. As the learning curve depends on the number of mammograms read, these distinct strategies may bear different outcome in the long run. Implications and practical issues for low-volume programs are discussed.

The rise and fall in menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer incidence.

Studies conducted in different areas of North America and Europe showed a 5-10% decline in the incidence of breast cancer following reductions up to 70% in menopause hormone therapy (HT) use after 2002. The observation that the decline was larger in (or limited to) women aged > or =50 years weighs in favour of an effect of reduced HT use on breast cancer incidence. However, changes in screening are also likely to play a role in the decreasing incidence of breast cancer observed in several countries. In particular, the technical improvements and the increased effectiveness of breast cancer screening and detection during the 1990s led to a decreased number of pre-clinical cases found by screening in subsequent years. Further, disentangling the effects of HT use and screening is difficult, as women who stop using HT may also undergo mammography screening less frequently. Thus, the reasons of the falls in incidence remain open to discussion.

Lessons From the Swiss Medical Board Recommendation Against Mammography Screening Programs

When the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009 recommended against universal breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years, some scientists, radiologists, politicians, and patients strongly objected. The controversy has been called the "mammography wars." The latest chapter in these wars comes from the Swiss Medical Board, which is mandated by the Conference of Health Ministers of the Swiss Cantons, the Swiss Medical Association, and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences to conduct health technology assessments. In a February 2014 report, the Swiss Medical Board stated that new systematic mammography screening programs should not be introduced, irrespective of the age of the women, and that existing programs should be discontinued. The board's main argument was that the absolute reduction in breast cancer mortality was low and that the adverse consequences of the screening were substantial. The absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality has been estimated by the board at 0.16% for women screened during 6.2 years and followed-up over 13 years, based on the results of a recent Cochrane Review. The adverse consequences include falsepositive test results, overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients, and high costs, including the expense of follow-up testing and procedures.

Prévention primaire et dépistage chez l'adulte: mise à jour 2006 [Primary prevention and screening in adults: update 2006]

Several diseases can be prevented either by primary prevention, such as immunisation or behavioural counselling, or secondary prevention such as screening. The new clinical recommendations include screening of abdominal aortic aneurysm among male smokers and ex-smokers aged between 65 and 75 years and the extension of breast cancer screening by mammography for women aged between 40 and 49 years, as well as screening for diabetes among patients with hypertension or dyslipidemia.

American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested.

Uses of cancer registries for public health and clinical research in Europe : results of the European Network of Cancer Registries survey among 161 population-based cancer registries during 2010-2012

AIM: To provide insight into cancer registration coverage, data access and use in Europe. This contributes to data and infrastructure harmonisation and will foster a more prominent role of cancer registries (CRs) within public health, clinical policy and cancer research, whether within or outside the European Research Area. METHODS: During 2010-12 an extensive survey of cancer registration practices and data use was conducted among 161 population-based CRs across Europe. Responding registries (66%) operated in 33 countries, including 23 with national coverage. RESULTS: Population-based oncological surveillance started during the 1940-50s in the northwest of Europe and from the 1970s to 1990s in other regions. The European Union (EU) protection regulations affected data access, especially in Germany and France, but less in the Netherlands or Belgium. Regular reports were produced by CRs on incidence rates (95%), survival (60%) and stage for selected tumours (80%). Evaluation of cancer control and quality of care remained modest except in a few dedicated CRs. Variables evaluated were support of clinical audits, monitoring adherence to clinical guidelines, improvement of cancer care and evaluation of mass cancer screening. Evaluation of diagnostic imaging tools was only occasional. CONCLUSION: Most population-based CRs are well equipped for strengthening cancer surveillance across Europe. Data quality and intensity of use depend on the role the cancer registry plays in the politico, oncomedical and public health setting within the country. Standard registration methodology could therefore not be translated to equivalent advances in cancer prevention and mass screening, quality of care, translational research of prognosis and survivorship across Europe. Further European collaboration remains essential to ensure access to data and comparability of the results.

Abolishing mammography screening programs?

Biller-Andorno and Jüni (2014), in a widely debated commentary published in the May 22 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, accept the concept that mammography every 2 years from age 50 can decrease breast cancer mortality by 20%, that is, from five to four deaths per 1000 women over a 10-year period. Both the absolute and the relative risk of breast cancer death may vary depending on the baseline mortality rates in various populations and on the impact of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality, which may well vary around the 20% estimate adopted. We accept, therefore, that there are still uncertainties in the absolute and relative impact of mammography screening on breast cancer mortality, given the different study schemes and mammography intervals, the differences in populations, and the continuous improvements in technology (Warner, 2011; Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, 2012). We also agree on the observation that mammography has an appreciable impact on breast cancer mortality (Bosetti et al., 2012), but clearly a much smaller one on total mortality.

Rapport du monitoring 2012 des programmes suisses de dépistage du cancer du sein : un bref bilan

Avec le rapport de monitoring 2012, swiss cancer screening rend compte pour la troisième fois de la qualité de ses programmes de dépistage du cancer du sein organisés de manière cantonale. Dans ce cadre, plusieurs indicateurs définis sont examinés chaque année, et la qualité est comparée aux lignes directrices européennes pour l'assurance qualité.

Patient and physician gender concordance in preventive care in university primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of preventive care according to physician and patient gender in a country with universal health care coverage. METHODS: We assessed a retrospective cohort study of 1001 randomly selected patients aged 50-80years followed over 2years (2005-2006) in 4 Swiss university primary care settings (Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Zürich). We used indicators derived from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools and examined percentages of recommended preventive care. Results were adjusted using hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 1001 patients (44% women) were followed by 189 physicians (52% women). Female patients received less preventive care than male patients (65.2% vs. 72.1%, p<0.001). Female physicians provided significantly more preventive care than male physicians (p=0.01) to both female (66.7% vs. 63.6%) and male patients (73.4% vs. 70.7%). After multivariate adjustment, differences according to physician (p=0.02) and patient gender (p<0.001) remained statistically significant. Female physicians provided more recommended cancer screening than male physicians (78.4 vs. 71.9%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In Swiss university primary care settings, female patients receive less preventive care than male patients, with female physicians providing more preventive care than male physicians. Greater attention should be paid to female patients in preventive care and to why female physicians tend to provide better preventive care.

Older persons' perceptions of general practitioner or specialist primary care physicians : same point of view?

BACKGROUND: Identification of a Primary Care Physician (PCP) by older patients is considered as essential for the coordination of care, but the extent to which identified PCPs are general practitioners or specialists is unknown. This study described older patients' experiences with their PCP and tested the hypothesis of differences between patients who identify a specialist as their PCP (SP PCP) and those who turn to a general practitioner (GP PCP). METHODS: In 2012, a cross-sectional postal survey on care was conducted in the 68+ year old population of the canton of Vaud. Data was provided by 2,276 participants in the ongoing Lausanne cohort 65+ (Lc65+), a study of those born between 1934 and 1943, and by 998 persons from an additional sample drawn to include the population outside of Lausanne or born before 1934. RESULTS: Participants expressed favourable perceptions, at rates exceeding 75% for most items. However, only 38% to 51% responded positively for out-of-hours availability, easy access and at home visits, likelihood of prescribing expensive medication if needed, and doctors' awareness of over-the-counter drugs. 12.0% had an SP PCP, in 95.9% specialised in a discipline implying training in internal medicine. Bivariate and multivariate analyses did not result in significant differences between GP and SP PCPs regarding perceptions of accessibility/availability, doctor-patient relationship, information and continuity of care, prevention, spontaneous use of the emergency department or ambulatory care utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of old patients were mostly positive despite some lack in reported hearing, memory testing, and colorectal cancer screening. We found no differences between GP and SP PCP groups.

The quality of primary care in a country with universal health care coverage.

BACKGROUND: Standard indicators of quality of care have been developed in the United States. Limited information exists about quality of care in countries with universal health care coverage.OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of preventive care and care for cardiovascular risk factors in a country with universal health care coverage.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of 1,002 patients aged 50-80 years followed for 2 years from all Swiss university primary care settings.MAIN MEASURES: We used indicators derived from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools. Each indicator was scored by dividing the number of episodes when recommended care was delivered by the number of times patients were eligible for indicators. Aggregate scores were calculated by taking into account the number of eligible patients for each indicator.KEY RESULTS: Overall, patients (44% women) received 69% of recommended preventive care, but rates differed by indicators. Indicators assessing annual blood pressure and weight measurements (both 95%) were more likely to be met than indicators assessing smoking cessation counseling (72%), breast (40%) and colon cancer screening (35%; all p < 0.001 for comparisons with blood pressure and weight measurements). Eighty-three percent of patients received the recommended care for cardiovascular risk factors, including > 75% for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes. However, foot examination was performed only in 50% of patients with diabetes. Prevention indicators were more likely to be met in men (72.2% vs 65.3% in women, p < 0.001) and patients < 65 years (70.1% vs 68.0% in those a parts per thousand yen65 years, p = 0.047).CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized tools, these adults received 69% of recommended preventive care and 83% of care for cardiovascular risk factors in Switzerland, a country with universal coverage. Prevention indicator rates were lower for women and the elderly, and for cancer screening. Our study helps pave the way for targeted quality improvement initiatives and broader assessment of health care in Continental Europe.

Physicians' attitudes towards prevention: importance of intervention-specific barriers and physicians' health habits.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have explored physicians' attitudes towards prevention and barriers to the delivery of preventive health interventions. However, the relative importance of these previously identified barriers, both in general terms and in the context of a number of specific preventive interventions, has not been identified. Certain barriers may only pertain to a subset of preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the relative importance of identified barriers to preventive interventions and to explore the association between physicians' characteristics and their attitudes towards prevention. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 496 of the 686 (72.3% response rate) generalist physicians from three Swiss cantons through a questionnaire asking physicians to rate the general importance of eight preventive health strategies and the relative importance of seven commonly cited barriers in relation to each specific preventive health strategy. RESULTS: The proportion of physicians rating each preventive intervention as being important varied from 76% for colorectal cancer screening to 100% for blood pressure control. Lack of time and lack of patient interest were generally considered to be important barriers by 41% and 44% of physicians, respectively, but the importance of these two barriers tended to be specifically higher for counselling-based interventions. Lack of training was most notably a barrier to counselling about alcohol and nutrition. Four characteristics of physicians predicted negative attitudes toward alcohol and smoking counselling: consumption of more than three alcoholic drinks per day [odds ratio (OR) = 8.4], sedentary lifestyle (OR = 3.4), lack of national certification (OR = 2.2) and lack of awareness of their own blood pressure (OR = 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: The relative importance of specific barriers varies across preventive interventions. This points to a need for tailored practice interventions targeting the specific barriers that impede a given preventive service. The negative influence of physicians' own health behaviours indicates a need for associated population-based interventions that reduce the prevalence of high-risk behaviours in the population as a whole.