Northern Ireland cervical screening programme: information for primary care and smear takers

From January 2011, the Northern Ireland cervical screening programme no longer invited women aged under 25 to attend for screening. In addition, the screening interval for women aged 25-49 was reduced to every three years.This�booklet describes the rationale for the change in policy so that primary care staff and smear takers can provide appropriate and accurate advice to patients.

Sixty to seventy-four? It's time you took the test for bowel cancer

This poster highlights the bowel cancer screening programme is being introduced for all 60 to 74 year olds. If you are in this age group a kit will be sent by post so you can do the test at home. You are encouraged to look out for the kit as it could save your life.

Cervical screening: your results explained (English and 11 translations)

Testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) as triage and test of cure was introduced into the Northern Ireland Cervical Screening Programme on Monday 28 January 2013. This policy change will significantly alter the screening pathway for women with a mild dyskaryosis or borderline smear result.

Cervical cancer: it's best to take the test (English and 11 translations)

Testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) as triage and test of cure was introduced into the Northern Ireland Cervical Screening Programme on Monday 28 January 2013. This policy change will significantly alter the screening pathway for women with a mild dyskaryosis or borderline smear result.

Prévention primaire et dépistage chez l'adulte: mise a jour 2014 [Primary prevention and screening in adults: update 2014].

Cet article propose une mise à jour des recommandations pour le bilan de santé et la prévention primaire et secondaire de nombreuses maladies cardiovasculaires et oncologiques. Les nouveautés pour le dépistage des cancers concernent essentiellement les cancers colorectal, du poumon et de la prostate. Pour la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires, le dépistage de la sténose de l'artère carotidienne n'est toujours pas recommandé. Les preuves de la littérature sont insuffisantes pour recommander le dépistage de l'artériopathie coronarienne ou périphérique chez les patients asymptomatiques. Le partage de l'information et de la décision entre le médecin et le patient est à privilégier lorsqu'il existe une incertitude quant à l'efficacité d'une intervention. This article provides an update on the recommendations for the routine check-up and the primary and secondary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Changes for cancer screening affect mainly colorectal, lung and prostate cancers. In the area of cardiovascular disease prevention, screening for carotid artery stenosis is still not recommended. The current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening for coronary heart disease or peripheral artery disease in asymptomatic patients. Shared information and decision making between physician and patient is recommended when there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of an intervention.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of modern screening mammography programmes

Context: The debate about the balance of risks and benefits of mammography screening has prompted a comprehensive review by an independent panel in the UK. However, the panel's remit did not cover the important economic dimension of breast cancer screening. Methods: The life histories of two cohort studies of 50-year-old women, who would be eligible within the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme (NHSBSP), were simulated over 35 years, using a life table approach. One cohort participant was offered screening at age 50 and triennially thereafter until age 70, assuming 75% attendance, while the other received no screening. Based on the findings from the panel's report, the cost-effectiveness of the NHSBSP was assessed for various scenarios of screening effect on breast cancer incidence (base case scenario: screening advances diagnosis by 5 years; 10% incidence reduction after screening stops).

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.

Effectiveness of early detection on breast cancer mortality reduction in Catalonia (Spain)

Background: At present, it is complicated to use screening trials to determine the optimal age intervals and periodicities of breast cancer early detection. Mathematical models are an alternative that has been widely used. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of different breast cancer early detection strategies in Catalonia (Spain), in terms of breast cancer mortality reduction (MR) and years of life gained (YLG), using the stochastic models developed by Lee and Zelen (LZ). Methods: We used the LZ model to estimate the cumulative probability of death for a cohort exposed to different screening strategies after T years of follow-up. We also obtained the cumulative probability of death for a cohort with no screening. These probabilities were used to estimate the possible breast cancer MR and YLG by age, period and cohort of birth. The inputs of the model were: incidence of, mortality from and survival after breast cancer, mortality from other causes, distribution of breast cancer stages at diagnosis and sensitivity of mammography. The outputs were relative breast cancer MR and YLG. Results: Relative breast cancer MR varied from 20% for biennial exams in the 50 to 69 age interval to 30% for annual exams in the 40 to 74 age interval. When strategies differ in periodicity but not in the age interval of exams, biennial screening achieved almost 80% of the annual screening MR. In contrast to MR, the effect on YLG of extending screening from 69 to 74 years of age was smaller than the effect of extending the screening from 50 to 45 or 40 years. Conclusion: In this study we have obtained a measure of the effect of breast cancer screening in terms of mortality and years of life gained. The Lee and Zelen mathematical models have been very useful for assessing the impact of different modalities of early detection on MR and YLG in Catalonia (Spain).

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.