Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort

This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal (references GA10-033 and GA13-006). This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant RP-PG-0707-10031). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors also acknowledge the support of Medical Research Council Health eResearch Centre grant MR/K006665/1

Validation of the IBIS breast cancer risk evaluator for women with lobular carcinoma in-situ.

BACKGROUND: Management advice for women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is hampered by the lack of accurate personalised risk estimates for subsequent invasive breast cancer (BC). Prospective validation of the only tool that estimates individual BC risk for a woman with LCIS, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Risk Evaluation Tool (IBIS-RET), is lacking. METHODS: Using population-based cancer registry data for 732 women with LCIS, the calibration and discrimination accuracy of IBIS-RET Version 7.2 were assessed. RESULTS: The mean observed 10-year risk of invasive BC was 14.1% (95% CI:11.3%-17.5%). IBIS-RET overestimated invasive BC risk (p = 0.0003) and demonstrated poor discriminatory accuracy (AUC 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48 - 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should understand that IBIS-RET Version 7.2 may overestimate 10-year invasive BC risk for Australian women with LCIS. The newer IBIS-RET Version 8.0, released September 2017, includes mammographic density and may perform better, but validation is needed

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease