Observed and predicted risk of breast cancer death in randomized trials on breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND: The role of breast screening in breast cancer mortality declines is debated. Screening impacts cancer mortality through decreasing the number of advanced cancers with poor diagnosis, while cancer treatment works through decreasing the case-fatality rate. Hence, reductions in cancer death rates thanks to screening should directly reflect reductions in advanced cancer rates. We verified whether in breast screening trials, the observed reductions in the risk of breast cancer death could be predicted from reductions of advanced breast cancer rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Greater New York Health Insurance Plan trial (HIP) is the only breast screening trial that reported stage-specific cancer fatality for the screening and for the control group separately. The Swedish Two-County trial (TCT)) reported size-specific fatalities for cancer patients in both screening and control groups. We computed predicted numbers of breast cancer deaths, from which we calculated predicted relative risks (RR) and (95% confidence intervals). The Age trial in England performed its own calculations of predicted relative risk. RESULTS: The observed and predicted RR of breast cancer death were 0.72 (0.56-0.94) and 0.98 (0.77-1.24) in the HIP trial, and 0.79 (0.78-1.01) and 0.90 (0.80-1.01) in the Age trial. In the TCT, the observed RR was 0.73 (0.62-0.87), while the predicted RR was 0.89 (0.75-1.05) if overdiagnosis was assumed to be negligible and 0.83 (0.70-0.97) if extra cancers were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In breast screening trials, factors other than screening have contributed to reductions in the risk of breast cancer death most probably by reducing the fatality of advanced cancers in screening groups. These factors were the better management of breast cancer patients and the underreporting of breast cancer as the underlying cause of death. Breast screening trials should publish stage-specific fatalities observed in each group

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016

Female Hormonal Factors and the Risk of Endometrial Cancer in Lynch Syndrome

Apart from hysterectomy, there is no consensus recommendation for reducing endometrial cancer risk for women with a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation (Lynch syndrome)

Aspirin, Ibuprofen, and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Lynch Syndrome

Inheritance of a germline mutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 causes a high risk of colorectal and other cancers (Lynch Syndrome). Use of aspirin has been shown to be associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer for the general population as well as for MMR gene mutation carriers. The aim of this study was to determine whether use of aspirin and ibuprofen in a nontrial setting is associated with the risk of colorectal cancer risk for MMR gene mutation carriers

The health and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance

Abstract Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has profound consequences for the treatment of infections. By limiting treatment options, it often makes it necessary to resort to antibiotics with a broader spectrum of action some of which are potentially less effective or safe than narrow-spectrum antibiotics. This limitation in our ability to treat infections effectively has an impact on health care budgets but also broader and potentially disastrous consequences on a variety of economic sectors. This presentation provides an overview of the health and economic burden of AMR. It first presents the current state of knowledge on the epidemiology of AMR and discusses the main analytical challenges in determining the current and long-term effects of resistance on populations in terms of morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. In addition, a summary of the current literature on the economic impact of AMR is provided along with a detailed discussion of the characteristics and limitations of existing economic models. Finally, it identifies the main knowledge gaps and suggests avenues for future research and approaches to address them.</jats:p