Improving breast cancer screening in Australia: a public health perspective

There are currently no single disruptors to breast cancer screening akin to the impact of human papillomavirus testing and vaccination on cervical cancer screening. However, there is a groundswell of interest to review the BreastScreen Australia program to consider more risk-based screening protocols and to establish whether to routinely inform women about their breast density. We propose a framework for a considered, evidence-based review. Population-level effectiveness of breast cancer screening is ultimately measured through its impact on breast cancer mortality, and this has been realised in Australia. Effectiveness can also be measured through treatment intensity, estimated overdiagnosis, false-positive screens and health economics measures. Key levers to improve such population-level outcomes include screening participation, screening test sensitivity and specificity, risk assessment and screening protocols. We propose that the review of the program should fall under an evidence-based, consensus-guided framework comprising four complementary elements: improved evidence on current program performance for population risk subgroups; regularly updated evidence on key levers for change; clinical trials and population simulation modelling working in tandem; and consensus-based decision making about the degree of improvement required to justify change. Informing women about their breast density is feasible and would be valued by some BreastScreen clients to help understand the accuracy of their screening test. However, without agreed protocols for screening women with dense breasts, increases in supplemental screening as observed in other settings would, in Australia, shift screening costs to clients and Medicare. This would reduce equity of access to population screening, and maintaining BreastScreen’s usual standard of monitoring and quality management (such as screen-detected and interval cancer diagnoses, and imaging and biopsy rates) would require data linkage between BreastScreen and other services. The proposed framework assesses screening effectiveness in the era of personalised medicine, allows review of multiple factors that may together warrant change, and gives full, evidence-based consideration of the benefits, harms and costs of various approaches to breast cancer screening. To be effective, the framework requires a coordinated approach to generating the evidence required for policy makers, with time to prepare appropriate health services

Factors related to vaccine uptake by young adult women in the catch-up phase of the National HPV Vaccination Program in Australia: Results from an observational study

AbstractBackgroundAustralia commenced a publically-funded, National Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program in 2007 with a two year catch-up phase for females aged 12–26 years.ObjectiveTo identify the factors associated with the uptake of the HPV vaccine (which has a recommended 3-dose schedule in Australia) by young adult women vaccinated by general practitioners and community-based programs within the catch-up phase.Methods1139 women who were eligible to receive the free HPV vaccine during the catch-up period were recruited in 2008–2009 (age 20–29 years at recruitment), in New South Wales, after having a normal (negative) cervical smear result recorded on the NSW Pap Test Register. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire providing information on vaccination status, and sociodemographic and other factors.ResultsOverall, 880 (77%) women reported receiving ≥1 dose of the vaccine and 777 women (68%) reported receiving ≥2 doses. In multivariable analysis (adjusting for the period for which each woman was eligible for free HPV vaccination), uptake of ≥1 dose of the vaccine was significantly associated with being born in Australia (p<0.01), being single (p=0.02), being nulliparous (p<0.01), living in a higher socioeconomic status area (p-trend=0.03), living in more remote areas (p=0.03), drinking alcohol (p<0.01) and using hormonal contraceptives (p<0.01). Although vaccinated women were more likely to have fewer sexual partners than unvaccinated women (p-trend=0.02), they were also more likely to report a prior sexually transmitted infection (STI) (p=0.03). Similar factors were associated with receiving ≥2 doses.ConclusionsIn this group, women living in higher socioeconomic status areas were more likely to be vaccinated against HPV in the catch-up phase of the national program. Although vaccinated women tended to have fewer sexual partners, they also reported prior STIs, which may be a marker of increased risk of prior exposure to HPV. The findings of this study reinforce the continuing need to prioritise equitable delivery of vaccination to various population subgroups

Prospective validation of the NCI breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (Gail Model) on 40,000 Australian women

There is a growing interest in delivering more personalised, risk-based breast cancer screening protocols. This requires population-level validation of practical models that can stratify women into breast cancer risk groups. Few studies have evaluated the Gail model (NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool) in a population screening setting; we validated this tool in a large, screened population. Methods We used data from 40,158 women aged 50–69 years (via the lifepool cohort) participating in Australia’s BreastScreen programme. We investigated the association between Gail scores and future invasive breast cancer, comparing observed and expected outcomes by Gail score ranked groups. We also used machine learning to rank Gail model input variables by importance and then assessed the incremental benefit in risk prediction obtained by adding variables in order of diminishing importance. Results Over a median of 4.3 years, the Gail model predicted 612 invasive breast cancers compared with 564 observed cancers (expected/observed (E/O) = 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.18). There was good agreement across decile groups of Gail scores (χ2 = 7.1, p = 0.6) although there was some overestimation of cancer risk in the top decile of our study group (E/O = 1.65, 95% CI 1.33–2.07). Women in the highest quintile (Q5) of Gail scores had a 2.28-fold increased risk of breast cancer (95% CI 1.73–3.02, p < 0.0001) compared with the lowest quintile (Q1). Compared with the median quintile, women in Q5 had a 34% increased risk (95% CI 1.06–1.70, p = 0.014) and those in Q1 had a 41% reduced risk (95% CI 0.44–0.79, p < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed separately for women aged 50–59 and 60–69 years. The model’s overall discrimination was modest (area under the curve (AUC) 0.59, 95% CI 0.56–0.61). A reduced Gail model excluding information on ethnicity and hyperplasia was comparable to the full Gail model in terms of correctly stratifying women into risk groups. Conclusions This study confirms that the Gail model (or a reduced model excluding information on hyperplasia and ethnicity) can effectively stratify a screened population aged 50–69 years according to the risk of future invasive breast cancer. This information has the potential to enable more personalised, risk-based screening strategies that aim to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening

The financial impact of a breast cancer detected within and outside of screening: lessons from the Australian Lifepool cohort

OBJECTIVE: To determine the government and out-of-pocket community costs (out-of-hospital medical services and prescription medicines) associated with screen-detected and community-detected cancers (i.e. cancers detected outside of Australia's organised screening program [BreastScreen]). METHODS: We analyse administrative data on government-subsidised medical services and prescription medicines for 568 Victorian women diagnosed with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Using multivariable regression analysis, we estimate the government and out-of-pocket community costs incurred in the three years after diagnosis for screen-detected cancers and community-detected cancers. Additionally, we estimate the government costs associated with diagnosis within and outside of BreastScreen. RESULTS: Average government costs for breast cancer diagnosis were similar within and outside of BreastScreen [$808 (lower limit 676; upper limit 940) vs$837 (95%CI 671; 1,003) respectively]; however, women with community-detected cancers incurred an additional $254 (95$2,622 (95%CI 644; 4,776) in government expenditure in the three years following diagnosis. Adverse cancer characteristics that were more prevalent in community-detected cancers (high grade, lymph node involvement, HER2 positive receptor status) were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: Community-detected breast cancers were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs. Implications for public health: These costs should be considered when evaluating current and alternative breast cancer screening strategies

Clinical validation of the cobas HPV test on the cobas 6800 system for the purpose of cervical screening

This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay. The cobas HPV test detected over 98% of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) lesions in women age 30 years or older, with a specificity of 98.9% compared with the reference cobas 4800 test. Both the intra- and interlaboratory agreement for the cobas HPV test were 98%. The clinical performance of the cobas HPV test is comparable to those of longitudinally validated HPV assays and fulfills the criteria for its use in primary cervical screening