What should the detection rates of cancers be in breast screening programmes?

Minimum detection rates at screening are sometimes laid down as standards for breast cancer screening programmes, based on underlying incidence of the disease in the age group screened. Detection rates should also depend on desired sensitivity, mean sojourn time, interscreening interval and the screening round – that is, prevalent (first) or incident (second or subsequent). In this paper, we use these quantities to derive expected, minimum and maximum detection rates proportional to the underlying incidence as well as estimated underlying incidence rates from extrapolation of prescreening trends in England and Wales to derive alternative standard minimum, expected and maximum detection rates per 1000 women screened for the UK Breast Screening Programme, as follows: minimum detection rates should be 4.1 and 4.3 at prevalence screen and incidence screens, respectively; expected rates should be 6.9 and 4.8 and maximum rates of 9.6 and 5.5. These are consistent with observed detection rates in the UK programme

Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960

BACKGROUND: Typically, lifetime risk is calculated by the period method using current risks at different ages. Here, we estimate the probability of being diagnosed with cancer for individuals born in a given year, by estimating future risks as the cohort ages. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime risk of cancer in Britain separately for men and women born in each year from 1930 to 1960. We projected rates of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and of all cancer deaths forwards using a flexible age-period-cohort model and backwards using age-specific extrapolation. The sensitivity of the estimated lifetime risk to the method of projection was explored. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of cancer increased from 38.5% for men born in 1930 to 53.5% for men born in 1960. For women it increased from 36.7 to 47.5%. Results are robust to different models for projections of cancer rates. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime risk of cancer for people born since 1960 is >50%. Over half of people who are currently adults under the age of 65 years will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime

Age-Related Differences in Susceptibility to Carcinogenesis. II. Approaches for Application and Uncertainty Analyses for Individual Genetically Acting Carcinogens

In an earlier report we developed a quantitative likelihood-based analysis of the differences in sensitivity of rodents to mutagenic carcinogens across three life stages (fetal, birth to weaning, and weaning to 60 days) relative to exposures in adult life. Here we draw implications for assessing human risks for full lifetime exposures, taking into account three types of uncertainties in making projections from the rodent data: uncertainty in the central estimates of the life-stage–specific sensitivity factors estimated earlier, uncertainty from chemical-to-chemical differences in life-stage–specific sensitivities for carcinogenesis, and uncertainty in the mapping of rodent life stages to human ages/exposure periods. Among the uncertainties analyzed, the mapping of rodent life stages to human ages/exposure periods is most important quantitatively (a range of several-fold in estimates of the duration of the human equivalent of the highest sensitivity “birth to weaning” period in rodents). The combined effects of these uncertainties are estimated with Monte Carlo analyses. Overall, the estimated population arithmetic mean risk from lifetime exposures at a constant milligrams per kilogram body weight level to a generic mutagenic carcinogen is about 2.8-fold larger than expected from adult-only exposure with 5–95% confidence limits of 1.5-to 6-fold. The mean estimates for the 0- to 2-year and 2- to 15-year periods are about 35–55% larger than the 10- and 3-fold sensitivity factor adjustments recently proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The present results are based on data for only nine chemicals, including five mutagens. Risk inferences will be altered as data become available for other chemicals

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data

There is a delicate balance between the favourable and unfavourable side-effects of screening in general. Overdiagnosis, the detection of breast cancers by screening that would otherwise never have been clinically diagnosed but are now consequently treated, is such an unfavourable side effect. To correctly model the natural history of breast cancer, one has to estimate mean durations of the different pre-clinical phases, transition probabilities to clinical cancer stages, and sensitivity of the applied test based on observed screen and clinical data. The Dutch data clearly show an increase in screen-detected cases in the 50 to 74 year old age group since the introduction of screening, and a decline in incidence around age 80 years. We had estimated that 3% of total incidence would otherwise not have been diagnosed clinically. This magnitude is no reason not to offer screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. The increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are primarily due to mammography screening, but DCIS still remains a relatively small proportion of the total breast cancer problem

Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years

Debate continues over the effectiveness of screening by mammography in women below age 50. We report here on results of screening in the first 10 years of a randomised trial to study the effect on breast cancer mortality of invitation to annual mammography from age 40 to 41 compared to first invitation to the 3-yearly UK national programme at age 50–52. The trial is taking place in 23 NHS breast screening centres. Between 1991 and 1997, 160 921 women were randomised in the ratio 1 : 2 to intervention and control arms. Screening is by two views at first screen and single view subsequently; data on screening up to and including round five are now complete. Uptake of invitation to screening is between 68 and 70% at all but the latest screening rounds. Rates of referral for assessment are 4.6% at first screen and 3.4% at subsequent screens. Invasive cancer detection rates are 0.09% at first screen, and similar at rescreens until the sixth and later screens. There is little evidence of regular mammography in the trial control arm. The setting of this trial within the NHS breast screening programme should ensure applicability of results to a national programme

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with non-specific acute low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference −26.1 (95% confidence intervals −34.0 to −18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (−26.1 (−38.5 to −13.6)), pregabalin (−24.7 (−34.6 to −14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.MAW was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MKB was supported by a PhD Candidature Scholarship and Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MCF was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia, and the Edward C Dunn Foundation Scholarship. RRNR was supported by the School of Medical Sciences Postgraduate Research Scholarship from the University of New South Wales and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. HBL was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. SSh was supported by the International Association for the Study of Pain John J Bonica Postdoctoral Fellowship. CGM was supported by an NHMRC Leadership 3 Fellowship (App 1194283). SMG was supported by a Research Fellowship from the Rebecca L Cooper Foundation. AN was supported by personal fellowship (P400PM_186723) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. This study received project support funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English. The funder had played no part in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection: Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis: Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results: 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions: The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD4201914525