Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density

Purpose: To compare tumor characteristics and risk factors of interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers, taking mammographic density into account. Patients and Methods: Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in Stockholm, Sweden, with data on tumor characteristics (n 4,091), risk factors, and mammographic density (n 1,957) were included. Logistic regression was used to compare interval breast cancers with screen- detected breast cancers, overall and by highest and lowest quartiles of percent mammo- graphic density. Results: Compared with screen-detected breast cancers, interval breast cancers in nondense breasts ( 20% mammographic density) were significantly more likely to exhibit lymph node involvement (odds ratio [OR], 3.55; 95% CI, 1.74 to 7.13) and to be estrogen receptor negative (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.25), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.64 to 17.01), progesterone receptor negative (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.38), and triple negative (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 1.21 to 22.46). In contrast, interval breast cancers in dense breasts ( 40.9% mammographic density) were less aggressive than interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (overall difference, P .008) and were phenotypically more similar to screen-detected breast cancers. Risk factors differentially associated with interval breast cancer relative to screen- detected breast cancer after adjusting for age and mammographic density were family history of breast cancer (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.70), current use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44), and body mass index more than 25 kg/m2 (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.82). Conclusion: Interval breast cancers in women with low mammographic density have the most aggressive phenotype. The effect of HRT on interval breast cancer risk is not fully explained by mammographic density. Family history is associated with interval breast cancers, possibly indicating disparate genetic background of screen-detected breast cancers and interval breast cancers.Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Cancer SocietyStockholm County CouncilLinneus Centre - Swedish Research CouncilSwedish E-science Research CouncilCancer Risk Prediction CenterPublishe

Determinants of successful implementation of population-based cancer screening programmes

Prezentujemy Państwu tłumaczenie artykułu poświęconego organizacji skriningów populacyjnych. Grupa ekspertów uznanych w dziedzinie badań skriningowych zebrała i w syntetycznej formie przedstawiła najważniejsze warunki, których spełnienie jest konieczne, aby można było mówić o dobrze funkcjonującym skriningu. Artykuł wydaje nam się na tyle cenny, że postanowiłyśmy przybliżyć go osobom, które są lub będą włączone w organizację i realizację skriningu w Polsce. Stanowi on rozwinięcie artykułu zatytułowanego Zalecenia komitetu ekspertów działającego w ramach projektu EuSANH dla Ministra Zdrowia w sprawie organizacji skriningów populacyjnych, opublikowanego w „Nowotwory Journal of Oncology” 2014, 64, 5. W celu ułatwienia realizacji populacyjnych programów badań przesiewowych w kierunku nowotworów podsumowano dotychczas zdobyte w Europie doświadczenia w tym zakresie. Wymieniono w punktach najważniejsze kwestie, które obywatele, grupy rzeczników, politycy, osoby organizujące opiekę zdrowotną oraz pracownicy służby zdrowia powinni rozważyć podczas planowania, realizacji i prowadzenia badań przesiewowych w kierunku raka. Lista jest na tyle ogólna, że ma zastosowanie zarówno do skriningu raka piersi, jak i szyjki macicy oraz jelita grubego. Lista powstała na podstawie dowodów przedstawionych w trzech publikacjach Unii Europejskiej, zawierających wytyczne w sprawie kontroli jakości badań przesiewowych i diagnostyki raka. Dodatkowo została wzbogacona piś miennictwem oraz doświadczeniami ekspertów prezentowanymi w czasie warsztatu w ramach European Science Advisory Network. Realizacja programu badań przesiewowych w kierunku raka powinna być podzielona na siedem etapów: 1) przygotowanie do planowania, 2) kompleksowe planowanie, 3) badanie wykonalności, 4) pilotaż i wdrożenie procesu, 5) rozwój serwisu usług skriningowych, 6) uruchomienie programu badań przesiewowych na dużą skalę oraz 7) zapewnienie trwałości. O realizacji każdego etapu można mówić jedynie wtedy, gdy zostanie spełniona określona liczba warunków. Pomyślna realizacja programu badań przesiewowych wymaga akceptacji społecznej oraz użycia najlepszych praktyk opartych na dowodach i weryfi kacji adekwatności wykonania na każdym etapie realizacji

Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers

Background: Polygenic risk profiles computed from multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer have been shown to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. We evaluated whether this genetic risk stratification can also be applied to discriminate between screen-detected and interval cancers, which are usually associated with clinicopathological and survival differences. Patients and methods: A 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) was constructed for breast cancer overall and by estrogen-receptor (ER) status. PRS was inspected as a continuous (per standard deviation increment) variable in a case-only design. Modification of the PRS by mammographic density was evaluated by fitting an additional interaction term. Results: PRS weighted by breast cancer overall estimates was found to be differentially associated with 1,865 screen-detected and 782 interval cancers in the LIBRO-1 study (age-adjusted ORperSD [95% confidence interval]=0.91 [0.83-0.99], p=0.023). The association was found to be more significant for PRS weighted by ER-positive breast cancer estimates (ORperSD=0.90 [0.82-0.98], p=0.011). This result was corroborated by two independent studies (combined ORperSD=0.87 [0.76-1.00], p=0.058) with no evidence of heterogeneity. When enriched for “true” interval cancers among nondense breasts, the difference in the association with PRS in screen-detected and interval cancers became more pronounced (ORperSD=0.74 [0.62-0.89], p=0.001), with a significant interaction effect between PRS and mammographic density (pinteraction=0.017). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first report looking into the genetic differences between screendetected and interval cancers. It is an affirmation that the two types of breast cancer may have unique underlying biology.Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Cancer SocietyStockholm County CouncilBreast Cancer Theme Centre Consortium (BRECT)Accepte

Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort study

Objective To determine whether detection of invasive cervical cancer by screening results in better prognosis or merely increases the lead time until death

Beneficial Effect of Consecutive Screening Mammography Examinations on Mortality from Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study

BackgroundPreviously, the risk of death from breast cancer was analyzed for women participating versus those not participating in the last screening examination before breast cancer diagnosis. Consecutive attendance patterns may further refine estimates.PurposeTo estimate the effect of participation in successive mammographic screening examinations on breast cancer mortality.Materials and MethodsParticipation data for Swedish women eligible for screening mammography in nine counties from 1992 to 2016 were linked with data from registries and regional cancer centers for breast cancer diagnosis, cause, and date of death (Uppsala University ethics committee registration number: 2017/147). Incidence-based breast cancer mortality was calculated by whether the women had participated in the most recent screening examination prior to diagnosis only (intermittent participants), the penultimate screening examination only (lapsed participants), both examinations (serial participants), or neither examination (serial nonparticipants). Rates were analyzed with Poisson regression. We also analyzed incidence of breast cancers proving fatal within 10 years.ResultsData were available for a total average population of 549 091 women (average age, 58.9 years ± 6.7 [standard deviation]). The numbers of participants in the four groups were as follows: serial participants, 392 135; intermittent participants, 41 746; lapsed participants, 30 945; and serial nonparticipants, 84 265. Serial participants had a 49% lower risk of breast cancer mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.55; P P ConclusionWomen participating in the last two breast cancer screening examinations prior to breast cancer diagnosis had the largest reduction in breast cancer death. Missing either one of the last two examinations conferred a significantly higher risk.Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p

European code against cancer 4th edition: 12 ways to reduce your cancer risk

This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer

European Code against Cancer, 4th Edition: Cancer screening

In order to update the previous version of the European Code against Cancer and formulate evidence-based recommendations, a systematic search of the literature was performed according to the methodology agreed by the Code Working Groups. Based on the review, the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends: “Take part in organized cancer screening programmes for: • Bowel cancer (men and women)• Breast cancer (women)• Cervical cancer (women).”Organized screening programs are preferable because they provide better conditions to ensure that the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Screening are followed in order to achieve the greatest benefit with the least harm. Screening is recommended only for those cancers where a demonstrated life-saving effect substantially outweighs the potential harm of examining very large numbers of people who may otherwise never have, or suffer from, these cancers, and when an adequate quality of the screening is achieved. EU citizens are recommended to participate in cancer screening each time an invitation from the national or regional screening program is received and after having read the information materials provided and carefully considered the potential benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs in the European Union vary with respect to the age groups invited and to the interval between invitations, depending on each country's cancer burden, local resources, and the type of screening test used For colorectal cancer, most programs in the EU invite men and women starting at the age of 50–60 years, and from then on every 2 years if the screening test is the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, or every 10 years or more if the screening test is flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. Most programs continue sending invitations to screening up to the age of 70–75 years. For breast cancer, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 50 years, and not before the age of 40 years, and from then on every 2 years until the age of 70–75 years. For cervical cancer, if cytology (Pap) testing is used for screening, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 25–30 years and from then on every 3 or 5 years. If human papillomavirus testing is used for screening, most women are invited starting at the age of 35 years (usually not before age 30 years) and from then on every 5 years or more. Irrespective of the test used, women continue participating in screening until the age of 60 or 65 years, and continue beyond this age unless the most recent test results are normal