Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain:public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND: Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50–80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks. RESULTS: Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An ‘expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making

Improving breast cancer services for African-American women living in St. Louis

A mixed methods, community-based research study was conducted to understand how provider-level factors contribute to the African-American and white disparity in breast cancer mortality in a lower socioeconomic status area of North St. Louis. This study used mixed methods including: (1) secondary analysis of Missouri Cancer Registry data on all 885 African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2008 while living in the geographic area of focus; (2) qualitative interviews with a subset of these women; (3) analysis of data from electronic medical records of the women interviewed; and (4) focus group interviews with community residents, patient navigators, and other health care professionals. 565 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2008 in the geographic area were alive at the time of secondary data analysis; we interviewed (n = 96; 17 %) of these women. Provider-level obstacles to completion of prescribed treatment included fragmented navigation (separate navigators at Federally Qualified Health Centers, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, and no navigation services in surgical oncology). Perhaps related to the latter, women described radiation as optional, often in the same words as they described breast reconstruction. Discontinuous and fragmented patient navigation leads to failure to associate radiation therapy with vital treatment recommendations. Better integrated navigation that continues throughout treatment will increase treatment completion with the potential to improve outcomes in African Americans and decrease the disparity in mortality

Impact of different age ranges on the benefits and harms of the breast cancer screening programme by the EU-TOPIA tool

BackgroundThe recommendation for the implementation of mammography screening in women aged 45–49 and 70–74 is conditional with moderate certainty of the evidence. The aim of this study is to simulate the long-term outcomes (2020–50) of using different age range scenarios in the breast cancer screening programme of the Valencia Region (Spain), considering different programme participation rates.MethodsThree age range scenarios (S) were simulated with the EU-TOPIA tool, considering a biennial screening interval: S1, 45–69 years old (y); S2, 50–69 y and S3, 45–74 y. Simulations were performed for four participation rates: A = current participation (72.7%), B = +5%, C = +10% and D = +20%. Considered benefits: number (N°) of in situ and invasive breast cancers (BC) (screen vs. clinically detected), N° of BC deaths and % BC mortality reduction. Considered harms: N° of false positives (FP) and % overdiagnosis.ResultsThe results showed that BC mortality decreased in all scenarios, being higher in S3A (32.2%) than S1A (30.6%) and S2A (27.9%). Harms decreased in S2A vs. S1A (N° FP: 236 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 4.9% vs. 5.0%) but also benefits (BC mortality reduction: 27.9% vs. 30.6%, N° screen-detected invasive BC 15/28 vs. 18/25). In S3A vs. S1A, an increase in benefits was observed (BC mortality reduction: 32.2% vs. 30.6%), N° screen-detected in situ B: 5/2 vs. 4/3), but also in harms (N° FP: 460 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 5.8% vs. 5.0%). Similar trends were observed with increased participation.ConclusionsAs the age range increases, so does not only the reduction in BC mortality, but also the probability of FP and overdiagnosis

Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches

Background. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980\xe2\x80\x99s, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature. Design. Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters. Results. These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%. Limitations. DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models. Conclusion. In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models\xe2\x80\x99 representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS

Socio-economic inequality of utilization of cancer testing in Europe: A cross-sectional study.

There are currently screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in many European countries. However, the uptake of cancer screening in general may vary within and between countries. The aim of this study is to assess the inequalities in testing utilization by socio-economic status and whether the amount of inequality varies across European regions. We conducted an analysis based on cross-sectional data from the second wave of the European Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2015. We analysed the use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer testing by socio-economic position (household income, educational level and employment status), socio-demographic factors, self-perceived health and smoking behaviour, by using multinomial logistic models, and inequality measurement based on the Slope index of inequality (SII) and Relative index of inequality (RII). The results show that the utilization of mammography (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.50-0.61), cervical smear tests (OR = 0.60, 95%CI:0.56-0.65) and colorectal testing (OR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.78-0.86) was overall less likely among individuals within a low household income compared to a high household income. Also, individuals with a non-EU country of birth, low educational level and being unemployed (or retired) were overall less likely to be tested. The income-based inequality in breast (SII = 0.191;RII = 1.260) and colorectal testing utilization (SII = 0.161;RII = 1.487) was the greatest in Southern Europe. For cervical smears, this inequality was greatest in Eastern Europe (SII = 0.122;RII = 1.195). We concluded that there is considerable inequality in the use of cancer tests in Europe, with inequalities associated with household income, educational level, employment status, and country of birth