Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: determinants of participation in breast cancer screening

OBJECTIVE: To assess determinants of the participation rate in breast cancer screening (BCS) programs by conducting a systematic review of reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in Pubmed via Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane identifying the literature up to April 2019. Out of 2,258 revealed unique abstracts, we included 31 reviews from which 25 were considered as systematic. We applied the Walsh & McPhee Systems Model of Clinical Preventive Care to systematise the determinants of screening participation. RESULTS: The reviews, mainly in high-income settings, reported a wide range for BCS participation rate: 16-90%. The determinants of BCS participation were simple low-cost interventions, such as invitation letters, basic information on screening, multiple reminders, fixed appointments, prompts from healthcare professionals, and healthcare organizational factors (eg. close proximity to screening facility). More complex interventions (such as face-to-face counselling or home visits), mass media or improved access to transport should not be encouraged by policy makers unless other information appears. The repeated participation in mammography screening was consistently high, above 62%. Previous positive experience with screening influenced the repeated participation in screening programs. The reviews were inconsistent in the use of terminology related to BCS participation, which may have contributed to the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that consistent findings of systematic reviews bring more certainty into the conclusions on effects of simple invitation techniques, fixed appointments and prompts, as well as healthcare organizational factors on promoting participation rate in screening mammography

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening

Systematic reviews with economic components are important decision tools for stakeholders seeking to evaluate technologies, such as breast cancer screening (BCS) programs. This overview of systematic reviews explores the determinants of the cost‐effectiveness of BCS and assesses the quality of secondary evidence. The search identified 30 systematic reviews that reported on the determinants of the cost‐effectiveness of BCS, including the costs of breast cancer and BCS. While the quality of the reviews varied widely, only four out of 30 papers were considered to be of a high quality. We did not identify publication bias in the original evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of mammography screening; however, we highlight a need for improved clarity in both reporting and data verification. The reviews consisted mainly of studies from high‐income countries. Breast cancer costs varied widely among the studies. Factors leading to higher costs included: time (diagnosis and last months before death), later stage or metastases, recurrence of the disease, age below 64 years and type of follow‐up (more intensive or more specialized). Overall, screening with mammography was considered cost‐effective in the age range 50‐69 years in Western European and Northern American countries but not for older or younger women. Its cost‐effectiveness was questionable for low‐income settings and Asia. Mammography screening was more cost‐effective with biennial screening compared to annual screening and single reading using computer‐aided detection vs double reading. No information on the cost‐effectiveness of ultrasonography was found, and there is much uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness of CBE because of methodological limitations

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

Population preferences for breast cancer screening policies: Discrete choice experiment in Belarus

Background Reaching an acceptable participation rate in screening programs is challenging. With the objective of supporting the Belarus government to implement mammography screening as a single intervention, we analyse the main determinants of breast cancer screening participation. Methods We developed a discrete choice experiment using a mixed research approach, comprising a literature review, in-depth interviews with key informants (n = 23), “think aloud” pilots (n = 10) and quantitative measurement of stated preferences for a representative sample of Belarus women (n = 428, 89% response rate). The choice data were analysed using a latent class logit model with four classes selected based on statistical (consistent Akaike information criterion) and interpretational considerations. Results Women in the sample were representative of all six geographic regions, mainly urban (81%), and high-education (31%) characteristics. Preferences of women in all four classes were primarily influenced by the perceived reliability of the test (sensitivity and screening method) and costs. Travel and waiting time were important components in the decision for 34% of women. Most women in Belarus preferred mammography screening to the existing clinical breast examination (90%). However, if the national screening program is restricted in capacity, this proportion of women will drop to 55%. Women in all four classes preferred combined screening (mammography with clinical breast examination) to single mammography. While this preference was stronger if lower test sensitivity was assumed, 28% of women consistently gave more importance to combined screening than to test sensitivity. Conclusion Women in Belarus were favourable to mammography screening. Population should be informed that there are no benefits of combined screening compared to single mammography. The results of this study are directly relevant to policy mak

Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening

This systematic review, stimulated by inconsistency in secondary evidence, reports the benefits and harms of breast cancer (BC) screening and their determinants according to systematic reviews. A systematic search, which identified 9,976 abstracts, led to the inclusion of 58 reviews. BC mortality reduction with screening mammography was 15–25% in trials and 28–56% in observational studies in all age groups, and the risk of stage III+ cancers was reduced for women older than 49 years. Overdiagnosis due to mammography was 1–60% in trials and 1–12% in studies with a low risk of bias, and cumulative falsepositive rates were lower with biennial than annual screening (3–17% vs 0.01–41%). There is no consistency in the reviews’ conclusions about the magnitude of BC mortality reduction among women younger than 50 years or older than 69 years, or determinants of benefits and harms of mammography, including the type of mammography (digital vs screen-film), the number of views and the screening interval. Similarly, there was no solid evidence on determinants of benefits and harms or BC mortality reduction with screening by ultrasonography or clinical breast examination (sensitivity ranges, 54–84% and 47–69%, respectively), and strong evidence of unfavourable benefit-to-harm ratio with breast self-examination. The reviews’ conclusions were not dependent on the quality of the reviews or publication date. Systematic reviews on mammography screening, mainly from high-income countries, systematically disagree on the interpretation of the benefit-to-harm ratio. Future reviews are unlikely to clarify the discrepancies unless new original studies are published

Rituximab in B-Cell Hematologic Malignancies: A Review of 20 Years of Clinical Experience

Rituximab is a human/murine, chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with established efficacy, and a favorable and well-defined safety profile in patients with various CD20-expressing lymphoid malignancies, including indolent and aggressive forms of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Since its first approval 20 years ago, intravenously administered rituximab has revolutionized the treatment of B-cell malignancies and has become a standard component of care for follicular lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and mantle cell lymphoma. For all of these diseases, clinical trials have demonstrated that rituximab not only prolongs the time to disease progression but also extends overall survival. Efficacy benefits have also been shown in patients with marginal zone lymphoma and in more aggressive diseases such as Burkitt lymphoma. Although the proven clinical efficacy and success of rituximab has led to the development of other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in recent years (e.g., obinutuzumab, ofatumumab, veltuzumab, and ocrelizumab), rituximab is likely to maintain a position within the therapeutic armamentarium because it is well established with a long history of successful clinical use. Furthermore, a subcutaneous formulation of the drug has been approved both in the EU and in the USA for the treatment of B-cell malignancies. Using the wealth of data published on rituximab during the last two decades, we review the preclinical development of rituximab and the clinical experience gained in the treatment of hematologic B-cell malignancies, with a focus on the well-established intravenous route of administration. This article is a companion paper to A. Davies, et al., which is also published in this issue

Constraints on the χ_(c1) versus χ_(c2) polarizations in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV

The polarizations of promptly produced χ_(c1) and χ_(c2) mesons are studied using data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC, in proton-proton collisions at √s=8  TeV. The χ_c states are reconstructed via their radiative decays χ_c → J/ψγ, with the photons being measured through conversions to e⁺e⁻, which allows the two states to be well resolved. The polarizations are measured in the helicity frame, through the analysis of the χ_(c2) to χ_(c1) yield ratio as a function of the polar or azimuthal angle of the positive muon emitted in the J/ψ → μ⁺μ⁻ decay, in three bins of J/ψ transverse momentum. While no differences are seen between the two states in terms of azimuthal decay angle distributions, they are observed to have significantly different polar anisotropies. The measurement favors a scenario where at least one of the two states is strongly polarized along the helicity quantization axis, in agreement with nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics predictions. This is the first measurement of significantly polarized quarkonia produced at high transverse momentum