Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England

Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England

BACKGROUND

Cancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation.

METHODS

We applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates.

RESULTS

The modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

For the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05611632.

Attendance characteristics of the breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes in a highly urbanised region of the Netherlands: a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

Throughout Europe, many countries offer population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). In the Netherlands, two implemented CSPs are targeting people of 50 years and older, aiming at breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). In order for a CSP to be (cost-)effective, high participation rates and outreach to the populations at risk are essential. People living in highly urbanised areas and big cities are known to participate less in CSPs. The aim of this study was to gain further insight into the participation patterns of a screening-eligible population of 50 years and over, living in a highly urbanised region, over a longer time period.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Participation data of the regional screening organisation, linked to the cancer incidence data derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, concerning the city of The Hague, between 2005 and 2019. Attendance groups were defined as attenders (attending >50% of the invitations) and non-attenders (attending ≤50% of the invitations), and were mutually compared.

RESULTS

The databases contained 106 377 unique individuals on the BC screening programme (SP) and 73 669 on the CRC-SP. Non-attendance at both CSPs was associated with living in a lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighbourhood and as a counter effect, also associated with a more unfavourable, relatively late-stage, tumour diagnosis. When combining the results of the two CSPs, our results imply high screening adherence over time. Women who did not participate in both CSPs were older, and more often lived in neighbourhoods with a lower SES score.

CONCLUSIONS

Since low screening uptake is one of the factors that contribute to increasing inequalities in cancer survival, future outreach strategies should be focused on engaging specific non-attending subgroups.

How do women comply with cancer screenings? A study in four regions of France

BACKGROUND

This article looks at the behaviour of women facing different cancer screening options available to them from the age of 50 onward. The study was conducted in 2019 in four departments of the French territory with the objective of identifying the factors that influence acceptance of a population-based screening proposal.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to women who had received three invitations to organised screenings (OS) for both breast and colorectal cancer. The categories of participants in both OS were designed from data from the regional cancer screening coordination centres in each department. Participation in opportunistic cervical cancer screening was evaluated as self-reported data.

RESULTS

4,634 questionnaires were returned out of the 17,194 sent, giving a global return rate of 27%. The highest rate of return (73.5%) was obtained from women who had participated at least once in both breast and colorectal cancer OS. An intermediate rate was obtained from women participating in breast cancer OS only (18.7%). Poor levels of return came from women who had participated in colorectal cancer OS only (3.6%) and from non-participants (4.1%). Our results suggest that women with lower educational levels tend to be the most regular attendants at OS (50.3%), compared to highly educated women (39.7%). 11.8% of women were overdue in their opportunistic cervical cancer screening. This percentage rose to 35.4% in the category of non-participants. In addition, women's comments provide a better understanding of the reasons for irregular attendance and non-participation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, similar behaviours towards screening were observed in the four departments. Our analysis suggests that participation in one cancer OS increases the likelihood of participating in others. This adhesion could be an interesting lever for raising women's awareness of other cancer screenings.

Participation in breast cancer screening and its influence on other cancer screening invitations: study in women aged 56 years old in four French departments

BACKGROUND

Today, women 50 years of age are offered three types of cancer screening in France. However, participation is not optimal. The aim was to describe (1) participation in organised breast cancer screening (OS) of women aged 56 years old, and the influence of this participation on colorectal and cervical cancer screening, (2) the reasons for non-participation in breast cancer OS, and (3) the reasons for screening before age 50.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 56-year-old women in four French departments to identify their participation behaviour in three breast cancer OS invitations and their reasons for non-participation. Three groups were determined according to the number of participations in breast cancer OS (3, 1-2 and 0). We described the quantitative responses and grouped the qualitative responses thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 4634 women responded to the questionnaire. Seventy-six percent had undergone all three breast cancer OS, 16% irregular and 7% non-participant. Among women who irregularly perform breast cancer OS, 50.5% also irregularly perform colorectal cancer OS. Women who participated in all three invitations for the breast cancer OS performed more smear tests than women in the other groups. Many of the irregular participants or non-participants underwent opportunistic screening, often initiated before the age of 50. The reasons for non-participation in breast cancer OS were mainly medical or participation in opportunistic screening.

CONCLUSION

There is no fundamental opposition to participation in breast cancer screening. However, it remains of the utmost importance that women should be better informed about OS and its benefits.

Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes in Denmark: A nationwide registry-based study

Women in Denmark are invited to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in their fifties and sixties. We determined the patterns of concurrent participation in the three programmes. Participation in organised cancer screening was determined using the highly complete Danish population and health care registers for all women aged 53-65 years on 31 March 2018 who continuously resided in Denmark since 1 April 2012. Data were linked using unique personal identification numbers. We studied overall and cancer-specific proportions of women undergoing screening for all three, two, one, and none of the cancers. Among all 468,507 women, 406,306 (87%) participated in breast, 345,768 (74%) in cervical, and 316,496 (68%) in colorectal cancer screening. Despite high participation, only 255,698 (55%) women were screened for all three cancers, while 123,469 (26%) were screened for two, 54,538 (12%) for one, and 34,802 (7%) were not screened for any cancer. Cancer-specific patterns were highly heterogeneous across the population but changed little after accounting for women's medical history. A significant proportion of women who are screened for a specific cancer remain unscreened for other cancers. The consistency of these data at the international level requires a reconsideration of invitational practices for organised screening.

“It's cancer screening after all”. Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening

Objectives

To explore barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.

Methods

Interview study with women who had not responded to one or more invitations to cervical or colorectal cancer screening. A semi-structured interview guide was used and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Concepts from Temporal Motivation Theory were used to structure and analyse the data.

Results

Twenty-two women were interviewed. Screening was highly valued but the women perceived screening for cervical cancer and colorectal cancer as more troublesome to participate in, compared with participation in breast cancer screening. The lack of a pre-booked appointment or a suggested deadline attenuated the perceived value of cervical and colorectal cancer screening and this further increased procrastination. Promotion of self-sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancer screening upon attendance for breast cancer screening was considered a feasible way to increase salience of both types of screening.

Conclusion

A high number of micro steps and absence of a deadline in cervical and colorectal cancer screening diverted attention away from screening participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening. The main facilitator could be reduction of micro actions, proposing a suggested deadline, and promotion of self-sampling kits when attending breast cancer screening to increase salience and a renewed attention to all three screening programmes.

Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics

BACKGROUND

Implementation of new technologies into national health care systems requires careful capacity planning. This is sometimes informed by data from pilot studies that implement the technology on a small scale in selected areas. A critical consideration when using implementation pilot studies for capacity planning in the wider system is generalisability. We studied the feasibility of using publicly available national statistics to determine the degree to which results from a pilot might generalise for non-pilot areas, using the English human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening pilot as an exemplar.

METHODS

From a publicly available source on population indicators in England ("Public Health Profiles"), we selected seven area-level indicators associated with cervical cancer incidence, to produce a framework for post-hoc pilot generalisability analysis. We supplemented these data by those from publicly available English Office for National Statistics modules. We compared pilot to non-pilot areas, and pilot regimens (pilot areas using the previous standard of care (cytology) vs. the new screening test (HPV)). For typical process indicators that inform real-world capacity planning in cancer screening, we used standardisation to re-weight the values directly observed in the pilot, to better reflect the wider population. A non-parametric quantile bootstrap was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for differences in area-weighted means for indicators.

RESULTS

The range of area-level statistics in pilot areas covered most of the spectrum observed in the wider population. Pilot areas were on average more deprived than non-pilot areas (average index of multiple deprivation 24.8 vs. 21.3; difference: 3.4, 95% CI: 0.2-6.6). Participants in HPV pilot areas were less deprived than those in cytology pilot areas, matching area-level statistics. Differences in average values of the other six indicators were less pronounced. The observed screening process indicators showed minimal change after standardisation for deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

National statistical sources can be helpful in establishing the degree to which the types of areas outside pilot studies are represented, and the extent to which they match selected characteristics of the rest of the health care system ex-post. Our analysis lends support to extrapolation of process indicators from the HPV screening pilot across England.

Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test in an Asymptomatic Screening Population (NHS-Galleri): Design of a Pragmatic, Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial

We report the design of the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511), aiming to establish whether a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that screens asymptomatic individuals for cancer can reduce late-stage cancer incidence. This randomised controlled trial has invited approximately 1.5 million persons and enrolled over 140,000 from the general population of England (50-77 years; ≥3 years without cancer diagnosis or treatment; not undergoing investigation for suspected cancer). Blood is being collected at up to three annual visits. Following baseline blood collection, participants are randomised 1:1 to the intervention (blood tested by MCED test) or control (blood stored) arm. Only participants in the intervention arm with a cancer signal detected have results returned and are referred for urgent investigations and potential treatment. Remaining participants in both arms stay blinded and return for their next visit. Participants are encouraged to continue other NHS cancer screening programmes and seek help for new or unusual symptoms. The primary objective is to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of stage III and IV cancers diagnosed in the intervention versus control arm 3-4 years after randomisation. NHS-Galleri will help determine the clinical utility of population screening with an MCED test.

Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3-6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation.

RESULTS

Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75-0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12-1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups.

Cytology interpretation after a change to HPV testing in primary cervical screening: Observational study from the English pilot

BACKGROUND

Overcalling of abnormalities has been a concern for using cytology triage after positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in cervical screening.

METHODS

The authors studied the detection of cytological and histological abnormalities at age 24 to 64 years, using data from the English HPV pilot. The pilot compared routine implementation of primary cervical screening based on cytology (N = 931,539), where HPV test results were not available before cytology reporting, with that based on HPV testing (N = 403,269), where cytology was only required after positive HPV tests.

RESULTS

Revealed HPV positivity was associated with a higher direct referral to colposcopy after any abnormality (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj ], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.18). Laboratories with higher direct referral referred fewer persistently HPV-positive women after early recall. The detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) after direct referral increased with an ORadj of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.13-1.20) for informed versus uninformed cytology. Generally, the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+ remained comparable under both conditions of interpreting cytology. In women 50 to 64 years old with high-grade dyskaryosis, however, the PPV increased from 71% to 83% after revealing HPV positivity (ORadj , 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality-controlled cervical screening programs can avoid inappropriate overgrading of HPV-positive cytology.

Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

There is insufficient evidence to support national screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, some practitioners, policy-makers and special interest groups have encouraged introduction of opportunistic screening in primary care in order to reduce the incidence of stroke through earlier detection and treatment of AF. The attitudes of the public towards AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore why AF screening participants took part in the screening.

DESIGN

Semistructured longitudinal interview study of participant engagement in the SAFER study (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). We undertook initial interviews face to face, with up to two follow-up telephone interviews during the screening process. We thematically analysed and synthesised these data to understand shared views of screening participation.

SETTING

5 primary care practices in the East of England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

23 people taking part in the SAFER study first feasibility phase.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of screening for AF, explaining their participation in screening as a 'good thing to do'. Participants suggested screening could facilitate earlier diagnosis, more effective treatment, and a better future outcome, despite most being unfamiliar with AF. Participating in AF screening helped attenuate participants' concerns about stroke and demonstrated their commitment to self-care and being a 'good patient'. Participants felt that the screening test was non-invasive, and they were unlikely to have AF; they therefore considered engaging in AF screening was low risk, with few perceived harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants assessed the SAFER AF screening programme to be a legitimate, relevant and safe screening opportunity, and complied obediently with what they perceived to be a recommendation to take part. Their unreserved acceptance of screening benefit and lack of awareness of potential harms suggests that uptake would be high but reinforces the importance of ensuring participants receive balanced information about AF screening initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16939438; Pre-results.

"Whilst you are here…" Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme

Objectives

This research aimed to assess women's willingness to receive advice about cervical and bowel cancer screening participation and advice on cancer symptom awareness when attending breast cancer screening.

Methods

Women (n = 322) aged 60–64 years, living in the United Kingdom, who had previously taken part in breast cancer screening were recruited via a market research panel. They completed an online survey assessing willingness to receive advice, the potential impact of advice on breast screening participation, prospective acceptability and preferences for mode and timing of advice.

Results

Most women would be willing to receive information about cervical (86%) and bowel cancer screening (90%) and early symptoms of other cancers (92%) at a breast cancer screening appointment. Those who were not up to date with cervical cancer screening were less willing. Prospective acceptability was high for all three forms of advice and was associated with willingness to receive advice. Women would prefer to receive advice through a leaflet (41%) or discussion with the mammographer (30%) either before the appointment (27%), at the appointment (44%) or with their results (22%).

Conclusions

While there is high willingness and high acceptability towards using breast cancer screening as a teachable moment for advice about prevention and early detection of other cancers, some women find it unacceptable and this may reduce their likelihood of attending a breast screening appointment.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study focused on gaining women's insights into potential future initiatives to encourage screening and early diagnosis of cancer. Members of the public were also involved in piloting the questionnaire.

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women

Importance

In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear.

Objective

To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US.

Interventions

Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations.

Results

This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.