Background: With changes in diagnosis, treatment, and management of breast cancer since the mammography screening trials, there is a need to evaluate contemporary breast screening programs. A case-control study was set up to assess the current impact of attendance in the English Breast Screening Program on breast cancer mortality.Methods: Cancer registry cases who died from primary breast cancer ages 47 to 89 years in London in 2008 to 2009 (869 women) were matched to 1 or 2 general population controls (1,642 women) with no diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of the case's diagnosis, who were alive at the case's death. Cases and controls were matched for date of birth and screening area, and had been invited to breast screening at least once prior to the case's diagnosis. ORs were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Self-selection bias was addressed using contemporaneous attendance at the cervical screening program.

SummaryBackgroundThe value of screen detection and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a matter of controversy. At present, the extent to which the diagnosis and treatment of DCIS could prevent the occurrence of invasive breast cancer in the future is not clear. We sought to estimate the association between detection of DCIS at screening and invasive interval cancers subsequent to the relevant screen.MethodsWe obtained aggregate data for screen-detected cancers from 84 local screening units within 11 regional Quality Assurance Reference Centres in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Data for DCIS diagnoses were obtained for women aged 50–64 years who were invited to and attended mammographic breast screening from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2007 (4 screening years). Patient-level data for interval cancer arising in the 36 months after each of these were analysed by Poisson regression with invasive interval cancer screen detection rate as the outcome variable; DCIS detection frequencies were fitted first as a continuous and then as a categorical variable. We repeated this analysis after adjustment with both small size and high-grade invasive screen-detected cancers.FindingsWe analysed data for 5 243 658 women and on interval cancers occurring in the 36 months after the relevant screen. The average frequency of DCIS detected at screening was 1·60 per 1000 women screened (median 1·50 [unit range 1·54–3·56] per 1000 women). There was a significant negative association of screen-detected DCIS cases with the rate of invasive interval cancers (Poisson regression coefficient −0·084 [95% CI −0·13 to −0·03]; p=0·002). 90% of units had a DCIS detection frequency within the range of 1·00 to 2·22 per 1000 women; in these units, for every three screen-detected cases of DCIS, there was one fewer invasive interval cancer in the next 3 years. This association remained after adjustment for numbers of small screen-detected invasive cancers and for numbers of grade 3 invasive screen-detected cancers.InterpretationThe association between screen-detected DCIS and subsequent invasive interval cancers suggests that detection and treatment of DCIS is worthwhile in prevention of future invasive disease.FundingUK Department of Health Policy Research Programme and NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.

In 2012, the Euroscreen project published a review of incidence-based mortality evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes. In this paper, we update this review to October 2019 and expand its scope from Europe to worldwide. We carried out a systematic review of incidence-based mortality studies of breast cancer screening programmes, and a meta-analysis of the estimated effects of both invitation to screening and attendance at screening, with adjustment for self-selection bias, on incidence-based mortality from breast cancer. We found 27 valid studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant 22% reduction in breast cancer mortality with invitation to screening, with a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75–0.82), and a significant 33% reduction with actual attendance at screening (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61–0.75). Breast cancer screening in the routine healthcare setting continues to confer a substantial reduction in mortality from breast cancer.

Our findings of determinants of neonatal and post-neonatal mortality in 1915-1929 are strikingly consistent with results from contemporary cohorts. On the other hand, contrary to most recent findings, there is no evidence of a LBW paradox in this historical cohort.

Background:The introduction of two-view mammography at incident (subsequent) screens in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) has led to an increased number of cancers detected at screen. However, the effect of two-view mammography on interval cancer rates has yet to be assessed.Methods:Routine screening and interval cancer data were collated from all screening programmes in the United Kingdom for women aged 50–64, screened between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2005. Interval cancer rates were compared based on whether two-view mammography was in use at the last routine screen.Results:The reduction in interval cancers following screening using two-view mammography compared with one view was 0.68 per 1 000 women screened. Overall, this suggests the introduction of two-view mammography at incident screen was accompanied by a 15–20% reduction in interval cancer rates in the NHSBSP.Conclusion:The introduction of two-view mammography at incident screens is associated with a reduction in incidence of interval cancers. This is consistent with previous publications on a contemporaneous increase in screen-detected cancers. The results provide further evidence of the benefit of the use of two-view mammography at incident screens.

Background Over the past 30 years since the implementation of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, improvements in diagnostic techniques and treatments have led to the need for an up-to-date evaluation of its benefit on risk of death from breast cancer. An initial pilot case-control study in London indicated that attending mammography screening led to a mortality reduction of 39%. Methods Based on the same study protocol, an England-wide study was set up. Women aged 47–89 years who died of primary breast cancer in 2010 or 2011 were selected as cases (8288 cases). When possible, two controls were selected per case (15,202 controls) and were matched by date of birth and screening area. Results Conditional logistic regressions showed a 38% reduction in breast cancer mortality after correcting for self-selection bias (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56–0.69) for women being screened at least once. Secondary analyses by age group, and time between last screen and breast cancer diagnosis were also performed. Conclusions According to this England-wide case-control study, mammography screening still plays an important role in lowering the risk of dying from breast cancer. Women aged 65 or over see a stronger and longer lasting benefit of screening compared to younger women.

A case-control study to evaluate the impact of the breast screening programme on breast cancer incidence in England. Cancer Medicine.

Purpose To assess whether individual reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read. Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean age, 56 years) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program), an ethically approved, multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study, between July 2011 and March 2013. Each case was read prospectively for clinical assessment and to establish ground truth. A retrospective reading data set of 7060 cases was created and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous examinations. Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers, and two breast clinicians) who had 3-25 (median, 10) years of experience in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program and read 5000-13 000 (median, 8000) cases per annum were included in this study. Specificity was analyzed according to reader type and years and volume of experience, and then both specificity and sensitivity were analyzed by matched inference. The median duration of experience (10 years) was used as the cutoff point for comparison of reader performance. Results Specificity improved with the addition of DBT for all readers. This was significant for all staff groups (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, respectively; 46% vs 55% [P = .02] for breast clinicians). Sensitivity was improved for 19 of 24 (79%) readers and was significantly higher for those with less than 10 years of experience (91% vs 86%; P = .03) and those with total mammographic experience of fewer than 80 000 cases (88% vs 86%; P = .03). Conclusion The addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but the gain in sensitivity was greater for readers with less than 10 years of experience.