Background The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30–69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. Methods This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30–69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. Results Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30–39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50–69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). Conclusions Screening high risk women age 30–39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50–69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.

Knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer is low in Canada. Alcohol labels are one strategy for communicating alcohol-related harms, including cancer. Extending existing research observing an association between knowledge of the alcohol–cancer link and support for alcohol policies, this study examined whether increases in individual-level knowledge that alcohol is a carcinogen following an alcohol labelling intervention are associated with support for alcohol polices. Cancer warning labels were applied to alcohol containers at the intervention site, and the comparison site did not apply cancer labels. Pre-post surveys were conducted among liquor store patrons at both sites before and two-and six-months after the intervention was stopped due to alcohol industry interference. Limiting the data to participants that completed surveys both before and two-months after the cancer label stopped, logistic regression was used to examine the association between increases in knowledge and support for policies. Support for pricing and availability policies was low overall; however, increases in individual-level knowledge of the alcohol-cancer link was associated with higher levels of support for pricing policies, specifically, setting a minimum unit price per standard drink of alcohol (OR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.11–3.12). Improving knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer using labels may increase support for alcohol policies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/16320

Objective: This study tested the initial and continued effects of cancer warning labels on drinkers’ recall and knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. Method: A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine changes in the intervention versus comparison site for three outcomes: unprompted and prompted recall of the cancer warning, and knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. The intervention site applied cancer warning labels to alcohol containers in its liquor store for 1 month, and the two liquor stores in the comparison site did not apply cancer labels. In total, 2,049 unique cohort participants (1,056 male) were recruited at liquor stores in the intervention and comparison sites to participate in surveys 4 months before labels were applied and 2 and 6 months after the cancer label was halted because of alcohol industry interference. Generalized estimating equations tested differences in outcomes between sites over time adjusting for socio-demographics and other covariates. Results: Two months after the cancer label, unprompted (+24.2% vs. +0.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 32.7, 95% CI [5.4, 197.7]) and prompted (+35.7% vs. +4.1%; AOR = 6.2, 95% CI [3.6, 10.9]) recall increased to a greater extent in the intervention versus comparison site. There was a 10% greater increase in knowledge (+12.1% vs. +11.6%; AOR = 1.1, 95% CI [0.7, 1.5]) 2 months after the cancer label in the intervention versus comparison site. Similar results were found 6 months after the cancer label for all three outcomes. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, cancer warning labels get noticed and increase knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. Additional cancer label intervention studies are required that are not compromised by industry interference.

Background The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50–74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography. Methods A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50–74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided. Results For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50–59 years. Conclusion Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

No abstract