Background: Observational studies are necessary to assess the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality. While some ecological studies have notably found little or no association, case-control studies consistently show strong inverse associations, but they are sometimes ignored, perhaps due to theoretical biases arising from the study design. We conducted a case-control study of breast cancer deaths in Western Australia to evaluate the effect of participation in the BreastScreen Australia program, paying particular attention to potential sources of bias, and undertook an updated meta-analysis of case-control studies.Methods: Our study included 427 cases (women who died from breast cancer), each matched to up to 10 controls. We estimated the association between screening participation and breast cancer mortality, quantifying the effect of potential sources of bias on our findings, including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. We also conducted a meta-analysis of published case-control studies.Results: The OR for participation in the Western Australian BreastScreen program in relation to death from breast cancer was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.59; P < 0.001]. We were unable to identify biases that could negate this finding: sensitivity analyses generated ORs from 0.45 to 0.52. Our meta-analysis yielded an OR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.55).Conclusions: Our findings suggest an average 49% reduction in breast cancer mortality for women who are screened. In practice, theoretical biases have little effect on estimates from case-control studies.Impact: Case-control studies, such as ours, provide robust and consistent evidence that screening benefits women who choose to be screened. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(9); 1479-88. Ó2012 AACR.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to optimise the experimental protocol and data analysis for in-vivo breast cancer x-ray imaging. Results are presented of the experiment at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra Synchrotron using the propagation-based phase-contrast mammographic tomography method, which incorporates not only absorption, but also x-ray phase information. In this study the images of breast tissue samples, of a size corresponding to a full human breast, with radiologically acceptable x-ray doses were obtained, and the degree of improvement of the image quality (from the diagnostic point of view) achievable using propagation-based phase-contrast image acquisition protocols with proper incorporation of x-ray phase retrieval into the reconstruction pipeline was investigated. Parameters such as the x-ray energy, sample-to-detector distance and data processing methods were tested, evaluated and optimized with respect to the estimated diagnostic value using a mastectomy sample with a malignant lesion. The results of quantitative evaluation of images were obtained by means of radiological assessment carried out by 13 experienced specialists. A comparative analysis was performed between the x-ray and the histological images of the specimen. The results of the analysis indicate that, within the investigated range of parameters, both the objective image quality characteristics and the subjective radiological scores of propagation-based phase-contrast images of breast tissues monotonically increase with the strength of phase contrast which in turn is directly proportional to the product of the radiation wavelength and the sample-to-detector distance. The outcomes of this study serve to define the practical imaging conditions and the CT reconstruction procedures appropriate for low-dose phase-contrast mammographic imaging of live patients at specially designed synchrotron beamlines.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic affects mortality and morbidity, with disruptions expected to continue for some time, with access to timely cancer-related services a concern. For breast cancer, early detection and treatment is key to improved survival and longer-term quality of life. Health services generally have been strained and in many settings with population breast mammography screening, efforts to diagnose and treat breast cancers earlier have been paused or have had reduced capacity. The resulting delays to diagnosis and treatment may lead to more intensive treatment requirements and, potentially, increased mortality. Modelled evaluations can support responses to the pandemic by estimating short- and long-term outcomes for various scenarios. Multiple calibrated and validated models exist for breast cancer screening, and some have been applied in 2020 to estimate the impact of breast screening disruptions and compare options for recovery, in a range of international settings. On behalf of the Covid and Cancer Modelling Consortium (CCGMC) Working Group 2 (Breast Cancer), we summarize and provide examples of such in a range of settings internationally, and propose priorities for future modelling exercises. International expert collaborations from the CCGMC Working Group 2 (Breast Cancer) will conduct analyses and modelling studies needed to inform key stakeholders recovery efforts in order to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

Emerging evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has, to some extent, disrupted the delivery and improvement of cancer screening programs, and thus delayed diagnoses, resulting in potential adverse morbidity and mortality • The extent of potential adverse effects is emerging. Rapid research into the effects will inform urgent responses and could also fast-track evidence for optimisation of cancer screening in Australia, with benefits during and after the pandemic response and recovery

IntroductionWhile Cumulus – a semi-automated method for measuring breast density – is utilised extensively in research, it is labour-intensive and unsuitable for screening programmes that require an efficient and valid measure on which to base screening recommendations. We develop an automated method to measure breast density (AutoDensity) and compare it to Cumulus in terms of association with breast cancer risk and breast cancer screening outcomes.MethodsAutoDensity automatically identifies the breast area in the mammogram and classifies breast density in a similar way to Cumulus, through a fast, stand-alone Windows or Linux program. Our sample comprised 985 women with screen-detected cancers, 367 women with interval cancers and 4,975 controls (women who did not have cancer), sampled from first and subsequent screening rounds of a film mammography screening programme. To test the validity of AutoDensity, we compared the effect estimates using AutoDensity with those using Cumulus from logistic regression models that tested the association between breast density and breast cancer risk, risk of small and large screen-detected cancers and interval cancers, and screening programme sensitivity (the proportion of cancers that are screen-detected). As a secondary analysis, we report on correlation between AutoDensity and Cumulus measures.ResultsAutoDensity performed similarly to Cumulus in all associations tested. For example, using AutoDensity, the odds ratios for women in the highest decile of breast density compared to women in the lowest quintile for invasive breast cancer, interval cancers, large and small screen-detected cancers were 3.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.1), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.4), 6.4 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.1) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0) respectively. For Cumulus the corresponding odds ratios were: 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.1), 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3), 6.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.8). Correlation between Cumulus and AutoDensity measures was 0.63 (P < 0.001).ConclusionsBased on the similarity of the effect estimates for AutoDensity and Cumulus in models of breast density and breast cancer risk and screening outcomes, we conclude that AutoDensity is a valid automated method for measuring breast density from digitised film mammograms.

No abstract