Sue M Moss

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine use of prostate-specific antigen screening, relying heavily on results from the ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Scre... Background: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Canc...

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the ‘gist’ of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59–74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet (‘SI’). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet (‘SI + Gist’) which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the ‘SI’ intervention (n = 79,104) or the ‘SI + Gist’ group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research. ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

Inter-women and intra-women comparisons of mammographic density (MD) are needed in research, clinical and screening applications; however, MD measurements are influenced by mammography modality (screen film/digital) and digital image format (raw/processed). We aimed to examine differences in MD assessed on these image types. We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed–raw MD differences. Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: −0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p < 0.001). Conversion equations revealed differences converged to zero with increasing dense area. MD differences between screen-film and processed digital on the subsequent screening round were consistent with expected time-related MD declines. MD was slightly higher when measured on processed than on raw direct digital mammograms. Comparisons of MD on these image formats should ideally control for this non-constant and reader-specific difference.

Objectives: To calculate design-corrected estimates of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality by centre in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Setting: The ERSPC has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men invited to screening with follow-up truncated at 13 years. Centres either used pre-consent randomisation (effectiveness design) or post-consent randomisation (efficacy design). Methods: In six centres (three effectiveness design, three efficacy design) with follow-up until the end of 2010, or maximum 13 years, the effect of screening was estimated as both effectiveness (mortality reduction in the target population) and efficacy (reduction in those actually screened). Results: The overall crude prostate cancer mortality risk ratio in the intervention arm vs control arm for the six centres was 0.79 ranging from a 14% increase to a 38% reduction. The risk ratio was 0.85 in centres with effectiveness design and 0.73 in those with efficacy design. After correcting for design, overall efficacy was 27%, 24% in pre-consent and 29% in post-consent centres, ranging between a 12% increase and a 52% reduction. Conclusion: The estimated overall effect of screening in attenders (efficacy) was a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years’ follow-up. The variation in efficacy between centres was greater than the range in risk ratio without correction for design. The centre-specific variation in the mortality reduction could not be accounted for by the randomisation method.

There is currently no national screening programme for prostate cancer in England, but eligible men can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test from their general practitioner (GP). There are no routinely available data to monitor the extent of PSA testing and referral. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of PSA testing in general practice and subsequent patterns of referral. Data obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) for men aged 45-84 years who had a PSA test during 2010-2011, registered in practices in England with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Patient data were linked to previous tests and consultations. Rates of PSA testing and proportions of men retested and referred to secondary care were calculated. Overall, 8.74 (95% CI 8.67-8.82) of men per 100 person-years were tested at least once in 2010, and 9.45 (95% CI 9.37-9.53) in 2011. Rates increased with age and decreased with increasing level of deprivation. Of the 53,069 men tested in 2010, 11,289 (21.3%) had a previous PSA test within the past 12 months. Of men with raised PSA according to age specific guidelines, 22.4% (2113/9425) were referred to secondary care within 14 days, with 36% of the remainder retested within 6 months. Rates of PSA testing have increased compared with earlier studies; the data suggest that many GPs are retesting men with raised PSA rather than referring immediately. More routine data on PSA testing, including reasons for testing, and subsequent management and outcomes, are required.

Objective: The use of testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) is now recognized as an efficient means of triaging women with low‐grade cytological abnormalities to either immediate referral to colposcopy or return to routine recall. We aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of each of four newer tests for HPV relative to the Qiagen Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay in order to determine whether they could be approved for use in triage in the NHS cervical screening programme.Methods: We compared the performance of each of four different HPV assays (Abbott M2000, Roche Cobas, Hologic Cervista and Gen‐Probe APTIMA) with that of HC2 in order to determine the sensitivity and specificity of each test relative to HC2 for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse, using routine cytology samples reported as borderline (atypical squamous cells) or mild dyskaryosis (low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) from six laboratories in England. All women who were found to be HPV positive on any test were referred to colposcopy.Results: Between 2072 and 4217 tests were performed with each assay. All four assays were shown to have a relative sensitivity of no worse than 95% compared with HC2 when a cut‐off of 2 relative light units (RLU) was used. All assays had higher relative specificity than HC2 for both borderline and mild cytology referrals (1.06–1.61).Conclusions: All assays tested met the criteria required. Consequently, all have now been approved for use in HPV triage in the NHS cervical screening programme.

Introduction: Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. Methods: More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. Results: The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. Conclusions: With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

Introduction: Overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening, defined as thediagnosis of screen-detected cancers that would not have presented clinically in awomen's lifetime in the absence of screening, has emerged as a highly contentiousissue, as harm caused may question the benefit of mammographic screening. Moststudies included women over 50 years old and little information is available foryounger women. Methods: We estimated the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to screening in women aged 40to 49 years using data from a randomised trial of annual mammographic screeningstarting at age 40 conducted in the UK. A six-state Markov model was constructedto estimate the sensitivity of mammography for invasive and insitu breast cancer and the screen-detectable mean sojourn time fornon-progressive in situ, progressive in situ, and invasivebreast cancer. Then, a 10-state simulation model of cancer progression, screening,and death, was developed to estimate overdiagnosis attributable to screening. Results: The sensitivity of mammography for invasive and in situ breast cancerswas 90% (95% CI, 72 to 99) and 82% (43 to 99), respectively. The screen-detectablemean sojourn time of preclinical non-progressive and progressive in situ cancers was 1.3 (0.4 to 3.4) and 0.11 (0.05 to 0.19) years, respectively, and0.8 years (0.6 to 1.2) for preclinical invasive breast cancer. The proportion ofscreen-detected in situ cancers that were non-progressive was 55% (25 to77) for the first and 40% (22 to 60) for subsequent screens. In our main analysis,overdiagnosis was estimated as 0.7% of screen-detected cancers. A sensitivityanalysis, covering a wide range of alternative scenarios, yielded a range of 0.5%to 2.9%. Conclusion: Although a high proportion of screen-detected in situ cancers werenon-progressive, a majority of these would have presented clinically in theabsence of screening. The extent of overdiagnosis due to screening in women aged40 to 49 was small. Results also suggest annual screening is most suitable forwomen aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom due to short cancer sojourn times.

Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The full guideline document covers the entire process of population-based screening. It consists of 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. The 450-page guidelines and the extensive evidence base have been published by the European Commission. The chapter on evaluation and interpretation of screening outcomes includes 20 graded recommendations. The content of the chapter is presented here to promote international discussion and collaboration by making the principles and standards recommended in the new EU Guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community. Following these recommendations has the potential to enhance the control of colorectal cancer through improvement in the quality and effectiveness of the screening process, including multi-disciplinary diagnosis and management of the disease. ⁷ equal to the defined screening interval or reporting period, e. g. 12 months in the case of yearly reporting. ⁸ equal to the defined screening interval or reporting period