Breast cancer screening is associated with harms, such as false-positives and overdiagnoses, and, thus, novel screen tests can be considered. Liquid biopsies have been proposed as a novel method... Show moreBreast cancer screening is associated with harms, such as false-positives and overdiagnoses, and, thus, novel screen tests can be considered. Liquid biopsies have been proposed as a novel method for the early detection of cancer, but low cell-free DNA tumor fraction might pose a problem for the use in population screening. Using breast cancer microsimulation model MISCAN-Fadia, we estimated the outcomes of using liquid biopsies in breast cancer screening in women aged 50 to 74 in the United States. For varying combinations of test sensitivity and specificity, we quantify the impact of the use of liquid biopsies on the harms and benefits of screening, and we estimate the maximum liquid biopsy price for cost-effective implementation in breast cancer screening at a cost-effectiveness threshold of USD 50,000. We investigate under what conditions liquid biopsies could be a suitable alternative to digital mammography and compare these conditions to a CCGA substudy. Outcomes were compared to digital mammography screening, and include mortality reduction, overdiagnoses, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the maximum price of a liquid biopsy for cost-effective implementation. When liquid biopsies are unable to detect DCIS, a large proportion of overdiagnosed cases is prevented but overall breast cancer mortality reduction and quality of life are lower, and costs are higher compared to digital mammography screening. Liquid biopsies prices should be restricted to USD 187 per liquid biopsy depending on test performance. Overall, liquid biopsies that are unable to detect ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) need to be able to detect small, early-stage tumors, with high specificity, at low costs in order to be an alternative to digital mammography. Liquid biopsies might be more suitable as an addition to digital mammography than as an alternative. Show less
Denissen, S.J.A.M.; Aalst, C.M. van der; Vonder, M.; Gratama, J.W.C.; Adriaansen, H.J.; Kuijpers, D.; ... ; Koning, H.J. de 2021
Aim Screening for a high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk followed by preventive treatment can potentially reduce coronary heart disease-related morbidity and mortality. ROBINSCA (Risk Or Benefit... Show moreAim Screening for a high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk followed by preventive treatment can potentially reduce coronary heart disease-related morbidity and mortality. ROBINSCA (Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular disease) is a population-based randomized controlled screening trial that investigates the effectiveness of CVD screening in asymptomatic participants using the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model or coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. This study describes the distributions in risk and treatment in the ROBINSCA trial.Methods and results Individuals at expected elevated CVD risk were randomized into screening arm A (n = 14 478; SCORE, 10-year fatal and non-fatal risk); or screening arm B (n= 14 450; CAC scoring). Preventive treatment was largely advised according to current Dutch guidelines. Risk and treatment differences between the screening arms were analysed. A total of 12 185 participants (84.2%) in arm A and 12 950 (89.6%) in arm B were screened. In total, 48.7% were women, and median age was 62 (interquartile range 10) years. SCORE screening identified 45.1% at low risk (SCORE < 10%), 26.5% at intermediate risk (SCORE 10-20%), and 28.4% at high risk (SCORE >= 20%). According to CAC screening, 76.0% were at low risk (Agatston < 100), 15.1% at high risk (Agatston 100-399), and 8.9% at very high risk (Agatston >= 400). CAC scoring significantly reduced the number of individuals indicated for preventive treatment compared to SCORE (relative reduction women: 37.2%; men: 28.8%).Conclusion We showed that compared to risk stratification based on SCORE, CAC scoring classified significantly fewer men and women at increased risk, and less preventive treatment was indicated. Show less
Importance For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM; and BRCA2, OMIM) or TP53 (OMIM) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and... Show moreImportance For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM; and BRCA2, OMIM) or TP53 (OMIM) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce.Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant.Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied.Interventions Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of (sic)22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied.RESULTS This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of (sic)7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional (sic)2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of (sic)21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening. Show less
Denissen, S.J.A.M.; Aalst, C.M. van der; Vonder, M.; Gratama, J.W.C.; Adriaansen, H.J.; Kuijpers, D.; ... ; Koning, H.J. de 2020
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the incidence of interval cancers between the first and second rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the FOB-Gold fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the incidence of interval cancers between the first and second rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the FOB-Gold fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the effects of different cutoff values and patient sex and age.METHODS: We collected data from participants in a population-based CRC screening program in the Netherlands who had a negative result from a first-round of FIT screening. We calculated the cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT and the sensitivity of the FIT for detection of CRC at a low (15 mu g Hb/g feces) and high (47 mu g Hb/g feces) cutoff value.RESULTS: Among the 485,112 participants with a negative result from a FIT, 544 interval cancers were detected; 126 were in the 111,800 participants with negative results from a FIT with the lowcutoff value and 418 were in the 373,312 FIT participants with negative results from a FIT with the high cutoff value. The mean age of participants tested with the low cutoff value was 72.0 years and the mean age of participants tested the high cutoff value was 66.7 years. The age-adjusted 2-year cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT were 9.5 per 10,000 persons at the low cutoff value vs 13.8 per 10,000 persons at the high cutoff value (P < .005). The age-adjusted sensitivity of the FIT for CRC were 90.5% for the low cutoff value vs 82.9% for the high cutoff (P < .0001). The FIT identified men with CRC with 87.4% sensitivity and women with CRC with 82.6% sensitivity (P < .001).CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from a FIT population-based screening program in the Netherlands, we found that incidence of interval CRC after a negative result from a FIT to be low. Although the sensitivity of detection of CRC decreased with a higher FIT cutoff value, it remained above 80%. Show less
Health care's institutional goals of abbreviating hospital stays and accelerating clinic visits are feeding professional loneliness, and meaningful advances in technology have levied a significant... Show moreHealth care's institutional goals of abbreviating hospital stays and accelerating clinic visits are feeding professional loneliness, and meaningful advances in technology have levied a significant toll in the form of separation from patients and colleagues. The transition away from routine interaction with patients and colleagues toward more individual activities has contributed to loneliness and burnout. Addressing physicians' loneliness in the 21st century requires finding innovative ways to interact with each other. In recent years, health care leaders have increasingly turned to "nudges" to influence health-related behaviors. But harmful health and health care behaviors often arise in circumstances that give us . . . Show less
Purpose Photoscreening assesses risk factors for amblyopia, as an alternative to measurement of visual acuity (VA) to detect amblyopia, on the premise that its early correction could prevent... Show morePurpose Photoscreening assesses risk factors for amblyopia, as an alternative to measurement of visual acuity (VA) to detect amblyopia, on the premise that its early correction could prevent development of amblyopia. We studied implementations of Plusoptix photoscreening in existing population-based screening in Flanders and Iran. Methods In Flanders, VA is measured at age 3, 4 and 6, photoscreening was added to existing screening at age 1 and 2.5 years in 2013. In Iran, VA is measured at ages 3-6 years, photoscreening was added at ages 3-6 years between 2011 and 2016. Plusoptix use was analysed in the literature for detection of risk factors for amblyopia and amblyopia itself, for ages 0-3 and for 4-6. A questionnaire, containing seven domains: existing vision screening, addition of photoscreening, implementation in screening program, training, attendance, diagnosis and treatment, and costs was distributed. In Iran, screening procedures were observed on site. Results Implementation of Plusoptix photoscreening was mainly analysed from questionnaires and interviews, its effectiveness from literature data. In Flanders, of 56 759 children photoscreened at age one (81% of children born in 2013), 9.2% had been referred, 13% of these were treated, mostly with glasses, resulting in an increase of 4-year-old children wearing glasses from 4.7% to 6.4%. In Iran, 90% of children aged 3-6 years participated in vision screening in 2016, but only those who failed the vision test were subjected to photoscreening. Conclusions In Flanders, the use of Plusoptix photoscreening at ages 1 and 2.5 resulted in an increase of children wearing glasses, but it remains unknown how many cases of amblyopia have been prevented. Studies are needed to determine the relation between size and sort of refractive error and strabismus, and the increased chance to develop amblyopia. Show less
Kooyker, A.I.; Toes-Zoutendijk, E.; Opstal-van Winden, A.W.J.; Spaander, M.C.W.; Buskermolen, M.; Vuuren, H.J. van; ... ; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I. 2020
The Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program started in 2014, inviting the target population biennially to perform a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). We obtained prospectively collected data... Show moreThe Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program started in 2014, inviting the target population biennially to perform a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). We obtained prospectively collected data from the national screening information-system to present the results of the second round (2016) and evaluate the impact of increasing the FIT cut-off halfway through the first round from 15 to 47 mu g Hb/g feces on outcomes in the second round. Second round screening was done with a 47 mu g Hb/g feces FIT cut-off. Participants were classified based on first round participation status as either FIT (15,47) or FIT (47,47) participants, and previous nonparticipants. In total, 348,891 (75.9%) out of 459,740 invitees participated in the second round. Participation rates were 93.4% among previous participants and 21.0% among previous non-participants. FIT(47,47) participants had a significantly higher detection rate of AN (15.3 vs. 10.4 per 1,000 participants) compared to FIT(15,47) participants in the second round, while their cumulative detection rate of AN over two rounds was significantly lower (45.6 vs. 52.6 per 1,000 participants). Our results showed that participation in the Dutch CRC screening program was consistently high and that second round detection rates depended on the first round FIT cut-off. The cumulative detection over two rounds was higher among FIT(15,47) participants. These findings suggest that a substantial part of, but not all the missed findings in the first round due to the increased FIT cut-off were detected in the subsequent round. Show less
Background Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for... Show moreBackground Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk.Methods In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661.Findings Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4.3 (SD 1.76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0.0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0.010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0.023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0.035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0.014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0.0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group).Interpretation MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
