Association of Regular Endoscopic Screening with Interval Gastric Cancer Incidence in the National Cancer Screening Program

Although regular endoscopic screening may help in early detection of gastric cancer, interval cancer remains a problem in the screening program. This study evaluated the association between regular endoscopic screening and interval cancer detection in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP). We defined three groups (regularly, irregularly, and not screened) according to the screening interval, and the trends in the interval cancer rate (ICR) between the groups were tested using the Cochran–Armitage test. The influence of regular endoscopic screening on the risk of interval cancer was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Among the 11,642,410 participants who underwent endoscopy, the overall ICR was 0.36 per 1000 negative screenings. The ICR of the not screened group (0.41) was the highest among the three groups and the risk of interval cancer in this group was 1.68 times higher (p < 0.001) than that in the regularly screened group. Women in their 40s who had regular screening with no history of intestinal metaplasia and gastric polyps would have the lowest probability of having interval cancer (0.005%). Regular participation in endoscopic screening programs for reducing the risk of interval cancer may help to improve the quality of screening programs.

Can artificial intelligence reduce the interval cancer rate in mammography screening?

Objectives To investigate whether artificial intelligence (AI) can reduce interval cancer in mammography screening. Materials and methods Preceding screening mammograms of 429 consecutive women diagnosed with interval cancer in Southern Sweden between 2013 and 2017 were analysed with a deep learning–based AI system. The system assigns a risk score from 1 to 10. Two experienced breast radiologists reviewed and classified the cases in consensus as true negative, minimal signs or false negative and assessed whether the AI system correctly localised the cancer. The potential reduction of interval cancer was calculated at different risk score thresholds corresponding to approximately 10%, 4% and 1% recall rates. Results A statistically significant correlation between interval cancer classification groups and AI risk score was observed (p < .0001). AI scored one in three (143/429) interval cancer with risk score 10, of which 67% (96/143) were either classified as minimal signs or false negative. Of these, 58% (83/143) were correctly located by AI, and could therefore potentially be detected at screening with the aid of AI, resulting in a 19.3% (95% CI 15.9–23.4) reduction of interval cancer. At 4% and 1% recall thresholds, the reduction of interval cancer was 11.2% (95% CI 8.5–14.5) and 4.7% (95% CI 3.0–7.1). The corresponding reduction of interval cancer with grave outcome (women who died or with stage IV disease) at risk score 10 was 23% (8/35; 95% CI 12–39). Conclusion The use of AI in screen reading has the potential to reduce the rate of interval cancer without supplementary screening modalities. Key Points • Retrospective study showed that AI detected 19% of interval cancer at the preceding screening exam that in addition showed at least minimal signs of malignancy. Importantly, these were correctly localised by AI, thus obviating supplementary screening modalities. • AI could potentially reduce a proportion of particularly aggressive interval cancers. • There was a correlation between AI risk score and interval cancer classified as true negative, minimal signs or false negative.

Retrospective analysis of the effect on interval cancer rate of adding an artificial intelligence algorithm to the reading process for two-dimensional full-field digital mammography

Interval cancers are a commonly seen problem in organized breast cancer screening programs and their rate is measured for quality assurance. Artificial intelligence algorithms have been proposed to improve mammography sensitivity, in which case it is likely that the interval cancer rate would decrease and the quality of the screening system could be improved. Interval cancers from negative screening in 2011 and 2012 of one regional unit of the national German breast cancer screening program were classified by a group of radiologists, categorizing the screening digital mammography with diagnostic images as true interval, minimal signs, false negative and occult cancer. Screening mammograms were processed using a detection algorithm based on deep learning. Of the 29 cancer cases available, artificial intelligence identified eight out of nine of those classified as minimal signs, all six false negatives and none of the true interval and occult cancers. Sensitivity for lesions judged to be already present in screening mammogram was 93% (95% confidence interval 68–100) and sensitivity for any interval cancer was 48% (95% confidence interval 29–67). Using an artificial intelligence algorithm as an additional reading tool has the potential to reduce interval cancers. How and if this theoretical advantage can be reached without a negative effect on recall rate is a challenge for future research.

Interval Cancer Rate and Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Test According to Family History of Colorectal Cancer

Background: The potential role of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. We assessed interval cancer rate (ICR) after the FIT and FIT diagnostic performance according to family history of CRC. Methods: Using the Korean National Cancer Screening Program Database, we collected data on subjects who underwent the FIT between 2009 and 2011. The interval cancer rate (ICR) was defined as the number of subjects diagnosed with CRC within 1 year after the FIT per 1000 subjects with negative FIT results. Results: Of 5,643,438 subjects, 224,178 (3.97%) had a family history of CRC. FIT positivity rate (6.4% vs. 5.9%; adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.13) and ICR (1.4 vs. 1.1; aRR 1.43 (95% CI 1.27–1.60)) were higher in these subjects than in those with no such history. These results were the same regardless of whether subjects had undergone colonoscopy within the last 5 years before the FIT. However, the diagnostic performance of the FIT for CRC, as measured using the area under the operating characteristic curve, was similar between subjects without a family history and those with one (85.5% and 84.6%, respectively; p = 0.259). Conclusion: the FIT was 1.4 times more likely to miss CRC in subjects with a family history than in those without (aRR 1.43 for ICR), although its diagnostic performance was similar between the two groups. Our results suggest that for individuals with a family history of CRC, colonoscopy should be preferred over FIT for both screening and surveillance.

Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis

Background Breast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates. Methods A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Seven databases were searched for publications that compared film with digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women and reported cancer detection and/or interval cancer rates. Results The analysis included 24 studies with 16 583 743 screening examinations (10 968 843 film and 5 614 900 digital). The pooled difference in the cancer detection rate showed an increase of 0.51 per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.83), greater relative increase for ductal carcinoma in situ (25.2%, 95% CI = 17.4% to 33.5%) than invasive (4%, 95% CI = −3% to 13%), and a recall rate increase of 6.95 (95% CI = 3.47 to 10.42) per 1000 screens after the transition from film to digital mammography. Seven studies (80.8% of screens) reported interval cancers: the pooled difference showed no change in the interval cancer rate with −0.02 per 1000 screens (95% CI = −0.06 to 0.03). Restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias resulted in findings consistent with the overall pooled results for all outcomes. Conclusions The increase in cancer detection following the practice shift to digital mammography did not translate into a reduction in the interval cancer rate. Recall rates were increased. These results suggest the transition from film to digital mammography did not result in health benefits for screened women. This analysis reinforces the need to carefully evaluate effects of future changes in technology, such as tomosynthesis, to ensure new technology leads to improved health outcomes and beyond technical gains.

Interval colorectal cancers after negative faecal immunochemical test in a 13-year screening programme

Objective To assess faecal immunochemical test sensitivity for cancer in a very large population-based cohort followed up for six rounds with biennial faecal immunochemical test repetition. Methods This study is based on interval colorectal cancers diagnosed in a cohort of subjects aged 50–69 undergoing repeated faecal immunochemical test screening (six rounds) from 2002 to 2015. Test sensitivity was calculated using both the Proportional Interval Cancer Rate and the Interval Cancer Proportion method. Results Among 441,647 faecal immunochemical tests (123,347 individuals), 150 interval colorectal cancers were detected after a negative faecal immunochemical test. Interval colorectal cancer incidence rate was 1.87 per 10,000 person-years (95%CI: 1.60–2.20), and it was higher during the second interval year (rate ratio: 1.78; 95%CI: 1.28–2.47), for proximal locations (rate ratio: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.92–4.68), and among 60–71 year old subjects (rate ratio: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.61–3.50). The Proportional Interval Cancer Rate was 13.1%, with an overall faecal immunochemical test sensitivity of 86.9% (95%CI: 84.7–89.0). Sensitivity was lowest at the first round (81.5%; 95%CI: 75.6–86.2), and increased to 91.9% (95%CI: 83.9–96.5) for subsequent rounds. Applying the Interval Cancer Proportion method, sensitivity was 83.9% (95%CI: 81.3–86.2), and it was highest at the first round (89.0%; 95%CI: 85.7–91.6), ranging between 73% and 83.1% at subsequent rounds. Conclusions A faecal immunochemical test sensitivity for cancer higher than 80% resulted in a low incidence of interval colorectal cancers, representing an accurate estimate of one of the major limits of screening programmes. Due to intrinsic biases, the Proportional Interval Cancer Rate and the Interval Cancer Proportion methods generated different trends in faecal immunochemical test sensitivity by screening round.

Javaslat a hazai méhnyakszűrési eljárásrend korszerűsítésére

Two main considerations played roles in creation of new cervical screening system. One was the proven fact that high-risk human papilloma virus infection plays a role in the development of cervical cancer and pre-cancerous lesions. The other was the implementation of the HPV infection’s biological behavior in the new screening strategy. The new screening procedure faithfully reflects the cervical carcinogenesis. An organised, population-based and age differentiated screening method could increase attendance of screening and could decrease the possibility of interval cancer rate due to increased sensitivity. Orv Hetil. 2017; 158(52): 2062–2067.

Diagnostic performances of supplemental breast ultrasound screening in women with personal history of breast cancer

Background Supplemental breast ultrasonography (US) has been used as a surveillance imaging method in women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). However, there have been limited data regarding diagnostic performances. Purpose To evaluate diagnostic performances of supplemental breast US screening for women with PHBC and to compare with those for women without PHBC. Material and Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 12,230 supplemental US exams were performed in 12,230 women with negative mammograms: 6584 women with PHBC and 5646 women without PHBC. Cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared. Results Overall cancer detection rate and first-year interval cancer rate were 1.80/1000 exams and 0.91/1000 negative exams, both of which were higher in women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (2.88 vs. 0.53 per 1000, P = 0.003; 1.50 vs. 0.20 per 1000, P = 0.027). Abnormal interpretation rate was lower in the women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (9.1% vs. 12.1%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity was not different (67.9% vs. 75.0%, P = 1.000), whereas specificity and PPV3 were higher in women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (91.2% vs. 88.0%, P < 0.001; 22.6% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.001). The majority of detected cancers in women with PHBC (78.9%, 15/19) were stage 0 or 1. Conclusion Supplemental breast US screening increases early stage second breast cancers with high specificity and PPV3 in women with PHBC, however, high interval cancer rate in younger women with PHBC should be noted.

Breast MRI screening of women at average risk of breast cancer: An observational cohort study.

1 Background: Breast-MRI is currently recommended for screening women at high-risk of breast-cancer only. However, despite decades of mammographic-screening, breast-cancer continues to represent a major cause of cancer-death also for women at average-risk – suggesting a need for improved methods for early diagnosis also for these women. Therefore, we investigated the utility of supplemental MRI-screening of women who carry an average-risk of breast-cancer. Methods: Prospective observational cohort-study conducted in two academic breast-centers on asymptomatic women at average-risk in the usual age range for screening-mammography (40 to 70). Women underwent DCE-breast-MRI in addition to mammography every 12, 24, or 36 months, plus follow-up of 2 years to establish a standard-of-reference. We report on the supplemental-cancer-yield, interval-cancer-rate, diagnostic accuracy of screening-MRI, and biologic profiles of additional, MRI-detected breast-cancers. Results: 2120 women underwent a total 3861 MRI-studies covering 7007 women-years. Breast-cancer was diagnosed in 61/2120 women (DCIS: 20, invasive: 41), and ADH/LIN in another 21. Interval-cancer-rate was 0%, irrespective of screening interval. Forty-eight women were diagnosed with breast-cancer at prevalence-screening by MRI alone (supplemental cancer-detection-rate: 22.6 per 1000); 13 women were diagnosed with breast-cancer in 1741 incidence-screening-rounds collected over 4887 women-years. A total 12 of these 13 incident cancers were diagnosed by screening-MRI alone (supplemental-cancer-detection-rate: 6.9 per 1000), one by MRI and mammography, none by mammography alone. Supplemental-cancer-detection-rate was independent of mammographic breast-density. Invasive cancers were small (mean size: 8mm), node-negative in 93.4%, ER/PR-negative in 32.8%, and de-differentiated in 41.7% at prevalence, and 46.0% at incidence-screening. Specificity of MRI-screening was 97.1%, False-Positive-Rate 2.9%. Conclusions: MRI-screening improves detection of biologically relevant breast-cancer in women at average-risk, and reduces the interval-cancer-rate down to 0%, at a low false-positive rate.