Search

OBJECTIVE: To present results from the UK NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) for the six-year period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2005, and to compare these with targets. METHODS: Data are collected annually from all UK screening units on standard KC62 return forms. RESULTS: The prevalence of screen-positive cancer (cancer detection rate) has increased at both rounds during the six-year period. At the incident round, cancer detection rates increased by 24%, from 5.4 per 1000 in 2000 to 6.7 per 1000 in 2005 and the detection of small cancers (< or = 10 mm) has increased by 40%. Generally, quality measures in the programme continue to improve. However, while rates of recall at the incident screen decreased from 3.8% in 2000 to 3.6% in 2005, at the prevalent round, in 2005, 22% of units continued to recall more than 10% of women to assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the performance of the programme continues to improve. In the future, analysis of data on interval cancers will assist the interpretation of cancer detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pedigrees are a foundation of genetic counseling and human genetic research. To protect patient/subject and family privacy and confidentiality it is not unusual to find published pedigrees that have been masked (i.e. a pedigree that has been changed in ways that are obvious to the reader such as diamonds to mask gender) or altered (i.e. changing pedigree information in ways that are not obvious to the reader such as changing gender and birth order or deleting unaffected siblings from the pedigree). Failure to report pedigree data (e.g. omitting ages, ethnicity, etc.) is another measure used to protect subject and family confidentiality. At what point do such practices hinder the recognition of genetic processes? Is there evidence that harm has occurred to subjects who have appeared in published pedigrees? How does the researcher or clinician determine which information is essential to record on the pedigree? The author uses a historical perspective and case examples to illustrate the issues of balancing protection of the genetic subject's privacy with the reporting of unaltered family data. The author presents several critical questions for peer reviewers and investigators to consider when a pedigree is included in a manuscript, or for researchers involved in family studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]