Search

Introduction Little is known about how early (eg, commencing antenatally or in the first 12 months after birth) obesity prevention interventions seek to change behaviour and which components are or are not effective. This study aims to (1) characterise early obesity prevention interventions in terms of target behaviours, delivery features and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), (2) explore similarities and differences in BCTs used to target behaviours and (3) explore effectiveness of intervention components in preventing childhood obesity.Methods and analysis Annual comprehensive systematic searches will be performed in Epub Ahead of Print/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, as well as clinical trial registries. Eligible randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions to prevent childhood obesity commencing antenatally or in the first year after birth will be invited to join the Transforming Obesity in CHILDren Collaboration. Standard ontologies will be used to code target behaviours, delivery features and BCTs in both published and unpublished intervention materials provided by trialists. Narrative syntheses will be performed to summarise intervention components and compare applied BCTs by types of target behaviours. Exploratory analyses will be undertaken to assess effectiveness of intervention components.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (project no. 2020/273) and Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (project no. HREC CIA2133-1). The study’s findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and targeted communication with key stakeholders.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020177408.

Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up. Methods: Using individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data. Findings: Four prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25–21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71–66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25–14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22–23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89–23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00–10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73–14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88–43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005). Interpretation: Although heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.

Abstract An interval breast cancer is a cancer that emerges following a negative mammographic screen. This overview describes the epidemiology, and the radiological and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening. Notwithstanding possible differences in ascertainment of interval breast cancers, there was broad variability in reported interval breast cancer rates (range 7.0 to 49.3 per 10,000 screens) reflecting heterogeneity in underlying breast cancer rates, screening rounds (initial or repeat screens), and the length and phase of the inter-screening interval. The majority of studies (based on biennial screening) reported interval breast cancer rates in the range of 8.4 to 21.1 per 10,000 screens spanning the two-year interval with the larger proportion occurring in the second year. Despite methodological limitations inherent in radiological surveillance (retrospective mammographic review) of interval breast cancers, this form of surveillance consistently reveals that the majority of interval cancers represent either true interval or occult cancers that were not visible on the index mammographic screen; approximately 20–25% of interval breast cancers are classified as having been missed (false-negatives). The biological characteristics of interval breast cancers show that they have relatively worse tumour prognostic characteristics and biomarker profile, and also survival outcomes, than screen-detected breast cancers; however, they have similar characteristics and prognosis as breast cancers occurring in non-screened women. There was limited evidence on the effect on interval breast cancer frequency and outcomes following transition from film to digital mammography screening.