Search

Objective: Many population-based breast screening programmes temporarily suspended routine screening following the COVID-19 pandemic onset. This study aimed to describe screening mammography utilisation and the pattern of screen-detected breast cancer diagnoses following COVID-19-related screening disruptions in Ireland. Methods: Using anonymous aggregate data from women invited for routine screening, three time periods were examined: (1) January–December 2019, (2) January–December 2020, and (3) January–December 2021. Descriptive statistics were conducted and comparisons between groups were performed using chi-square tests. Results: In 2020, screening mammography capacity fell by 67.1% compared to 2019; recovering to 75% of mammograms performed in 2019, during 2021. Compared to 2019, for screen-detected invasive breast cancers, a reduction in Grade 1 (14.2% vs. 17.2%) and Grade 2 tumours (53.4% vs. 58.0%) and an increase in Grade 3 tumours (32.4% vs. 24.8%) was observed in 2020 (p = 0.03); whereas an increase in Grade 2 tumours (63.3% vs. 58.0%) and a reduction in Grade 3 tumours (19.6% vs. 24.8%) was found in 2021 (p = 0.02). No changes in oestrogen receptor-positive or nodal-positive diagnoses were observed; however the proportion of oestrogen/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancers significantly increased in 2020 (76.2%; p < 0.01) and 2021 (78.7%; p < 0.001) compared to 2019 (67.8%). Conclusion: These findings demonstrate signs of a grade change for screen-detected invasive breast cancers early in the pandemic, with recovery evident in 2021, and without an increase in nodal positivity. Future studies are needed to determine the COVID-19 impact on long-term breast cancer outcomes including mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and Setting: Accurate monitoring of interval cancers is important both for quality improvement and education and is a key parameter of breast screening quality assurance. Issues in relation to communication regarding interval cervical cancer in the Irish cervical screening programme were found, prompting interval cancer process review in all cancer screening programmes. An international survey to examine international consensus on interval breast cancer audit processes was conducted to inform Irish processes. Methods: A survey of 24 international population-based breast screening programmes was done to determine which undertook audit of interval breast cancer; if yes, they were asked (1) how they undertake audit, (2) if they obtain individual consent for audit and inform women of audit results, and (3) if disclosure of audit results occurs. Results: Response was 71% (17/24). Of these, 71% (12/17) have a programmatic audit process to calculate the interval cancer rate (ICR). Of these, ten also carry out radiological reviews, three using a blinded review. Two inform patients that audit is taking place; two provide choice to be in the audit; nine state that routine screening consent covers audit. For two of the five that have an open disclosure policy for medical incidents, this policy applies to screening interval cancers. One other country/region has an open disclosure policy for category 3 interval cancers only. Five have legal protection for interval cancers arising in the screened population. Conclusion: While consistency in providing aggregate programmatic audits exists, there is no consistent approach to individual interval cancer reviews or results disclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Legal cases involving the National Cervical Screening Programme in Ireland following non-disclosure of an interval cervical cancer audit prompted this first international comparative survey of interval cervical cancer audit. Methods: A survey of 22 international population-based cervical screening programmes was conducted, to determine if they undertook audit of invasive cervical cancers. Those countries/regions that perform reviews were asked (i) how the audit was undertaken, including how the reviews were performed and how they controlled for retrospective bias, (ii) how women are informed of the audit process and how their consent is obtained, and (iii) how audit results were disclosed to patients. Results: Seventeen countries/regions invited completed the survey (77%); 65% (11/17) have an audit process for interval cervical cancers. Five perform individual patient reviews; three perform programme-wide review, with calculation of interval cancer detection rates; one routinely performs programme-wide review with calculation of interval cancer detection rates and offers individual reviews, and one routinely performs local hospital-level reviews. In the remaining country/region, hospital laboratories audit cancers, with a national audit process for all cervical cancers. Varying methodologies for retrospective cytology review were employed; four include control samples, with a ratio varying from 1:1 to 1:2. Three conduct a blinded review. Most countries/regions do not discuss interval cancer audit with participants and 3/11 (27.3%) inform women when a cervical cancer audit takes place. Disclosure is limited and variable. Conclusion: The responses suggest that there is no consistent approach to audit of interval cervical cancers or to disclosure of audit results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To study the uptake of annual diabetic retinopathy screening and study the 5-year trends in the detection of screen-positive diabetic retinopathy and non-diabetes- related eye disease in a cohort of annually screened individuals. Design Retrospective retinopathy screening attendance and retinopathy grading analysis. Setting Community-based retinopathy screening centres for the Diabetic RetinaScreen Programme. Participants 171 557 were identified by the screening programme to be eligible for annual diabetic retinopathy screening. 120 048 individuals over the age of 12 consented to and attended at least one screening appointment between February 2013 to December 2018. Main Outcome Measures Detection rate per 100 000 of any retinopathy, screen-positive referrable retinopathy and nondiabetic eye disease. Results Uptake of screening had reached 67.2% in the fifth round of screening. Detection rate of screen-positive retinopathy reduced from 13 229 to 4237 per 100 000 screened over five rounds. Detection of proliferative disease had reduced from 2898 to 713 per 100 000 screened. Non-diabetic eye disease detection and referral to treatment centres increased almost eightfold from 393 in round 1 to 3225 per 100 000 screened. The majority of individuals referred to treatment centres for ophthalmologist assessment are over the age of 50 years. Conclusions Screening programme has seen a reduced detection rate both screen-positive retinopathy referral in Ireland over five rounds of screening. Management of nondiabetic eye diseases poses a significant challenge in improving visual outcomes of people living with diabetes in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little research exists on what predicts individual return to screening after a false-positive faecal immunochemical test in a population bowel screening programme. We aimed to quantify the impact of false-positive faecal immunochemical test in the first round of screening on re-attendance in BowelScreen, the National Bowel Screening Programme in Ireland. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. False-positivity was defined as a positive faecal immunochemical test with subsequent colonoscopy showing no evidence of malignancy or surveillance requirement. In those with a false-positive faecal immunochemical test, logistic regression was used to predict repeat participation in the second round. Results: Of 196,149 individuals who attended the first screening round, 108,075 were eligible and re-invited in the second round, and 93,971 accepted the invitation (86.9%). Second round uptake was higher in faecal immunochemical test-negative individuals compared with those having false-positive results (87.5% vs. 73.1%; p < 0.001). Older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60–0.94), computed tomography colonography (unsuitability/failed colonoscopy) (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.21–0.73), and longer duration from screening invitation to faecal immunochemical test result (OR 0.991; 95% CI 0.9872–0.995) were predictors of non-re-attendance in the next screening round. Conclusion: There is a significant reduction in re-attendance rates for individuals with false-positive faecal immunochemical test results. The letter sent following a negative colonoscopy is being reviewed to ensure that it provides adequate encouragement to re-attend. There are roles for screening promotion and for Gastroenterologists and Advanced Nurse Practitioners to emphasize the importance of regular faecal immunochemical tests after a negative colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer screening programmes can lead to better disease outcomes, but women from deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate and more likely to present with late-stage cancer. This study aimed to explore associations between deprivation and breast cancer screening outcomes in Ireland during 2009-2018. Data on all female breast cancer cases diagnosed in Ireland during 2009-2018 were extracted from the National Cancer Registry Ireland. Associations between area-level deprivation, using the Pobal Haase-Pratschke deprivation index, and detection of breast cancer through BreastCheck, Ireland's breast screening programme, and stage of screen-detected breast cancer were explored. Unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Among screening eligible women in Ireland in 2009-2018, there was no difference in risk of breast cancer detection through BreastCheck across deprivation quintiles (RR for most compared to least deprived group: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.06). In women with screen-detected breast cancer, the risk of late-stage cancer detection increased with deprivation in 2009-2013 (RR for most compared to least deprived group: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10-1.93), but no association was observed between deprivation and cancer stage in 2014-2018. Notwithstanding its limitations, including the risk of confounding by uncontrolled variables, this study suggests screening eligible women in Ireland have had similar outcomes from breast cancer screening, regardless of deprivation level, since the national roll-out of BreastCheck. Associations between deprivation and screening outcomes should continue to be monitored to ensure Ireland's breast cancer screening programme is helping to reduce health inequities., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)