In England, a national breast screening programme (NHSBSP) has been in place since 1988, and assessment of its impact on breast cancer incidence and mortality is essential to ensure that the programme is indeed doing more good than harm. This article describes large observation studies designed to estimate the effects of the current programme in terms of the benefits on breast cancer incidence and mortality and detrimental effect in terms of overdiagnosis. The case-control design of the cervical screening programme evaluation was highly effective in informing policy on screening intervals and age ranges. We propose innovative selection of cases and controls and gathering of additional variables to address new outcomes of interest and develop new methodologies to control for potential sources of bias.
BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is a controversial topic. One difficulty in estimation of overdiagnosis is the separation of overdiagnosis from lead time that is the advance in the time of diagnosis of cancers, which confers an artificial increase in incidence when a screening programme is introduced. METHODS: We postulated a female population aged 50-79 with a similar age structure and age-specific breast cancer incidence as in England and Wales before the screening programme. We then imposed a two-yearly screening programme; screening women aged 50-69, to run for twenty years, with exponentially distributed lead time with an average of 40 months in screen-detected cancers. We imposed no effect of the screening on incidence other than lead time. RESULTS: Comparison of age- and time-specific incidence between the screened and unscreened populations showed a major effect of lead time, which could only be adjusted for by follow-up for more than two decades and including ten years after the last screen. From lead time alone, twenty-year observation at ages 50-69 would confer an observed excess incidence of 37%. The excess would only fall below 10% with 25 years or more follow-up. For the excess to be nullified, we would require 30 year follow-up including observation up to 10 years above the upper age limit for screening. CONCLUSION: Studies using shorter observation periods will overestimate overdiagnosis by inclusion of cancers diagnosed early due to lead time among the nominally overdiagnosed tumours.
In the triennium 2006-2008, 261 women in the UK died directly or indirectly related to pregnancy. The overall maternal mortality rate was 11.39 per 100,000 maternities. Direct deaths decreased from 6.24 per 100,000 maternities in 2003-2005 to 4.67 per 100,000 maternities in 2006–2008 (p = 0.02). This decline is predominantly due to the reduction in deaths from thromboembolism and, to a lesser extent, haemorrhage. For the first time there has been a reduction in the inequalities gap, with a significant decrease in maternal mortality rates among those living in the most deprived areas and those in the lowest socio-economic group. Despite a decline in the overall UK maternal mortality rate, there has been an increase in deaths related to genital tract sepsis, particularly from community acquired Group A streptococcal disease. The mortality rate related to sepsis increased from 0.85 deaths per 100,000 maternities in 2003-2005 to 1.13 deaths in 2006-2008, and sepsis is now the most common cause of Direct maternal death. Cardiac disease is the most common cause of Indirect death; the Indirect maternal mortality rate has not changed significantly since 2003-2005. This Confidential Enquiry identified substandard care in 70% of Direct deaths and 55% of Indirect deaths. Many of the identified avoidable factors remain the same as those identified in previous Enquiries. Recommendations for improving care have been developed and are highlighted in this report. Implementing the Top ten recommendations should be prioritised in order to ensure the overall UK maternal mortality rate continues to decline.
Related JoVE Video
Journal of Visualized Experiments
What is Visualize?
JoVE Visualize is a tool created to match the last 5 years of PubMed publications to methods in JoVE's video library.
How does it work?
We use abstracts found on PubMed and match them to JoVE videos to create a list of 10 to 30 related methods videos.
Video X seems to be unrelated to Abstract Y...
In developing our video relationships, we compare around 5 million PubMed articles to our library of over 4,500 methods videos. In some cases the language used in the PubMed abstracts makes matching that content to a JoVE video difficult. In other cases, there happens not to be any content in our video library that is relevant to the topic of a given abstract. In these cases, our algorithms are trying their best to display videos with relevant content, which can sometimes result in matched videos with only a slight relation.