Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Risk-based breast cancer screening would be a dramatic shift from the current one-size-fits-all model to a tailored approach where screening modality and frequency is directed by individual risk. This project assesses what key stakeholders, defined as those holding managerial and decision-making roles within BreastScreen, consider the issues are with implementing a risk-based approach to screening. Methods A qualitative approach was undertaken, recruiting participants through professional networks with interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants were key stakeholders defined as those managing, overseeing and influencing Breast Screen throughout Australia. Data were deductively coded against a CFIR-informed codebook, followed by content analysis per CFIR domain. Results Twenty interviews were conducted with 21 participants. 144 initial codes consolidated into 17 final themes. Key stakeholders are supportive and optimistic about risk-based screening in principle; however several issues exist, including knowledge gaps precluding support of evidence-based implementation. Concerns about worsening inequities within screening, cost and communication with clients are major issues key stakeholders consider important to address in the planning and implementing a change to the program. Conclusions Key stakeholders in Australia were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the benefits of a risk-based approach however there are concerns about risk assessment utility, cost and the potential risk to equity in the program. Systematic assessment of these concerns will be required to facilitate successful change to the well-established breast screening program in Australia should risk-stratification be undertaken.

Background There is a growing interest in delivering more personalised, risk-based breast cancer screening protocols. This requires population-level validation of practical models that can stratify women into breast cancer risk groups. Few studies have evaluated the Gail model (NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool) in a population screening setting; we validated this tool in a large, screened population. Methods We used data from 40,158 women aged 50–69 years (via the lifepool cohort) participating in Australia’s BreastScreen programme. We investigated the association between Gail scores and future invasive breast cancer, comparing observed and expected outcomes by Gail score ranked groups. We also used machine learning to rank Gail model input variables by importance and then assessed the incremental benefit in risk prediction obtained by adding variables in order of diminishing importance. Results Over a median of 4.3 years, the Gail model predicted 612 invasive breast cancers compared with 564 observed cancers (expected/observed (E/O) = 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.18). There was good agreement across decile groups of Gail scores (χ 2  = 7.1, p  = 0.6) although there was some overestimation of cancer risk in the top decile of our study group (E/O = 1.65, 95% CI 1.33–2.07). Women in the highest quintile (Q5) of Gail scores had a 2.28-fold increased risk of breast cancer (95% CI 1.73–3.02, p  < 0.0001) compared with the lowest quintile (Q1). Compared with the median quintile, women in Q5 had a 34% increased risk (95% CI 1.06–1.70, p  = 0.014) and those in Q1 had a 41% reduced risk (95% CI 0.44–0.79, p  < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed separately for women aged 50–59 and 60–69 years. The model’s overall discrimination was modest (area under the curve (AUC) 0.59, 95% CI 0.56–0.61). A reduced Gail model excluding information on ethnicity and hyperplasia was comparable to the full Gail model in terms of correctly stratifying women into risk groups. Conclusions This study confirms that the Gail model (or a reduced model excluding information on hyperplasia and ethnicity) can effectively stratify a screened population aged 50–69 years according to the risk of future invasive breast cancer. This information has the potential to enable more personalised, risk-based screening strategies that aim to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.

Internationally, population breast cancer screening is moving towards a risk-stratified approach and requires engagement and acceptance from current and future screening clients. A decision aid (www.defineau.org) was developed based on women’s views, values, and knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on women’s knowledge, risk perception, acceptance of risk assessment and change of screening frequency, and decision-making. Here we report the results of a pre and post-survey in which women who are clients of BreastScreen Victoria were invited to complete an online questionnaire before and after viewing the decision aid. 3200 potential participants were invited, 242 responded with 127 participants completing both surveys. After reviewing the decision aid there was a significant change in knowledge, acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening and of decreased frequency screening for lower risk. High levels of acceptance of risk stratification, genetic testing and broad support for tailored screening persisted pre and post review. The DEFINE decision aid has a positive impact on acceptance of lower frequency screening, a major barrier to the success of a risk-stratified program and may contribute to facilitating change to the population breast screening program in Australia.

Purpose Women with a personal history of breast cancer have an increased risk of subsequent breast malignancy and may benefit from more sensitive surveillance than conventional mammography (MG). We previously reported outcomes for first surveillance episode using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), demonstrating higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to MG. We now report CEM performance for subsequent surveillance. Methods A retrospective study of 1,190 women in an Australian hospital setting undergoing annual surveillance following initial surveillance CEM between June 2016 and December 2022. Outcome measures were recall rate, cancer detection rate, contribution of contrast to recalls, false positive rate, interval cancer rate and characteristics of surveillance detected and interval cancers. Results 2,592 incident surveillance episodes were analysed, of which 93% involved contrast-based imaging. Of 116 (4.5%) recall episodes, 40/116 (34%) recalls were malignant (27 invasive; 13 ductal carcinoma in situ), totalling 15.4 cancers per 1000 surveillance episodes. 55/116 (47%) recalls were contrast-directed including 17/40 (43%) true positive recalls. Tumour features were similar for contrast-directed recalls and other diagnoses. 8/9 (89%) of contrast-directed invasive recalls were Grade 2–3, and 5/9 (56%) were triple negative breast cancers. There were two symptomatic interval cancers (0.8 per 1000 surveillance episodes, program sensitivity 96%). Conclusion Routine use of CEM in surveillance of women with PHBC led to an increase in the detection of clinically significant malignant lesions, with a low interval cancer rate compared to previous published series. Compared to mammographic surveillance, contrast-enhanced mammography increases the sensitivity of surveillance programs for women with PHBC.

We previously reported the 5-year results of the phase 3 IBCSG 23-01 trial comparing disease-free survival in patients with breast cancer with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes randomly assigned to either axillary dissection or no axillary dissection. The results showed no difference in disease-free survival between the groups and showed non-inferiority of no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection. The current analysis presents the results of the study after a median follow-up of 9·7 years (IQR 7·8–12·7). In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 27 hospitals and cancer centres in nine countries. Eligible women could be of any age with clinical, mammographic, ultrasonographic, or pathological diagnosis of breast cancer with largest lesion diameter of 5 cm or smaller, and one or more metastatic sentinel nodes, all of which were 2 mm or smaller and with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) before surgery (mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery) to no axillary dissection or axillary dissection using permuted blocks generated by a web-based congruence algorithm, with stratification by centre and menopausal status. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (as randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received their allocated treatment (as treated). We did a one-sided test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection by comparing the observed hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival with a margin of 1·25. This 10-year follow-up analysis was not prespecified in the trial's protocol and thus was not adjusted for multiple, sequential testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00072293. Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 8, 2010, 6681 patients were screened and 934 randomly assigned to no axillary dissection (n=469) or axillary dissection (n=465). Three patients were ineligible and were excluded from the trial after randomisation. Disease-free survival at 10 years was 76·8% (95% CI 72·5–81·0) in the no axillary dissection group, compared with 74·9% (70·5–79·3) in the axillary dissection group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·65–1·11; log-rank p=0·24; p=0·0024 for non-inferiority). Long-term surgical complications included lymphoedema of any grade in 16 (4%) of 453 patients in the no axillary dissection group and 60 (13%) of 447 in the axillary dissection group, sensory neuropathy of any grade in 57 (13%) in the no axillary dissection group versus 85 (19%) in the axillary dissection group, and motor neuropathy of any grade (14 [3%] in the no axillary dissection group vs 40 [9%] in the axillary dissection group). One serious adverse event (postoperative infection and inflamed axilla requiring hospital admission) was attributed to axillary dissection; the event resolved without sequelae. The findings of the IBCSG 23-01 trial after a median follow-up of 9·7 years (IQR 7·8–12·7) corroborate those obtained at 5 years and are consistent with those of the 10-year follow-up analysis of the Z0011 trial. Together, these findings support the current practice of not doing an axillary dissection when the tumour burden in the sentinel nodes is minimal or moderate in patients with early breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Adjuvant breast radiotherapy as a standard component of breast-conserving treatment for early cancer can overtreat many women. Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality to assess local tumour burden. The aim of this study was to determine whether a combination of MRI and pathology findings can identify women with truly localised breast cancer who can safely avoid radiotherapy. PROSPECT is a prospective, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised trial of radiotherapy omission in patients selected using preoperative MRI and postoperative tumour pathology. It is being conducted at four academic hospitals in Australia. Women aged 50 years or older with cT1N0 non-triple-negative breast cancer were eligible. Those with apparently unifocal cancer had breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and, if pT1N0 or N1mi, had radiotherapy omitted (group 1). Standard treatment including excision of MRI-detected additional cancers was offered to the others (group 2). All were recommended systemic therapy. The primary outcome was ipsilateral invasive recurrence rate (IIRR) at 5 years in group 1. Primary analysis occurred after the 100th group 1 patient reached 5 years follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the PROSPECT pathway were analysed. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000810011). Between May 17, 2011, and May 6, 2019, 443 patients with breast cancer underwent MRI. Median age was 63·0 years. MRI detected 61 malignant occult lesions separate from the index cancer in 48 patients (11%). Of 201 group 1 patients who had BCS without radiotherapy, the IIRR at 5 years was 1·0% (upper 95% CI 5·4%). In group 1, one local recurrence occurred at 4·5 years and a second at 7·5 years. In group 2, nine patients had mastectomy (2% of total cohort), and the 5-year IIRR was 1·7% (upper 95% CI 6·1%). The only distant metastasis in the entire cohort was genetically distinct from the index cancer. The PROSPECT pathway increased QALYs by 0·019 (95% CI 0·008–0·029) and saved AU$1980 (95% CI 1396–2528) or £953 (672–1216) per patient. PROSPECT suggests that women with unifocal breast cancer on MRI and favourable pathology can safely omit radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Trials, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Council Victoria, the Royal Melbourne Hospital Foundation, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

PurposeMammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US.MethodsA retrospective study of patients undergoing their first surveillance CEM in an Australian hospital setting between June 2006 and October 2020. Cases where a patient was recalled for assessment were identified, recording radiology, pathology and treatment details. Blinded re-reading of recalled cases was performed to determine the contribution of contrast. Use of surveillance US across the board was assessed for the period.Results73/1191 (6.1%) patients were recalled. 35 (48%) were true positives (TP), with 26 invasive cancers and 9 cases of DCIS, while 38 (52%) were false positive (FP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) 47.9%. 32/73 were recalled due to MG findings, while 41/73 were only recalled due to Contrast. 14/73 had ‘minimal signs’ with a lesion identifiable on MG with knowledge of the contrast finding, while 27/73 were visible only with contrast. 41% (17/41) recalled due to contrast were TP. Contrast-only TPs were found with low and high mammographic density (MD). Screening breast US reduced by 55% in the year after CEM was implemented.ConclusionCompared to MG, CEM as a single surveillance modality for those with PHBC has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, identifying additional malignant lesions that are clinically significant. Investigation of interval cancer and subsequent round outcomes is warranted.

Prediction of radiotherapy (RT) benefit after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS is crucial. The aim was to validate a biosignature, DCISionRT®, in the SweDCIS randomized trial. Women were randomly assigned to RT or not after BCS, between 1987 and 2000. Tumor blocks were collected, and slides were sent to PreludeDxTM for testing. In 504 women with complete data and negative margins, DCISionRT divided 52% women into Elevated (DS > 3) and 48% in Low (DS ≤ 3) Risk groups. In the Elevated Risk group, RT significantly decreased relative 10-year ipsilateral total recurrence (TotBE) and 10-year ipsilateral invasive recurrence (InvBE) rates, HR 0.32 and HR 0.24, with absolute decreases of 15.5% and 9.3%. In the Low Risk group, there were no significant risk differences observed with radiotherapy. Using a cutoff of DS > 3.0, the test was not predictive for RT benefit (p = 0.093); however, above DS > 2.8 RT benefit was greater for InvBE (interaction p = 0.038). Recurrences at 10 years without radiotherapy increased significantly per 5 DS units (TotBE HR:1.5 and InvBE HR:1.5). Continuous DS was prognostic for TotBE risk although categorical DS did not reach significance. Absolute 10-year TotBE and InvBE risks appear sufficiently different to indicate that DCISionRT can aid physicians in selecting individualized adjuvant DCIS treatment strategies. Further analyses are planned in combined cohorts to increase statistical power.

There is a growing interest in delivering more personalised, risk-based breast cancer screening protocols. This requires population-level validation of practical models that can stratify women into breast cancer risk groups. Few studies have evaluated the Gail model (NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool) in a population screening setting; we validated this tool in a large, screened population. We used data from 40,158 women aged 50-69 years (via the lifepool cohort) participating in Australia's BreastScreen programme. We investigated the association between Gail scores and future invasive breast cancer, comparing observed and expected outcomes by Gail score ranked groups. We also used machine learning to rank Gail model input variables by importance and then assessed the incremental benefit in risk prediction obtained by adding variables in order of diminishing importance. Over a median of 4.3 years, the Gail model predicted 612 invasive breast cancers compared with 564 observed cancers (expected/observed (E/O) = 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.18). There was good agreement across decile groups of Gail scores ([chl].sup.2 = 7.1, p = 0.6) although there was some overestimation of cancer risk in the top decile of our study group (E/O = 1.65, 95% CI 1.33-2.07). Women in the highest quintile (Q5) of Gail scores had a 2.28-fold increased risk of breast cancer (95% CI 1.73-3.02, p < 0.0001) compared with the lowest quintile (Q1). Compared with the median quintile, women in Q5 had a 34% increased risk (95% CI 1.06-1.70, p = 0.014) and those in Q1 had a 41% reduced risk (95% CI 0.44-0.79, p < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed separately for women aged 50-59 and 60-69 years. The model's overall discrimination was modest (area under the curve (AUC) 0.59, 95% CI 0.56-0.61). A reduced Gail model excluding information on ethnicity and hyperplasia was comparable to the full Gail model in terms of correctly stratifying women into risk groups. This study confirms that the Gail model (or a reduced model excluding information on hyperplasia and ethnicity) can effectively stratify a screened population aged 50-69 years according to the risk of future invasive breast cancer. This information has the potential to enable more personalised, risk-based screening strategies that aim to improve the balance of the benefits and harms of screening.