Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?

OBJECTIVE: The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use. METHODS: Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.

Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) faces endoscopy capacity challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to lower the screening starting age. This may necessitate modifying the interscreening interval or threshold. METHODS: We analysed data from the English Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) pilot, comprising 27,238 individuals aged 59-75, screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using FIT. We estimated screening sensitivity to CRC, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and mean sojourn time of each pathology by faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) thresholds, then predicted the detection of these abnormalities by interscreening interval and f-Hb threshold. RESULTS: Current 2-yearly screening with a f-Hb threshold of 120 µg/g was estimated to generate 16,092 colonoscopies, prevent 186 CRCs, detect 1142 CRCs, 7086 adenomas and 4259 AAs per 100,000 screened over 15 years. A higher threshold at 180 µg/g would reduce required colonoscopies to 11,500, prevent 131 CRCs, detect 1077 CRCs, 4961 adenomas and 3184 AAs. A longer interscreening interval of 3 years would reduce required colonoscopies to 10,283, prevent 126 and detect 909 CRCs, 4796 adenomas and 2986 AAs. CONCLUSION: Increasing the f-Hb threshold was estimated to be more efficient than increasing the interscreening interval regarding overall colonoscopies per screen-benefited cancer. Increasing the interval was more efficient regarding colonoscopies per cancer prevented.

The projected impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on breast cancer deaths in England due to the cessation of population screening: a national estimation.

BACKGROUND: Population breast screening services in England were suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we estimate the number of breast cancers whose detection may be delayed because of the suspension, and the potential impact on cancer deaths over 10 years. METHODS: We estimated the number and length of screening delays from observed NHS Breast Screening System data. We then estimated additional breast cancer deaths from three routes: asymptomatic tumours progressing to symptomatically diagnosed disease, invasive tumours which remain screen-detected but at a later date, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) progressing to invasive disease by detection. We took progression rates, prognostic characteristics, and survival rates from published sources. RESULTS: We estimated that 1,489,237 women had screening delayed by around 2-7 months between July 2020 and June 2021, leaving 745,277 outstanding screens. Depending on how quickly this backlog is cleared, around 2500-4100 cancers would shift from screen-detected to symptomatic cancers, resulting in 148-452 additional breast cancer deaths. There would be an additional 164-222 screen-detected tumour deaths, and 71-97 deaths from DCIS that progresses to invasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 148-687 additional breast cancer deaths may occur as a result of the pandemic-related disruptions. The impact depends on how quickly screening services catch up with delays.

Recovery of the breast screening programme following pandemic-related delays: Should we focus on round length or uptake?

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Breast Screening programme is recovering from the hiatus in screening in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, open rather than timed invitations are issued, which leads to lower uptake but more rapid coverage of the eligible population by invitation and therefore closer adherence to a round length of 3 years. We aimed to estimate the likely effect on numbers of cancers detected at incident screens of a range of round lengths and uptake rates. METHODS: We assumed exponential distributions of time to incidence of preclinical screen-detectable cancer and of time to progression thereafter to symptomatic clinical disease. We derived numerical values of these, along with screening sensitivity, from published research results and statistics from the NHS Breast Screening programme. These were used to calculate numbers of cancers detected at incident screens at ages 51-70 by round length and uptake rates. RESULTS: We found that in a homogeneous population of cancers, a 4-year round length with uptake of 62%, as observed with timed appointments in London before the pandemic, would result in 295 cancers screen detected per 10,000 invited, compared to 222 cancers with a 3-year round and uptake of 46%, as observed in London during the recovery period. Similar results were found when we posited two populations, one of rapidly progressing and one of slowly progressing cancers. CONCLUSIONS: It may be more productive in terms of early detection to focus on uptake rather than round length in the programme's recovery from the pandemic.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

OBJECTIVES: People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS: As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS: A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.