Breast screening participation and retention among immigrants and nonimmigrants in British Columbia: A population-based study

Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

Screening with mammography aims to detect breast cancer before clinical symptoms appear. Among people with dense breasts, some cancers may be missed using mammography alone. The addition of supplemental imaging as an adjunct to screening mammography has been suggested to detect breast cancers missed on mammography, potentially reducing the number of deaths associated with the disease. We conducted a health technology assessment of supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, ultrasound, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography for people with dense breasts, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, harms, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening, the preferences and values of patients and health care providers, and ethical issues.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence published from January 2015 to October 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias or RoBANS tools, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature review and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography for people with dense breasts in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of supplemental screening for dense breasts, we spoke with people with dense breasts who had undergone supplemental screening; performed a rapid review of the qualitative literature; and conducted an ethical analysis of supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography.

Results

We included eight primary studies in the clinical evidence review. No studies evaluated contrast-enhanced mammography. Nonrandomized and randomized evidence (GRADE: Very low to Moderate) suggests that mammography plus ultrasound was more sensitive and less specific, and detected more cancers compared to mammography alone. Fewer interval cancers occurred after mammography plus ultrasound (GRADE: Very low to Low), but recall rates were nearly double that of mammography alone (GRADE: Very low to Moderate). Evidence of Low to Very low quality suggested that compared with supplemental DBT, supplemental ultrasound was more sensitive, detected more cancers, and led to more recalls. Among people with extremely dense breasts, fewer interval cancers occurred after mammography plus supplemental MRI compared to mammography alone (GRADE: High). Supplemental MRI after negative mammography was highly accurate in people with extremely dense breasts and heterogeneously dense breasts in nonrandomized and randomized studies (GRADE: Very Low and Moderate). In people with extremely dense breasts, MRI after negative mammography detected 16.5 cancers per 1,000 screens (GRADE: Moderate), and up to 9.5% of all people screened were recalled (GRADE: Moderate). Contrast-related adverse events were infrequent (GRADE: Moderate). No study reported psychological impacts, breast cancer-specific mortality, or overall mortality.We included nine studies in the economic evidence, but none of the study findings was directly applicable to the Ontario context. Our lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses showed that supplemental screening with ultrasound, MRI, or DBT found more screen-detected cancers, decreased the number of interval cancers, had small gains in life-years or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and was associated with savings in cancer management costs. However, supplemental screening also increased imaging costs and the number of false-positive cases. Compared to mammography alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for supplemental screening with handheld ultrasound, MRI, or DBT for people with dense breasts were $119,943, $314,170, and $212,707 per QALY gained, respectively. The ICERs for people with extremely dense breasts were $83,529, $101,813, and $142,730 per QALY gained, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the diagnostic test sensitivity of mammography alone and of mammography plus supplemental screening had the greatest effect on ICER estimates. The total budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening with handheld ultrasound, MRI, or DBT for people with dense breasts over the next 5 years is estimated at $15 million, $41 million, or $33 million, respectively. The corresponding total budget impact for people with extremely dense breasts is $4 million, $10 million, or $9 million.We engaged directly with 70 people via interviews and an online survey. The participants provided diverse perspectives on broad access to supplemental screening for people with dense breasts in Ontario. Themes discussed in the interviews included self-advocacy, patient-doctor partnership, preventive care, and a shared preference for broad access to screening modalities that are clinically effective in detecting breast cancer in people with dense breasts.We included 10 studies in the qualitative evidence rapid review. Thematic synthesis of these reports yielded three analytical themes: coming to know and understand breast density, which included introductions to and making sense of breast density; experiences of vulnerability, which influenced or were influenced by understandings and misunderstandings of breast density and responses to breast density; and choosing supplemental screening, which was influenced by knowledge and perception of the risks and benefits of supplemental screening, and the availability of resources.The ethics review determined that the main harms of supplemental screening for people with dense breasts are false-positives and overdiagnosis, both of which lead to unnecessary and burdensome health care treatments. Screening programs raise inherent tensions between individual- and population-level interests; they may yield population-level benefit, but are statistically of very little benefit to individuals. Entrenched cultural beliefs about the value of breast cancer screening, combined with uncertainty about the effects of supplemental screening on some outcomes and the discomfort of many health care providers in discussing screening options for people with dense breasts suggest that it may be difficult to ensure that patients can provide informed consent to engage in supplemental screening. Funding supplemental screening for people with dense breasts may lead to improved equity in the effectiveness of identifying cancers in people with dense breasts (compared to mammography alone), but it is not clear whether it would lead to equity in terms of improved survival and decreased morbidity.

Conclusions

Supplemental screening with ultrasound, DBT, or MRI as an adjunct to mammography detected more cancers and increased the number of recalls and biopsies, including false-positive results. Fewer interval cancers tended to occur after supplemental screening compared to mammography alone. It is unclear whether supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography would reduce breast cancer-related or overall mortality among people with dense breasts.Supplemental screening with ultrasound, DBT, or MRI as an adjunct to mammography in people aged 50 to 74 years improved cancer detection but increased costs. Depending on the type of imaging modality, publicly funding supplemental screening in Ontario over the next 5 years would require additional total costs between $15 million and $41 million for people with dense breasts, and between $4 million and $10 million for people with extremely dense breasts.The people we engaged with directly valued the potential clinical benefits of supplemental screening and emphasized that patient education and equitable access should be a requirement for implementation in Ontario. Our review of the qualitative literature found that the concept of breast density is poorly understood, both by people with dense breasts and by some general practitioners. People with dense breasts who receive routine mammography (especially those who receive health care in their nonpreferred language or are perceived to have lower economic status or health literacy) and their general practitioners may not have the awareness or knowledge to make informed decisions about supplemental screening. Some people with dense breasts experienced emotional distress from barriers to accessing supplemental screening, and many wanted to engage in supplemental screening, even when educated about its potential harms, including false-positives and overdiagnosis.Given an overall lack of robust evidence about morbidity and mortality associated with supplemental screening for people with dense breasts, it is not possible to determine whether funding supplemental screening for dense breasts delivers on the ethical duties to maximize benefits and minimize harms for populations and individuals. It is likely that existing inequities in access to breast screening and cancer treatment will persist, even if supplemental screening for dense breasts is funded. Continued efforts to address these inequities by removing barriers to screening might mitigate this concern. It will be important to identify and minimize sources of uncertainty related to benefits and risks of supplemental screening for dense breasts to optimize the capacity for everyone involved to live up to their ethical obligations. Some of these may be resolved with further evidence related to the outcomes of supplemental screening for dense breasts.

Differences in mammography screening attendance among non-Western immigrants in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway

Several studies have shown that attendance rates are lower among non-Western immigrants than among natives. As the Nordic countries have quite similar health systems and populations but also differences in the organisation of their organised mammography screening programmes, differences in attendance rates could highlight organisational factors that might increase the attendance rates. Mammography screening is offered free of charge in Denmark and Finland, but not in Iceland and Norway. Contrarily to the other countries, Iceland do not send out pre-booked appointment. The study population included natives and non-Western immigrants aged 50-69 years, who had at least one invitation to the national mammography screening programmes in Denmark (2008-2017), Finland (2001-2017), Iceland (2001-2020) or Norway (2001-2015). Relative risks (RRs) of attendance were estimated and adjusted for age group and calendar period. The study population included 116.033 non-Western immigrants and more than 2 million natives. The attendance rates were significantly lower among non-Western immigrants than among natives, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.81/0.80 in Denmark and Finland, 0.62 in Norway, and 0.40 in Iceland. The lower attendance rates among immigrants in Norway and Iceland did not seem to be due to differences in birth country, immigration age, or educational level, but might be explained by organisational factors. Offering free-of-charge mammography screening in Norway and Iceland and/or including a pre-booked appointment in the invitation letters in Iceland might increase the attendance rate among non-Western immigrants.

Breast cancer screening and immigrant women-A scoping review of attendance, knowledge, barriers and facilitators

AIM

The aim of this study was to summarize the latest research reports about immigrant women and attendance in breast cancer screening.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

Literature searches were made in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Oatd and Oalster. Twenty-three articles were included in the study. Data were analysed with inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Out of data four main categories were formed: attendance rates, incidence, barriers and facilitators, and knowledge and perception. The results show that attendance rates, barriers and facilitators for attendance, knowledge and experience of breast cancer and breast cancer screening differ between several factors such as the woman's migrant background, country of origin, religion, length of stay in the new home country and sociodemographic factors.

Evaluation of the Association Between Sociodemographic Status and Breast Screening Volumes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Provincial, Population-Based Organized Breast Screening Program

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the association between patient sociodemographic status and breast screening volumes (BSVs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large, population-based breast screening program that serves a provincial population of over 5 million.

METHODS

All patients who completed breast screening between April 1st, 2017 and March 31st, 2021 were eligible to participate. An average of 3 annual periods between April 1st, 2017 and March 31st, 2020 were defined as the pre-COVID period while the period between April 1st, 2020 and March 31st, 2021 was defined as the COVID-impacted period. The Postal CodeOM Conversion File Plus was applied to map patient residential postal codes to 2016 census standard geographical areas, which provided information on community size, income quintile and dissemination areas. Dissemination areas were subsequently linked to the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD).

RESULTS

Overall BSV was reduced by 23.0% during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period. Percent reductions in BSVs were greatest among younger patients aged 40 to 49 years (31.3%) and patients residing in communities with a population of less than 10,000 (27.0%). Percent reduction in BSV was greatest among patients in the lowest income quintile (28.1%). Percent reductions in BSVs were greatest for patients in the most deprived quintiles across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD.

CONCLUSION

Disproportionate reductions in BSVs were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic among younger patients, patients residing in rural communities, patients in lower income quintiles, and patients in the most deprived quintiles across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD.

Current Challenges and Disparities in the Delivery of Equitable Breast Cancer Care in Canada

Recent exciting advances in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer have improved outcomes for Canadians diagnosed and living with breast cancer. However, the reach of this progress has been uneven; disparities in accessing care across Canada are increasingly being recognized and are at risk of broadening. Members of racial minority groups, economically disadvantaged individuals, or those who live in rural or remote communities have consistently been shown to experience greater challenges in accessing 'state of the art' cancer care. The Canadian context also presents unique challenges-vast geography and provincial jurisdiction of the delivery of cancer care and drug funding create significant interprovincial differences in the patient experience. In this commentary, we review the core concepts of health equity, barriers to equitable delivery of breast cancer care, populations at risk, and recommendations for the advancement of health equity in the Canadian cancer system.

Stage-Specific Risk of Breast Cancer among Canadian Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Women

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening utilization varies across immigrant and non-immigrant populations. Recent studies have also suggested that some immigrant populations in Canada present with a higher frequency of later-stage breast cancer compared to non-immigrants. Our study aimed to augment prior research by presenting breast cancer stage distributions and stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates for immigrant and non-immigrants in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We utilized a population-based cohort of more than 1.3 million women built from linked administrative health and immigration data sets. Age-standardized incidence rate ratios were generated to compare immigrant and non-immigrant groups. Poisson regression was used to assess the relative frequency of later stage diagnosis among immigrant groups compared to non-immigrants.

RESULTS

Indian and Chinese immigrants both showed significantly lower stage I and stage II-IV incidence rates compared to non-immigrants. However, Indian immigrants showed a higher frequency of later stage tumours at diagnosis compared to non-immigrants, while in contrast Chinese immigrants showed a lower frequency of later stage tumours. Filipino immigrants showed similar stage-specific rates and stage at diagnosis compared to non-immigrants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight a need for continued surveillance of cancer among immigrant and non-immigrant populations and inquiry into reasons for differences in stage at diagnosis across groups.

Determinants of Non-Participation in Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Breast cancer (BC) screening can be performed in a screening program (BCSP) or in opportunistic screening. The existing reviews on the determinants of non-participation depend on self-reported data which may be biased. Furthermore, no distinction was made between the probably different determinants of both screening strategies.

Objective

To find the determinants of non-participation in BCSP by means of a meta-analysis.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for observational studies which quantified factors associated with non-participation in BCSP in a general population. Studies on opportunistic screening and studies using self-reported data were excluded. A random-effect model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by stratification of the results.

Results

Twenty-nine studies with in a total of 20,361,756 women were included. Low income (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10–1.30), low education (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05–1.32), living far from an assigned screening unit (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.07–1.24), being immigrant (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 2.48–2.82), and having a male family doctor (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.20–1.61) was associated with higher non-participation in screening. Reminders sent to non-attenders and estimations of ORs (adjusted or not) partly explained substantial heterogeneity.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis excluding studies on the non-participation in opportunistic screening, or with self-reported data on non-participation, the well-known determinants for non-participation are still significant, but less strong. This analysis only supports the relevance of meta-analysis of studies with registered non-participation in a BCSP.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, CRD42020154016.

The Role of Education in Breast Cancer Beliefs and Screening Practices Among Korean Women - A quantitative study

INTRODUCTION

Cultural beliefs are influential factors that affect breast cancer screening practices among Korean women. The aim of this study was to examine the role of educational levels and compare the cultural beliefs associated with breast cancer screening practices among immigrant Korean women in Australia with those of their counterparts in Korea.

METHODS

A secondary analysis based on data from convenience samples of 245 and 249 Korean women living in Australia and Korea, respectively. Data were collected by the Korean version of Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Educational level has a significant association with Korean women's cultural beliefs about breast cancer and breast cancer screening practices regardless of country of residence.

DISCUSSION

Nurses working in multicultural societies should take cultural beliefs and the role of education into account while designing strategies to promote breast cancer screening practices among immigrant Korean women.

Risks and perception of non-communicable diseases and health promotion behavior of middle-aged female immigrants in Japan: a qualitative exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Ensuring good health of immigrants is a serious issue across countries, including Japan. This study focused on the health of middle-aged female immigrants in Japan who experienced changes to their health as well as an increased risk of non-communicable diseases. Specifically, the study aimed to clarify the risks and perceptions of non-communicable diseases and health promotion behavior of middle-aged female immigrants in Japan.

METHODS

This investigation used an exploratory design. The participants were a purposive sample of 35 middle-aged female immigrants (age ≥ 40 years) living in urban and rural areas of Japan. Data were generated using mixed methods. A quantitative approach provided data of their risks of non-communicable diseases. Focus group discussions provided insights to identify their health promotion perceptions.

RESULTS

Blood pressure measurement revealed that 29% of the immigrants had hypertension, 29% had a body mass index of > 30, and 71% had an abdominal girth of > 80 cm. About 31% had a history of chronic disease and 34% had regular medication. There were 80% who received regular health check-up, 49% who received breast cancer screening, and 34% who received cervical cancer screening. The focus group discussions indicated that the middle-aged female immigrants recognized the threat of non-communicable diseases. However, they lacked knowledge about the prevention of non-communicable diseases, and they felt that non-communicable diseases were unavoidable. They also failed to understand the benefits of health promotion behavior. The study revealed that the monolingual Japanese health service prevented immigrant women from understanding their health check-up and cancer screening results, and how to utilize the health service system.

CONCLUSIONS

Middle-aged female immigrants in Japan had potential risks of non-communicable diseases, and recognized their threat. These settled immigrant women received health check-ups and cancer screenings with the support of their family, and consequently attained the same level of adherence as that of Japanese women. However, lack of knowledge about health promotion and its benefits and the absence of a culturally sensitive health service system for immigrants in Japan constrained their health-promotion behavior. Sociocultural multilingual-tailored interventions including interpretation services by care providers with cultural sensitivities must be developed.

Disparities in breast cancer diagnosis for immigrant women in Ontario and BC: results from the CanIMPACT study

BACKGROUND

In Canada, clinical practice guidelines recommend breast cancer screening, but there are gaps in adherence to recommendations for screening, particularly among certain hard-to-reach populations, that may differ by province. We compared stage of diagnosis, proportion of screen-detected breast cancers, and length of diagnostic interval for immigrant women versus long-term residents of BC and Ontario.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases in BC and Ontario. We identified all women residing in either province who were diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2011, and determined who was foreign-born using the Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada database. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to describe the sample and study outcomes. We conducted multivariate analyses (modified Poisson regression and quantile regression) to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

There were 14,198 BC women and 46,952 Ontario women included in the study population, of which 11.8 and 11.7% were foreign-born respectively. In both provinces, immigrants and long-term residents had similar primary care access. In both provinces, immigrant women were significantly less likely to have a screen-detected breast cancer (adjusted relative risk 0.88 [0.79-0.96] in BC, 0.88 [0.84-0.93] in Ontario) and had a significantly longer median diagnostic interval (2 [0.2-3.8] days in BC, 5.5 [4.4-6.6] days in Ontario) than long-term residents. Women from East Asia and the Pacific were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer and had a longer diagnostic interval, but were diagnosed at an earlier stage than long-term residents. In Ontario, women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer, had a longer median diagnostic interval, and were diagnosed at a later stage than long-term residents. These findings were not explained by access to primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

There are inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis for Canadian immigrant women. We have identified particular immigrant groups (women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia) that appear to be subject to disparities in the diagnostic process that need to be addressed in order to effectively reduce gaps in care.

Breast screening participation and retention among immigrants and nonimmigrants in British Columbia: A population-based study

Breast cancer screening programs operate across Canada providing mammography to women in target age groups with the goal of reducing breast cancer mortality through early detection of tumors. Disparities in breast screening participation among socio‐demographic groups, including immigrants, have been reported in Canada. Our objectives were to: (1) assess breast screening participation and retention among immigrant and nonimmigrant women in British Columbia (BC), Canada; and (2) to characterize factors associated with screening among screening‐age recent immigrant women in BC. We examined 2 population‐based cohorts of women eligible for breast screening participation (537 783 women) and retention (281 052 women) using linked health and immigration data. Breast screening rates were presented according to socio‐demographic and health‐related variables stratified by birth country. Factors associated with screening among recent immigrant women were explored using Poisson regression. We observed marked variation in screening participation across birth country cohorts. Eastern European/Central Asian women showed low participation (37.9%) with rates from individual countries ranging from 35.0% to 49.0%. Participation rates for immigrant women from the most common birth countries, such as China/Macau/Hong Kong/Taiwan (45.7%), India (44.5%), the Philippines (45.9%), and South Korea (39.0%), were lower than the nonimmigrant rates (51.2%). Retention rates showed less variation by birth country; however, some disparities between immigrant and nonimmigrant groups persisted. Associations between screening indicators and study factors varied considerably across immigrant groups. Primary care physician visits were consistently positively associated with screening participation; this variable was also the only predictor associated with screening within each of the groups of recent immigrants. Our study provides unique data on both screening participation and retention among Canadian immigrant women compiled by individual country of birth. Our results are further demonstration that screening disparities exist among immigrant populations as well as in comparison with nonimmigrant women.