The Breast Cancer Screening "Arcade" and the "Whack-A-Mole" Efforts to Reduce Access to Screening

Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review

Misinformation hinders the impact of public health initiatives. Efforts to counter misinformation likely do not consider the full range of factors known to affect how individuals make decisions and act on them. Implementation science tools and concepts can facilitate the development of more effective interventions against health misinformation by leveraging advances in behavior specification, uptake of evidence, and theory-guided development and evaluation of complex interventions. We conducted a scoping review of misinformation literature reviews to document whether and how important concepts from implementation science have already informed the study of misinformation. Of 90 included reviews, the most frequently identified implementation science concepts were consideration of mechanisms driving misinformation (78%) and ways to intervene on, reduce, avoid, or circumvent it (71%). Other implementation science concepts were discussed much less frequently, such as tailoring strategies to the relevant context (9%) or public involvement in intervention development (9%). Less than half of reviews (47%) were guided by any theory, model, or framework. Among the 26 reviews that cited existing theories, most used theory narratively (62%) or only mentioned/cited the theory (19%), rather than using theory explicitly to interpret results (15%) or to inform data extraction (12%). Despite considerable research and many summaries of how to intervene against health misinformation, there has been relatively little consideration of many important advances in the science of health care implementation. This review identifies key areas from implementation science that might be useful to support future research into designing effective misinformation interventions.

How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?

The biased randomization and other quality concerns about the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies (CNBSS) were documented and criticized for decades, even by several individuals very close to the research. CNBSS were the outlier studies among several RCTs of the era and yet were given equal weighting and occasionally higher importance than the remainder of the canon of mammography RCTs. These studies have had an ongoing influence on subsequent evidence review, guideline formation, and, ultimately, patient access to screening. This article explores possible reasons for the ongoing inclusion of CNBSS in the body of mammography screening evidence, discusses the lack of expertise in critical healthcare guideline processes, and, ultimately, suggests several actions and reforms.

The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems

PURPOSE

To evaluate the design and plan of execution of the "WISDOM" trial.

METHODS

The rationale and reasoning behind the WISDOM Trial were reviewed and analyzed. The published parameters of the trial were reviewed.

RESULTS

The study is based on a failed understanding of the available data about breast cancer screening and is based on faulty assumptions, false reasoning, a scientifically unsupportable study design, ignoring advances in screening, a questionable endpoint, the likely lacking of power to answer the primary question, and support by insurance companies whose primary goal is almost certainly to reduce their costs.

CONCLUSION

A major part of the premise is that there is a "debate" about the efficacy of screening. WISDOM ignores the fact that the "debate" has been manufactured and is not science-based. The results of the WISDOM Trial may be misleading.

Lifting the fog of confusion about breast cancer screening guidelines: Surprise - it's about the money!

Large amounts of misinformation denigrating the benefits of breast cancer screening have been published over the past 50 years and continue to be published. Each effort to reduce breast cancer screening has been refuted, scientifically, but the efforts continue. The motivation has been unclear until the recent guidelines issued by the American Society of Breast Surgeons who support annual screening starting at the age of 40 contrasted with the American College of Physicians who advocated delaying screening until the age of 50 and then biennially. An analysis of the facts can only lead to the conclusion that delayed screening has been chosen to save money rather than lives.

Antecedents: A Half-Century of Imaging the Breast

The field of Breast Imaging evolved because a fairly small number of dedicated individuals realized the lifesaving potential of detecting breast cancer earlier. They persevered despite persistent efforts to curtail screening. From the first attempts to produce X-ray images of the breast to magnetic resonance and digital breast tomosynthesis, investigators have worked continuously to develop better ways to detect breast cancer at a time when cure is possible, while working continuously to preserve access for women to screening. Consequently, the death rate from breast cancer has declined by more than 40%. Therapy has improved, but therapy saves lives when breast cancers are treated early.

The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening

Background

Women and their health care providers need a reliable answer to this important question: If a woman chooses to participate in regular mammography screening, then how much will this choice improve her chances of avoiding a death from breast cancer compared with women who choose not to participate?

Methods

To answer this question, we used comprehensive registries for population, screening history, breast cancer incidence, and disease‐specific death data in a defined population in Dalarna County, Sweden. The annual incidence of breast cancer was calculated along with the annual incidence of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 and within 11 to 20 years of diagnosis among women aged 40 to 69 years who either did or did not participate in mammography screening during a 39‐year period (1977‐2015). For an additional comparison, corresponding data are presented from 19 years of the prescreening period (1958‐1976). All patients received stage‐specific therapy according to the latest national guidelines, irrespective of the mode of detection.

Results

The benefit for women who chose to participate in an organized breast cancer screening program was a 60% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 10 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.34‐0.48) and a 47% lower risk of dying from breast cancer within 20 years after diagnosis (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.44‐0.63) compared with the corresponding risks for nonparticipants.

Conclusions

Although all patients with breast cancer stand to benefit from advances in breast cancer therapy, the current results demonstrate that women who have participated in mammography screening obtain a significantly greater benefit from the therapy available at the time of diagnosis than do those who have not participated.

After 20 years of follow‐up, women who participate in mammography screening have a 47% lower risk of dying from breast cancer. Although all patients with breast cancer potentially can benefit from advances in breast cancer therapy, women who participate in mammography screening obtain a significantly greater benefit from the therapy available at the time of diagnosis than those who do not participate.

Breast cancer screening: Where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experience

It is important to understand the history of breast cancer screening to better understand the continuing effort to reduce access to screening. Since the randomized, controlled trials have shown a statistically significant mortality reduction for women ages 40-74, the appropriate threshold for initiating screening is age 40 with no data to support the use of the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women are at risk for developing breast cancer and all women should have access to screening.