Subjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.).

In Spain, cancer screening is being conducted in accordance with national and international recommendations. The fact that screening programmes are operated as a network has led to a high degree of consensus as to the methodology and information systems to be used to enable joint evaluation.

IntroductionInterval cancers are tumors arising after a negative screening episode and before the next screening invitation. They can be classified into true interval cancers, false-negatives, minimal-sign cancers, and occult tumors based on mammographic findings in screening and diagnostic mammograms. This study aimed to describe tumor-related characteristics and the association of breast density and tumor phenotype within four interval cancer categories.MethodsWe included 2,245 invasive tumors (1,297 screening-detected and 948 interval cancers) diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 among 645,764 women aged 45 to 69 who underwent biennial screening in Spain. Interval cancers were classified by a semi-informed retrospective review into true interval cancers (n = 455), false-negatives (n = 224), minimal-sign (n = 166), and occult tumors (n = 103). Breast density was evaluated using Boyd’s scale and was conflated into: <25%; 25 to 50%; 50 to 75%; >75%. Tumor-related information was obtained from cancer registries and clinical records. Tumor phenotype was defined as follows: luminal A: ER+/HER2- or PR+/HER2-; luminal B: ER+/HER2+ or PR+/HER2+; HER2: ER-/PR-/HER2+; triple-negative: ER-/PR-/HER2-. The association of tumor phenotype and breast density was assessed using a multinomial logistic regression model. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsForty-eight percent of interval cancers were true interval cancers and 23.6% false-negatives. True interval cancers were associated with HER2 and triple-negative phenotypes (OR = 1.91 (95% CI:1.22-2.96), OR = 2.07 (95% CI:1.42-3.01), respectively) and extremely dense breasts (>75%) (OR = 1.67 (95% CI:1.08-2.56)). However, among true interval cancers a higher proportion of triple-negative tumors was observed in predominantly fatty breasts (<25%) than in denser breasts (28.7%, 21.4%, 11.3% and 14.3%, respectively; <0.001). False-negatives and occult tumors had similar phenotypic characteristics to screening-detected cancers, extreme breast density being strongly associated with occult tumors (OR = 6.23 (95% CI:2.65-14.66)). Minimal-sign cancers were biologically close to true interval cancers but showed no association with breast density.ConclusionsOur findings revealed that both the distribution of tumor phenotype and breast density play specific and independent roles in each category of interval cancer. Further research is needed to understand the biological basis of the overrepresentation of triple-negative phenotype among predominantly fatty breasts in true interval cancers.

Background: Reducing the false-positive risk in breast cancer screening is important. We examined how the screening-protocol and women's characteristics affect the cumulative false-positive risk.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 1 565 364 women aged 45–69 years who underwent 4 739 498 screening mammograms from 1990 to 2006. Multilevel discrete hazard models were used to estimate the cumulative false-positive risk over 10 sequential mammograms under different risk scenarios.Results: The factors affecting the false-positive risk for any procedure and for invasive procedures were double mammogram reading [odds ratio (OR) = 2.06 and 4.44, respectively], two mammographic views (OR = 0.77 and 1.56, respectively), digital mammography (OR = 0.83 for invasive procedures), premenopausal status (OR = 1.31 and 1.22, respectively), use of hormone replacement therapy (OR = 1.03 and 0.84, respectively), previous invasive procedures (OR = 1.52 and 2.00, respectively), and a familial history of breast cancer (OR = 1.18 and 1.21, respectively). The cumulative false-positive risk for women who started screening at age 50–51 was 20.39% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20.02–20.76], ranging from 51.43% to 7.47% in the highest and lowest risk profiles, respectively. The cumulative risk for invasive procedures was 1.76% (95% CI 1.66–1.87), ranging from 12.02% to 1.58%.Conclusions: The cumulative false-positive risk varied widely depending on the factors studied. These findings are relevant to provide women with accurate information and to improve the effectiveness of screening programs.

Women were more likely to participate in a FIT-based strategy, especially those aged 50-59 years. The likelihood of detection of any neoplasm was higher in the colonoscopy arm for all the population groups studied, especially in women aged 50-59 years. Distinct population groups should be informed of the benefits of each screening strategy so that they may take informed decisions.