Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 2/2019

Open Access 01-06-2019 | Breast Cancer | Breast Cancer Imaging and Screening (N Sharma, Section Editor)

Interval Cancers and Duty of Candour, a UK Perspective

Authors: Eleanor Cornford, Nisha Sharma

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Interval cancers are defined as a cancer presenting in the interval following a negative screen. Interval cancers are important because they reduce confidence in the screening programme and have relatively worse prognostic features than screen-detected cancers. This review will look at the rates of interval cancers in the UK Breast screening programme and other population-based breast screening programmes in Europe. It will discuss the latest UK classification and look at factors affecting interval cancer rates. It will examine the pathological features of interval cancers and their mortality impact. It will also discuss the introduction of Duty of Candour and its relevance and impact in breast screening.

Recent Findings

It will report on the effect of newer technologies on interval cancer rates.

Summary

Interval cancers are not unexpected in population-based screening programmes. They are known to have relatively worse prognosis than screen-detected cancers and therefore the accurate monitoring of interval cancers is important both for quality improvement and education. The impact of newer technologies on interval cancer rates is currently limited as the studies are ongoing.
Literature
1.
Houssami N, Hunter K. The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:12.CrossRef
2.
Michalopoulos D, Dibden A, Duffy SW. National collation of breast screening interval cancer data 2006–2008. published 2015.
3.
• Guidance on Interval cancers, Reporting, classification and monitoring of interval cancers and cancers following previous assessment 2017 PHE publications, gateway number: 2017216. This documents helps define how interval cancers are classified to ensure that there is standardisation within the UK. This is important regarding education but also auditing practise going forward.
4.
• Guidance on applying Duty of Candour and disclosing audit results, 2016. PHE publications gateway number: 2016343. This is an important document outlining the processes regarding Duty of Candour and Disclosure of audit. It emphasises the importance of being honest and objective when dealing with interval cancers.
5.
Tornberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N, Hofvind S, Anttila A, Sèradour B, et al. A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19:87–93.CrossRef
6.
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening Radiology NHSBSP Publication No 59, 2011.
7.
NHS BSP Consolidated standards, 2017 PHE publications gateway number: 2016720.
8.
9.
Wanders JOP, Holland K, Karssemeijer N, Peeters PHM, Veldhuis WB, Mann RM, et al. The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19:67.CrossRef
10.
11.
Lowery JT, Byers T, Hokanson JE, Kittelson J, Lewin J, Risendal B, et al. Complementary approaches to assessing risk factors for interval breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:23–31.CrossRef
12.
13.
Evans AJ, Kutt E, Record C, Waller M, Bobrow L, Moss S. Radiological and pathological findings of interval cancers in a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40-41 years. Clin Radiol. 2007;62(4):348–52.CrossRef
14.
Hofvind S, Geller B, Skaane P. Mammographic features and histopathological findings of interval breast cancers. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:975–81.CrossRef
15.
Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J, Braaten A, Wang H, Eide GE, et al. A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen detected tumours. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14:1108–12.CrossRef
16.
Weber RJ, van Bommel RM, Louwman MW, Nederend J, Voogd AC, Jansen FH, et al. Characteristics and prognosis of interval cancers after biennial screen-film or full-field digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158:471–83.CrossRef
17.
Meshkat B, Prichard RS, Al-Hilli Z, Bass GA, Quinn C, O'Doherty A, et al. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24:278–82.CrossRef
18.
Domingo L, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Baré M, Sarriugarte G, Barata T, et al. Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:R3.CrossRef
19.
Caldarella A, Puliti D, Crocetti E, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Apicella P, et al. Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139:181–5.CrossRef
20.
van der Waal D, Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. Breast density and breast cancer-specific survival by detection mode. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:386.CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
• Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Brunelli S, Fantò C, Valentini M, et al. Interval breast cancers in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) population-based trial. Breast. 2018;38:150–3 This paper is important because it suggests that interval cancer rates may be reduced with the introduction of DBT as a screening tool but recognises that more data is required and the studies are ongoing and therefore these results need to be interpreted with caution.CrossRef
28.
29.
Disclosure of Audit results in cancer screening advice on best practice, Cancer Screening Series No 3 April 2006, ISBN 1 84463 031 5.
30.
31.
Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.
Metadata
Title
Interval Cancers and Duty of Candour, a UK Perspective
Authors
Eleanor Cornford
Nisha Sharma
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-019-0304-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Current Breast Cancer Reports 2/2019 Go to the issue

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Practical Perspectives Regarding Patient Selection and Technical Considerations in Oncoplastic Surgery

Correction

Correction to: Ablative Treatment of Breast Cancer; Are We There Yet?

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Role of Liquid Biopsy in Clinical Decision-Making for Breast Cancer

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Surgical Therapy for Women with Multiple Synchronous Ipsilateral Breast Cancer (MIBC): Current Evidence to Guide Clinical Practice

Breast Cancer Imaging and Screening (N Sharma, Section Editor)

Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast: an Accurate Method for Measuring Early Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?

Breast Cancer Imaging and Screening (N Sharma, Section Editor)

Management of B3 Lesions—Practical Issues
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits