BRCA2<\/em>\u00a0Mutation Carriers<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3\u2009yr of screening, by BRCA status.<\/td>\n | Eur Urol<\/p>\n Page EC, Bancroft EK, Brook MN, Assel M, Al Battat MH, Thomas S, … Judith Offman … <\/strong>and Eeles R.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To determine how many women participate in all three recommended cancer screening programmes (breast, cervical, and bowel).<\/td>\n | J Med Screen<\/p>\n Matejka Rebolj<\/strong>, Parmar D, Maroni R, Blyuss O and Duffy SW.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995\u20132014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends.<\/td>\n | Lancet Oncol<\/p>\n Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot, A., Ferlay J, Andersson, TM, Myklebust T\u00c5, … Peter Sasieni … <\/strong>and Bray F.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ethnic differences in barriers to symptomatic presentation in primary care: A survey of women in England<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| The majority of cancers are diagnosed following a decision to access medical help for symptoms. People from ethnic minority backgrounds have longer patient intervals following identification of cancer symptoms. This study quantified ethnic differences in barriers to symptomatic presentation including culturally specific barriers. Correlates of barriers (eg, migration status, health literacy, and fatalism) were also explored.<\/td>\n | Psychooncology<\/p>\n Williams ED, Whitaker KL, Piano M and Laura Marlow<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Offering an app to book cervical screening appointments: A service evaluation<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To assess the feasibility of offering women who are overdue for cervical screening the use of a smartphone app to book their appointment.<\/td>\n | J Med Screen<\/p>\n Ryan M, Laura Marlow<\/strong>, Forster A, Ruwende, J and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Public awareness of and responses to media coverage of invitation errors in the Breast Screening Programme in England: a cross-sectional population survey<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| In May 2018, the British Health Secretary announced the \u2018serious failure\u2019 that 450 000 women had missed out on invitations to breast screening in England, leading to extensive media coverage. This study measured public awareness of the story and tested for associated factors (eg, educational level and trust in the National Health Service (NHS)).<\/td>\n | BMJ Open<\/p>\n Ghanouni A, von Wagner C and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services : the TEC RCT.<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support.<\/td>\n | Health Technol Assess<\/p>\n Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Francesca Pesola<\/strong>, Myers-Smith K, Bisal N, … Peter Sasieni<\/strong>, … and McRobbie H.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n10.\u00a0 The psychosexual impact of testing positive for high\u2010risk cervical human papillomavirus (HPV): A systematic review<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Many countries are implementing human papillomavirus (HPV)\u2010based cervical screening due to the higher sensitivity of the test compared with cytology. As HPV is sexually transmitted, there may be psychosexual consequences of testing positive for the virus. We aimed to review the literature exploring the psychosexual impact of testing positive for high\u2010risk cervical HPV.<\/td>\n | Psychooncology<\/p>\n Bennett KF, Jo Waller<\/strong>, Ryan M, Bailey JV and Laura Marlow<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n11.\u00a0 16\/18 genotyping in triage of persistent human papillomavirus infections with negative cytology in the English cervical screening pilot<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| In the English pilot of primary cervical screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV), we exploited natural viral clearance over 24 months to minimise unnecessary referral of HR-HPV+ women with negative cytology. Three laboratories were permitted to use 16\/18 genotyping to select women for referral at 12-month recall. We estimated the clinical impact of this early genotyping referral.<\/td>\n | Br J Cancer<\/p>\n Matejka Rebolj<\/strong>, Brentnall AR, Christopher Mathews<\/strong>, Denton K, Holbrook M, Levine T, …<\/strong> Kitchener H on behalf of the HPV Pilot Steering Group<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n12.\u00a0 Increasing the perceived relevance of cervical screening in older women who do not plan to attend\u00a0screening<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Uptake of cervical screening among women aged 50\u201364 years is declining. Not feeling at risk because of current sexual behaviour is a reason some older women give for not being screened. We hypothesised that explaining the long interval between acquiring human papillomavirus (HPV) and developing cervical cancer would increase the relevance of screening in older women.<\/td>\n | Sex Transm Infect<\/p>\n Laura Marlow<\/strong>, Ryan M and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n13.\u00a0 Could changing invitation and booking processes help women translate their cervical screening intentions into action? A population-based survey of women\u2019s preferences in Great Britain<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Many women who do not attend screening intend to go, but do not get around to booking an appointment. Qualitative work suggests that these \u2018intenders\u2019 face more practical barriers to screening than women who are up-to-date (\u2018maintainers\u2019). This study explored practical barriers to booking a screening appointment and preferences for alternative invitation and booking methods that might overcome these barriers.<\/td>\n | BMJ Open<\/p>\n Ryan M, Jo Waller<\/strong> and Laura Marlow<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n14.\u00a0 Equality and equity in medical screening: what is fair?<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| According to some policy makers, by definition, population-level health screening programmes promote equality. Although such programmes might also contain elements that promote equity\u2014eg, by ensuring that mammography screening units are wheelchair-accessible \u2014population screening has been synonymous with a one-size-fits all approach.<\/td>\n | Lancet\u00a0Gastroenterol Hepatol<\/p>\n Peter Sasieni<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n15.\u00a0\u00a0 Anxiety and distress following receipt of results from routine HPV primary testing in cervical screening: The psychological impact of primary screening (PIPS) study<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| We used a cross-sectional survey to examine short-term anxiety and distress in women receiving different results following routine human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing at cervical screening. Participants were women aged 24\u201365 (n = 1,127) who had attended screening at one of five sites piloting HPV primary screening in England, including a control group with normal cytology who were not tested for HPV.<\/td>\n | Int J Cancer<\/p>\n McBride E, Laura Marlow<\/strong>, Forster AS, Ridout D, Kitchener H, Patnick J, and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n16.\u00a0 A new pragmatic design for dose escalation in phase 1 clinical trials using an adaptive continual reassessment method<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| A key challenge in phase I trials is maintaining rapid escalation in order to avoid exposing too many patients to sub-therapeutic doses, while preserving safety by limiting the frequency of toxic events. Traditional rule-based designs require temporarily stopping recruitment whilst waiting to see whether enrolled patients develop toxicity. This can be both inefficient and introduces logistic challenges to recruitment in the clinic. We describe a novel two-stage dose assignment procedure designed for a phase I clinical trial (STARPAC), where a good estimation of prior was possible.<\/td>\n | BMC Cancer<\/p>\n North B, Kocher HM and Peter Sasieni<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n17.\u00a0 Long-term excess risk of breast cancer after a single breast density measurement<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer. As density changes across a woman’s life span, we studied for how long a single density measurement taken in (post-)menopausal women remains informative.<\/td>\n | Eur J Cancer<\/p>\n Matejka Rebolj<\/strong>, Blyuss O, Chia KS and Duffy SW<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n18.\u00a0 Cancer stigma and cancer screening attendance: a population based survey in England<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Cancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance.<\/td>\n | BMC Cancer<\/p>\n Vrinten C, Gallagher A, Jo Waller<\/strong> and Laura Marlow<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n19.\u00a0 Socio-demographic correlates of cervical cancer risk factor knowledge among screening non-participants in Great Britain<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| This study explored knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors among cervical screening non-participants in Great Britain. The aim was to identify knowledge gaps that could be targeted in screening information materials or public education campaigns.<\/td>\n | Prev med<\/p>\n Ryan M, Laura Marlow<\/strong> and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n20.\u00a0 Impact of a lung cancer screening information film on informed decision-making – a randomized trial<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening.<\/td>\n | Ann Am Thorac Soc<\/p>\n Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Bhagabati Ghimire<\/strong>, Dickson, JL, Bhowmik A, … Jo Waller<\/strong> and Janes SM<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n21.\u00a0 Benefits and harms in the National Lung Screening Trial: expected outcomes with a modern management protocol<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Lung cancer screening is receiving increasing attention worldwide, both in the medical community and the general public. Multiple randomised trials \u2014 including the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial, and preliminary results from the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial \u2014 have provided definitive evidence that low-dose CT screening can reduce lung cancer mortality. However, any screening programme is associated with both benefits and harms, and accurately communicating these to patients and the general public is a complex challenge.<\/td>\n | Lancet Respir Med<\/p>\n Robbins HA, Callister M, Peter Sasieni<\/strong>, Quaife SL, Cheung LC, Brennan P, \u00a0Katki HA, Berg CD, Baldwin D and\u00a0 Johansson M<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n22.\u00a0 The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening \u2013 Evidence from online experiments<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| The current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals.<\/td>\n | Patient Educ Couns<\/p>\n von Wagner C, Hirst Y, Jo Waller<\/strong>, Ghanouni A, McGregor, LM, Kerrison, R.S., Verstraete W, Vlaev I, Sieverding M and Stoffel ST.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n23.\u00a0 The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in Lynch syndrome<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| There are no internationally agreed upon clinical guidelines as to which women with gynecological cancer would benefit from Lynch syndrome screening or how best to manage the risk of gynecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. The Manchester International Consensus Group was convened in April 2017 to address this unmet need.<\/td>\n | Genet Med<\/p>\n Crosbie EJ, Ryan NA, Arends MJ, Bosse T, Burn J, Cornes JM … Peter Sasieni …\u00a0 <\/strong>and Evans DG.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n24.\u00a0 Lung cancer mortality in Australia in the twenty-first century: How many lives can be saved with effective tobacco control?<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To estimate the number of past and future lung cancer deaths that have already been averted by tobacco control initiatives in Australia, and to estimate the number of additional deaths averted under various smoking scenarios.<\/td>\n | Lung Cancer<\/p>\n Luo Q, Steinberg J, O’Connell DL, Yu XQ, Caruana M, Wade S, Francesca<\/strong> Pesola<\/strong>, … Peter<\/strong> Sasieni … <\/strong>and\u00a0Canfell K.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n25.\u00a0 Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| US guidelines recommend that most women older than 65 years cease cervical screening after two consecutive negative cotests (concurrent HPV and cytology tests) in the previous 10 years, with one in the last 5 years. However, this recommendation was based on expert opinion and modeling rather than empirical data on cancer risk. We therefore estimated the 5-year risks of cervical precancer after one, two and three negative cotests.<\/td>\n | Int J Cancer<\/p>\n Landy R, Schiffman M, Peter<\/strong> Sasieni<\/strong>, Cheung LC, Katki HA, Rydzak G, … and Castle PE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n26.\u00a0 Barriers to cervical screening among older women from hard-to-reach groups: a qualitative study in England<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Understanding attitudes to screening and reasons for non-attendance in older women will help to identify the content of interventions for this age group. This study aimed to explore barriers to cervical screening among women aged 50\u201364\u2009years from hard-to-reach groups whose perspectives are often absent from research on cervical screening but are critical to developing appropriate interventions to increase engagement with the screening offer.<\/td>\n | BMC WomensHealth<\/p>\n Laura Marlow<\/strong>, McBride E, Varnes L and Jo Waller<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\n27.\u00a0 Cancer elimination thresholds: one size does not fit all<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| Australia should be congratulated\u00a0 on\u00a0 being set to \u201celiminate\u201d cervical cancer by\u00a0 2028,\u00a0 but\u00a0 we\u00a0 question\u00a0 defining\u00a0 elimination\u00a0\u00a0 as\u00a0\u00a0 having\u00a0\u00a0 an\u00a0\u00a0 annual\u00a0\u00a0 incidence of four per 100000 women. We suggest setting age and country specific\u00a0\u00a0 targets\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 aim\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 preventing a set proportion\u00a0 of\u00a0 new\u00a0 cervical\u00a0 cancer\u00a0 cases\u00a0 by\u00a0 a\u00a0 given\u00a0 date.<\/td>\n | Lancet Public Health<\/p>\n Alejandra Castanon,<\/strong> Francesca Pesola<\/strong> and Peter Sasieni<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n28.\u00a0 Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening.<\/td>\n | BMJ<\/p>\n Matejka Rebolj<\/strong>, Rimmer J, Denton K, Tidy J, Christopher Mathews<\/strong>, Ellis K, …<\/strong>\u00a0 and Kitchener H.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n29.\u00a0\u00a0 A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments.<\/td>\n | N Engl JMed<\/p>\n Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Francesca Pesola<\/strong>, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, …\u00a0 Peter Sasieni<\/strong>, … and McRobbie HJ.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n30.\u00a0 Impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence in England: a time trend analysis<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n| To better model underlying trends in cervical cancer incidence so as to model past trends, to estimate the impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer rates at different ages and to obtain a counterfactual baseline under a no-screening scenario.<\/td>\n | BMJ Open<\/p>\n Francesca Pesola<\/strong> and Peter Sasieni<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |