Publications by authors named "N Moshina"

17 Publications

Long-term quality of life among breast cancer survivors eligible for screening at diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Public Health 2021 Sep 21;199:65-76. Epub 2021 Sep 21.

Cancer Registry of Norway, Section of Cancer Screening, P.O. 5313, Majorstuen, Oslo, 0304, Norway; Department of Health and Care Sciences, UiT The Artic University of Norway, P.O. 6050, Tromsø, 9037, Norway. Electronic address:

Objectives: This study aimed to explore the long-term quality of life (QoL) among breast cancer survivors eligible for mammographic screening at diagnosis and compare that to QoL among women with no history of breast cancer.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies published between January 2000 and July 2019 was performed. Eight studies were included in the review. Six studies with QoL measurement scales (0-100) were included in the meta-analysis. We used fixed and random effects models to obtain Cohen's d with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by the I statistics.

Results: Information about 6145 breast cancer survivors diagnosed between 1995 and 2012 and followed for >1-10 years was analysed. Four studies used SF-36/RAND-36, three studies used EORTC QLQ-C30, one study used FACT-G and one study used FACT-B. The mean score of QoL for breast cancer survivors varied from 63.0 (RAND SF-36, 0-100) to 110.5 (FACT-B, 0-123). Two studies showed better, three studies showed similar and two studies showed poorer mean scores for breast cancer survivors compared with women with no history of breast cancer. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in QoL for breast cancer survivors compared with women with no history of breast cancer (Cohen's d = -0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.14 to 0.00 and I = 83.7% for the fixed effect model; Cohen's d = -0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.17 and I = 82.4% for the random effects model).

Conclusion: QoL did not differ between breast cancer survivors eligible for mammographic screening at diagnosis and followed for >1-10 years and women with no history of breast cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.08.008DOI Listing
September 2021

Comparability and validity of cancer registry data in the northwest of Russia.

Acta Oncol 2021 Oct 23;60(10):1264-1271. Epub 2021 Aug 23.

Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

Background: Despite the elaborate history of statistical reporting in the USSR, Russia established modern population-based cancer registries (PBCR) only in the 1990s. The quality of PBCRs data has not been thoroughly analyzed. This study aims at assessing the comparability and validity of cancer statistics in regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) of Russia.

Material And Methods: Data from ten Russian regional PBCRs covering ∼13 million (∼5 million in St. Petersburg) were processed in line with IARC/IACR and ENCR recommendations. We extracted and analyzed all registered cases but focused on cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2017. For comparability and validity assessment, we applied established qualitative and quantitative methods.

Results: Data collection in NWFD is in line with international standards. Distributions of diagnosis dates revealed higher variation in several regions, but overall, distributions are relatively uniform. The proportion of multiple primaries between 2008 and 2017 ranged from 6.7% in Vologda Oblast to 12.4% in Saint-Petersburg. We observed substantial regional heterogeneity for most indicators of validity. In 2013-2017, proportions of morphologically verified cases ranged between 61.7 and 89%. Death certificates only (DCO) cases proportion was in the range of 1-14% for all regions, except for Saint-Petersburg (up to 23%). The proportion of cases with a primary site unknown was between 1 and 3%. Certain cancer types (e.g., pancreas, liver, hematological malignancies, and CNS tumors) and cancers in older age groups showed lower validity.

Conclusion: While the overall level of comparability and validity of PBCRs data of four out of ten regions of NWFD of Russia meets the international standards, differences between the regions are substantial. The local instructions for cancer registration need to be updated and implemented. The data validity assessment also reflects pitfalls in the quality of diagnosis of certain cancer types and patient groups.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.1967443DOI Listing
October 2021

History and current status of cancer registration in Russia.

Cancer Epidemiol 2021 08 2;73:101963. Epub 2021 Jun 2.

Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

Background: Russia, then part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR), introduced compulsory cancer registration in 1953, but a clear overall contemporary description of the cancer surveillance system in Russia is not available.

Methods: We summarized historical landmarks and the development of the standards of classification and coding of neoplasms in Russia and described current population-based cancer registries' (PBCR) procedures and practices.

Results: Cancer registration is organized according to the administrative division of the Russian Federation. More than 600,000 cases are registered annually. All medical facilities, without exception, are required to notify the PBCR about newly diagnosed cases, and each regional PBCR is responsible for registering all cancers diagnosed in citizens residing in the region. The data collection can be described as passive and exhaustive. Hematological malignancies, brain, and CNS tumors are often not referred to cancer hospitals in some regions, explaining the problems in registering these cancers.

Conclusion: Russia's cancer registration system is population-based, and practices seem to be generally internationally comparable. However, coding practices and national guidelines are still outdated and not up to the most recent international recommendations. Further analyses are needed to assess the comparability, validity, completeness, and timeliness of Russia's PBCRs data.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2021.101963DOI Listing
August 2021

Factors associated with attendance and attendance patterns in a population-based mammographic screening program.

J Med Screen 2021 06 17;28(2):169-176. Epub 2020 Jun 17.

Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.

Objective: To explore the factors associated with attendance and attendance pattern in BreastScreen Norway.

Methods: We evaluated the number of invitations (n = 1,253,995) and attendances, 2015-2019, stratified by age, invitation method, screening unit and time of appointment. Attendance pattern was analysed for women invited 10 times (n = 47,979), 1996-2019. The association of education level, body mass index, physical activity and smoking status with attendance was analysed for a sub-sample of women (n = 37,930). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse attendance, and negative binomial regression was used to analyse the association between the total number of attendances and education level and lifestyle factors.

Results: The attendance rate was 76.0%, 2015-2019. The rate was 78.0% for women aged >64 and 73.9% for those <55 . We found a rate of 82.0% for women who received a digital invitation, while it was 73.7% for those invited by post. The rate was 78.1% for invitations in the late afternoon, 3-6 p.m., while later appointments reached a rate of 73.7%. Half of the women invited 10 times attended all times. The predicted total number of attendances was 9 out of 10 for the factors investigated.

Conclusion: The highest attendance rates were shown for women aged >64, those who received digital invitations and those having appointments in late afternoon. The differences in predicted number of attendances between the investigated factors were minor. Overall, BreastScreen Norway has a high attendance rate. However, efforts aimed at increasing the attendance in specific groups should be considered.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141320932945DOI Listing
June 2021

Interval and Subsequent Round Breast Cancer in a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screening.

Radiology 2021 07 11;300(1):66-76. Epub 2021 May 11.

From the Cancer Registry of Norway, PO 5313, Maiorstuen, 0304 Oslo, Norway (S.H., N.M., Å.S.H., A.S.D.); Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway (S.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L.); Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L.); Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (N.H.); Department of Radiology (H.S.A., I.S.H.), Department of Pathology (L.A.A.), and Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (I.S.H.), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; and Department of Clinical Medicine (H.S.A., I.S.H.), Section for Pathology (L.A.A.), and Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO (L.A.A.), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Background Prevalent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has shown higher cancer detection rates and lower recall rates compared with those of digital mammography (DM). However, data are limited on rates and histopathologic tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers for DBT. Purpose To follow women randomized to screening with DBT or DM and to investigate rates and tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers. Materials and Methods To-Be is a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcome of DBT and DM in organized breast cancer screening. The trial included 28 749 women, with 22 306 women returning for subsequent DBT screening 2 years later (11 201 and 11 105 originally screened with DBT and DM, respectively). Differences in rates, means, and distribution of histopathologic tumor characteristics between women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM were evaluated with Z tests, tests, and χ tests. Relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs was calculated for the cancer rates. Results Interval cancer rates were 1.4 per 1000 screens (20 of 14 380; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) for DBT versus 2.0 per 1000 screens (29 of 14 369; 95% CI: 1.4, 2.9; = .20) for DM. The rates of subsequent round screen-detected cancer were 8.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 6.6, 10.0) for women originally screened with DBT and 9.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0; = .43) for women screened with DM. The distribution of tumor characteristics did not differ between groups for either interval or subsequent screen-detected cancer. The RR of interval cancer was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.22; = .20) for DBT versus DM, whereas RR of subsequent screen-detected cancer for women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.19; = .43). Conclusion Rates of interval or subsequent round screen-detected cancers and their tumor characteristics did not differ between women originally screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography. The analysis suggests that the benefits of prevalent DBT screening did not come at the expense of worse downstream screening performance measures in a population-based screening program. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Taourel in this issue.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021203936DOI Listing
July 2021
-->