br methods This is only justified because the
methods. This is only justified because the proportion of cancers from open biopsy is very small. A further limitation of the study is the lack of detailed information on size, grade, and nodal status of invasive cancers detected at different biopsy rates.
Any changes to the national programme by setting bi-opsy rate targets would require careful monitoring to ensure no detrimental effects to the screening programme were occurring. Particular attention needs to be taken to ensure any 158021-47-7 in biopsy rates does not affect detec-tion rates of small higher-grade invasive cancers. By setting recall rate targets, biopsy rates may be affected and vice-versa. It is therefore probably not advisable to introduce both recall rate and biopsy rates targets or changes in tar-gets at the same time. Any changes to either recall rates or biopsy rates would require close monitoring.
In summary, over the last quarter of a century or more the English NHSBSP has been more focussed on improving sensitivity than specificity. Recall rates higher than targets have tended to be tolerated in preference to low invasive cancer detection rates. This study demonstrates that high recall rates are associated with high biopsy rates and high non-malignant/benign biopsy rates, which contribute to the harms of screening.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
R.G.B. and R.A. are funded by Public Health England. The work arose from initial discussions at the Clinical Advisory Group for NHSBSP assessment work (members R.G.B., Claire Borrelli, Sue Cohen, Alison Duncan, R.G.-W., J.J., Olive Kearins, Sarah Pinder, Mark Sibbering, Nisha Sharma, Jim Steel, Anne Turnbull, M.G.W.).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
1. Forrest P. Breast cancer screening: report to the health ministers of England
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. London: HMSO; 1986.
2. NHS Breast Screening Programme. AgeX trial. Available at: http://www. agex.uk/. Accessed 1 Jan 2018. 3. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron JA, et al. The independent UK Review Panel on Breast Cancer screening. The benefits and Harms of breast screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2205e40.
4. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy S, et al. Update of the Swedish-Two County programme of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187e210.
5. Blanks RG, Day NE, Moss SM. Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the Euglenoids invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen 1996;3:79e81.
6. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate. In: N.Perry M, Broeders C, de Wolf, et al., editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European communities; 2006. 7. Van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observation in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:3517e25. 8. Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. National performance bench-marks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 2017;283(1):49e58.
9. Consolidated standards for NHS breast screening programme April 2017 public health England Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/
13. Gray M. Reducing unwarranted variation to maximise the value of healthcare for populations. BMJ 2017;356:j437. 14. Heidinger O, HeidrichJ, WU Batzler, et al. Digital mammography screening in Germany: impact of age and histological subtype on pro-gram sensitivity. Breast 2015 Jun;24(3):191e6.
16. Given-Wilson R. Commentary on duty of candour and cancer screening. Br J Radiol 2017 Jul 14;91(1090). 20170457 epub. 17. Rachid R,Madan J,Brennan A, et al. Option appraisal: modelling the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening policies for breast cancer in elderly women in England and Wales. Report for NIHR 2010 Available at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.396555!/file/ RachidFinal.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
18. Public Health England. Clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening assessment, 4th edn. NHSBSP Publication No 49. PHE publications gateway number: 2016426. Available at: https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/567600/Clinical_guidance_for_breast__cancer_screening__ assessment_Nov_2016.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2018. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 135 (2019) 77–87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
An anti-cancerous protein fraction from Withania somnifera induces ROS-dependent mitochondria-mediated apoptosis in human MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells