<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="620" height="413" src="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/02/Stakeholder-engagement-generic-copilot-image-620x413.png" alt="" class="wp-image-30553" srcset="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/02/Stakeholder-engagement-generic-copilot-image-620x413.png 620w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/02/Stakeholder-engagement-generic-copilot-image-310x207.png 310w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/02/Stakeholder-engagement-generic-copilot-image-768x512.png 768w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/02/Stakeholder-engagement-generic-copilot-image.png 960w" sizes="(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px" /></figure> <p>Today we have published the updated <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-stakeholder-engagement">UK NSC stakeholder engagement strategy</a> after conducting a comprehensive review in 2025.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Background</h2> <p>The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) could not do its work without drawing on the research, expertise, opinions, and experiences of a wide range of individuals and organisations, including:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>people with lived experience of a condition</li> <li>patient organisations</li> <li>expert clinicians</li> <li>researchers and academics</li> <li>screening policy makers</li> <li>commercial companies</li> </ul> <p>Effective engagement with these stakeholders helps the UK NSC make informed, evidence-based, practicable recommendations and keep up to date with developments on screening topics.</p> <p>The UK NSC first published its stakeholder engagement strategy in 2022 following a recommendation from the UK’s 4 chief medical officers (Recommendation 6a of CMOs’ recommendations for the expanded remit of the UK NSC published with the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-march-2022" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-march-2022">minutes of the March 2022 UK NSC meeting</a>).</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Review findings</h2> <p>Last year, the secretariat that supports the UK NSC carried out a thorough review of the strategy and associated stakeholder engagement activities.</p> <p>This review included an <a href="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/04/24/nearly-200-people-respond-to-uk-nsc-stakeholder-survey/">online survey</a> and 3 focused discussion groups in which stakeholders provided a wealth of valuable insights.</p> <p>There was praise for the UK NSC’s evidence-based approach and processes while concerns were raised on the themes of:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>transparency</li> <li>communication gaps</li> <li>the UK NSC’s evidence requirements and engagement processes</li> </ul> <p>Stakeholder feedback also highlighted common misunderstandings about the UK NSC’s role and remit, as well as when and how it needs to engage with stakeholders during evidence review processes.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">How we are responding</h2> <p>Analysis of the feedback received from stakeholders, and from patient and public voice (PPV) members of the UK NSC and its expert groups, highlighted ways in which we could enhance the strategy and engagement activities.</p> <p>The UK NSC’s updated stakeholder engagement strategy more clearly explains how and when the committee engages with stakeholders to optimise their input.</p> <p>Other steps we are taking to improve the way we communicate with stakeholders include:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>reviewing the clarity and accessibility of the UK NSC’s online information</li> <li>developing a series of blog articles to explain the committee’s role and remit and to address common misunderstandings</li> <li>building on the success of professional development activities such as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-screening-committee-seminars">UK NSC seminars</a> and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/education-and-training-for-screening-related-professionals">screening masterclass</a></li> <li>exploring the feasibility and potential use of other communications methods</li> </ul> <p>We will you keep you updated on all these activities via this blog.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Keep up to date</strong></h2> <p>The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/subscribe/">register to receive updates</a>&nbsp;direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email&nbsp;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.</p> <p></p>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="620" height="413" src="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/01/[email protected]" alt="" class="wp-image-30538" srcset="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/01/[email protected] 620w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/01/[email protected] 310w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/01/[email protected] 768w, https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2026/01/[email protected] 960w" sizes="(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px" /></figure> <p>In 2018, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) recommended increasing the sensitivity of the bowel cancer screening faecal immunochemical test (FIT).</p> <p>This means reducing the threshold for how much blood in a screening sample needs to be present to trigger a referral for more tests.</p> <p>The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England is now lowering the threshold from 120 micrograms of haemoglobin per gram of faeces (µg Hb/g) to 80µg Hb/g. By lowering the test threshold, the programme will have the potential to detect more polyps (abnormal growths that can develop into cancer over time) and more cancers.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>How bowel cancer screening works</strong></h2> <p>The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites people aged 50 to 74 years for bowel cancer screening every 2 years by sending them a FIT home test kit in the post.</p> <p>People use this kit to return a sample of faeces (poo) for testing in a laboratory. If blood is found in the sample at levels above the test threshold, then the programme invites the person for more tests. These tests can include a colonoscopy – an examination of the lining of the large bowel during which any polyps can be removed. &nbsp;</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Test thresholds across the UK</strong></h2> <p>While the current FIT threshold for referral in England and Northern Ireland is 120 μg Hb/g, Wales has already lowered its threshold for referral to 80μg Hb/g and Scotland has always set its FIT threshold at 80μg Hb/g.</p> <p>The threshold in England is being lowered to 80μg Hb/g in a phased rollout that should be completed by March 2028.</p> <p>Lowering the test threshold will mean more people will be referred for follow-up diagnostic tests.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Likely consequences of reducing the FIT threshold</strong></h2> <p>The increase in referrals for follow-up tests will increase demand on services.</p> <p>To help determine the impact of reducing the FIT referral threshold, the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR) at the University of Sheffield to produce a report on the predicted health and resource consequences.</p> <div class="highlight"> <p>Download and read the <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/232498/">full SCHARR report</a>.</p> </div> <p>Using data analysis and statistical modelling, the SCHARR authors estimated, in the short term, that reducing the FIT test threshold to 80μg Hb/g would result each year&nbsp;in 36% more positive screening results.</p> <p>This would lead to the detection of an estimated 2,017 more high risk polyps and 663 more bowel cancers.</p> <p>In the longer term, after 25 years of bowel cancer screening at a FIT threshold of 80μg Hb/g, they estimated there would be 867 fewer bowel cancer deaths each year.</p> <p>Initially, more cancers would be detected. Then, the prevalence of bowel cancer would decrease as more polyps are detected and removed, preventing bowel cancers developing.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Next steps</strong></h2> <p>Lowering the threshold of FIT to 80µg Hb/g will result in a significant increase in workload for the screening programme. But the benefits are clear as more bowel cancers will be detected and more will be prevented.</p> <p>The phased roll out across England will enable all screening centres to prepare for the change, and to recruit the staff needed to ensure the programme can be delivered sustainably within the appropriate waiting times.</p> <p>You can read more about the benefits of bowel screening here: <a href="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2025/04/11/wealth-of-evidence-highlights-the-benefits-of-bowel-cancer-screening/#:~:text=What%20the%20research%20and%20data,screening%20age%20by%20almost%207%25.">Wealth of evidence highlights the benefits of bowel cancer screening – UK National Screening Committee</a>.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Keep up to date</h2> <p>The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/subscribe/">register to receive updates</a>&nbsp;direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email&nbsp;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.</p>

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Health Improvement Scotland (HIS) all work on the early detection of health conditions, and their work sometimes overlaps and interacts. For example, the UK NSC might assess a screening pathway proposal while NICE separately assesses the diagnostic pathway that uses the same test via a clinical guideline or a health technology evaluation. Or there may already be NICE or Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines in place for the test. The FIT (faecal immunochemical test) kit used to test for bowel cancer is one example as it is used both in screening and as a test in general practice to help doctors diagnose their patients. The main area where these organisations collaborate and work closely together is when considering targeted screening topics for high-risk groups. These topics can sit at the boundary between clinical guidelines (which tell doctors how to care for patients) and organised screening programmes (which invite healthy people for tests). ## Chief Medical Officer recommendations Collaboration between the UK NSC, NICE and HIS supports the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations that UK NSC should: * appoint expertise in clinical care guidelines from NICE and HIS to the Committee (recommendation 4a) * foster greater horizon scanning and research links across the healthcare system (recommendation 7) * foster a closer working relationship between UK NSC, NICE, and HIS at the interface between screening programmes and clinical guidance (recommendation 8) ## What is targeted screening? Previously, the UK NSC only considered proposals for population screening programmes, while NICE and HIS considered targeted screening topics for groups at higher risk.  Following the independent review of adult screening programmes in 2019, the 4 CMOs recommended UK NSC should also cover targeted screening. UK NSC defines targeted screening as: _A nationally delivered proactive screening programme which aims to improve health outcomes in people with the condition being screened for, among groups of people identified as being at elevated/above average risk of a specific condition. Compared  to the general population, the people targeted may have higher risk because of lifestyle factors, genetic variants or having another health condition._ ## How targeted screening differs from clinical care The UK NSC, NICE and HIS have been working together to clarify where organised targeted screening ends and the testing of high-risk groups within clinical guidelines begins. Important differences between the 2 approaches include: **Who is being screened or tested:** targeted screening largely focuses on people who feel healthy and have no symptoms. Although they are high-risk individuals, they may not know they are at higher risk of the condition being tested for. People who already have symptoms, are being investigated for a condition, or have a diagnosis should be cared for under clinical management. **How people are invited:**  targeted screening programmes proactively offer tests to high-risk groups at a national level. In clinical care, patients ask for tests themselves or are referred by their doctor. For example, people with cirrhosis (liver scarring) have an increased risk of developing liver cancer. Because they already have a diagnosis, the NHS monitors them regularly for complications like liver cancer. This is part of their ongoing care, not screening. Being clear about these differences helps all 3 organisations understand their roles and deliver the best outcomes for the public. ## Working together in practice Arrangements to support our joint working include: * regular meetings between the 3 organisations to discuss shared issues and opportunities * representatives from NICE and HIS attending UK NSC meetings as observers * NICE and SIGN involvement in the UK NSC open call process, helping to determine which proposals fall within the UK NSC’s remit and which relate to clinical guidelines only * a topic routing group set up by all 3 organisations to advise where proposals should go if the decision is not clear-cut – any changes are then made through the normal public processes of the organisations ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in the general adult population. COPD is one of the health conditions the committee reviews regularly for evidence relating to population screening. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC process of reviewing evidence. We are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of a 2025 evidence map on screening for COPD in adults. The evidence map was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since our last evidence review in 2018. The 2025 evidence map concludes that the volume and type of new evidence related to screening for COPD in adults is currently insufficient to justify more in-depth work at this time. It recommends that screening for COPD should be re-considered in 3 years’ time. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, download the consultation documents by clicking on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s COPD recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on Tuesday 7 April 2026**. ## About COPD COPD is a group of progressive lung conditions characterised by the inflammation and irreversible damage to pulmonary air passages that gradually reduces airflow into the lungs. The main symptoms of COPD include increasing breathlessness when active and persistent coughs with phlegm. However, airflow obstruction without symptoms is also common in COPD. If left untreated, these lung conditions will progressively impair quality of life, resulting in long-term disabilities and increased mortality. Smoking tobacco has been shown to be the main cause of COPD and is responsible for 80% to 90% of cases. Epidemiological studies have found that 15% to 50% of all smokers will develop COPD. ## The 2025 evidence map The 2025 evidence map identifies some new evidence published since the 2018 review, including evidence on: * **the effect of COPD screening on health outcomes**  - 2 systematic reviews and 3 randomised control trials (RCTs) were identified. The systematic reviews did not identify any RCTs addressing the effect of COPD screening on health outcomes. The 3 RCTs used screening or case-finding to identify people with undiagnosed COPD, then compared enhanced care with usual care, but reporting mixed results across studies. * **the effect of screening on smoking cessation**  - 3 systematic reviews and 12 primary studies were identified. Among them, 2 meta-analyses suggested a possible (but not definitive) effect of spirometry feedback on smoking cessation, while the primary studies showed mixed results. However, evidence on smoking cessation alone is unlikely to change the current recommendation on COPD screening. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has published the minutes of its November 2025 meeting. See UK NSC meeting November 2025 for the full draft minutes from the meeting. During the meeting, the committee agreed to go out to public consultation on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation: * to offer targeted screening to carriers of BRCA gene variants * not to offer population screening * not to offer targeted screening for Black men or men with a family history Following public consultations, the UK NSC also updated its recommendations on newborn screening for metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) and on adult screening for dementia. Committee members recognised the devastating impact of MLD and thanked the many individuals and organisations who had responded to the consultation. Members found that more research and evaluation are needed to explore the case for screening further and therefore reiterated their recommendation not to screen for MLD. To address the challenges associated with evidence generation for rare diseases in newborn screening, the UK NSC is working with partners to develop plans for a multi-condition in-service evaluation (ISE), termed EquipoISE, within the UK newborn blood spot screening programme. MLD has been identified as a good candidate for inclusion in this type of evaluation, which could provide valuable information on the performance of MLD screening in UK newborns. The committee also restated its recommendation not to offer adult population screening for dementia because of the lack of an accurate and reliable test and limited treatments. Members again thanked all those who had responded to the consultation. Other topics discussed at the meeting included: * the use of digital cytology in the cervical screening programme * additional breast screening appointments for women with dense breast tissue * review of the UK NSC stakeholder engagement strategy ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The NHS Newborn Blood Spot (NBS) Screening Programme prevents severe disability and death by detecting a number of rare but serious health conditions in newborns. Healthcare professionals take blood spots using a heel prick device when babies are 5 days old. The blood spots are then tested for sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, congenital hypothyroidism and a number of inherited metabolic diseases. The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) is working with experts and partner organisations to look at how to make it easier to develop evidence needed to make robust recommendations on the addition of more rare diseases to the NBS screening programme. Today, the UK NSC is publishing an update on this work, which provides an outline of a project called EquipoISE. This is a proposed rolling multi-condition in-service evaluation (ISE) within the NBS screening programme. Use the link below to download the report: EquipoISE – A multi-disease in-service evaluation within the UK newborn blood spot screening programme: extended bloodspot ISE ## The aims of EquipoISE ISEs in screening involve assessing new or modified screening programmes in real-world NHS settings to answer specific questions about the operation or effectiveness of a proposed screening test and pathway. The main aim of EquipoISE would be to answer policy-relevant research questions that will allow the UK NSC to make recommendations on adding new conditions to the NBS programme. EquipoISE would: * assess the most promising candidate rare conditions to add to the NBS programme * explore whether and how genetic-based screening tests could be added into the programme * generate more evidence on how children's outcomes are affected by genetic-based screening for different conditions If the assessment of a candidate condition under EquipoISE is successful, then it could be rolled out formally as part of the national NBS screening programme. ## Current uncertainties in screening for rare diseases Around 1 in 17 people are affected by a rare disease, most of which develop in childhood. Many of the conditions are treatable if detected early enough, so using screening to detect them before symptoms develop can be extremely helpful. However, for many diseases we do not yet have enough data on their natural history, prevalence or age of onset to know whether screening would be beneficial. We also do not know which biomarkers will reliably predict disease in newborns, which biomarkers might indicate benign disease, or how many children with a ‘positive’ screening result would go on to develop symptoms. These uncertainties mean screening could incorrectly diagnose healthy babies, leading to unnecessary interventions, causing distress to families and placing pressure on health systems already supporting children with confirmed rare diseases. ## Importance of evaluation in UK setting There is wide international variation in NBS screening practice, so newborn screening varies considerably. It is very difficult to determine whether screening practice in another country would translate effectively to a UK setting. The aim of EquipoISE would be to collect and analyse UK-specific data to support any future safe, evidence-based expansion of the NHS NBS Screening Programme in line with the UK NSC’s evidence review criteria, code of practice and ethical framework. We will keep you informed about the project’s progress via this blog. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

On 1 December 2025 the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) held its latest online seminar. This focused on screening effectiveness, using the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Screening Programme as a case study. We had a great turnout on the day with nearly 200 attendees. First up, Phil Gardner (UK NSC Lead for Screening Data, IT, Standards and effectiveness and Harriet Strachan (UK NSC Screening Data and Effectiveness Analytical Manager) led us through a vibrant presentation on what effectiveness looks like in screening, how to assess it, and how important it is. Mr Jonothan Earnshaw (Consultant Vascular Surgeon (retired) and former NHS AAA Screening Programme Director) then gave a detailed insight into the AAA programme. He explained the development and implementation of the programme (beginning back in 2009), and talked us through the data showing that: * there has been an approximate halving of the number of men treated in hospital for a ruptured AAA (rAAA), and a similar reduction in the death rate from rAAA in the UK * the NHS AAA screening programme remains cost effective Finally, our NHS England colleagues Dr Robyn Fletcher (Consultant in Public Health, Senior Clinical Lead for the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Diabetic Eye Screening Programmes) and Holly Wilson-Guy (Pathway Implementation Lead for AAA and Diabetic Eye Screening (DES)) explained how they use the UK NSC effectiveness report to both confirm, and help maintain, effectiveness in AAA screening. They also looked to the future, sharing AAA screening objectives for 2026 and beyond. The seminar ended with a busy question and answer session, and it was really positive to see attendees sharing knowledge and tips in the meeting chat. ## Presentation slides You can view PDF versions of the seminar presentations by clicking the links below. * Assessing the effectiveness of screening by Phil Gardner and Harriet Strachan (UK NSC) * UK AAA Screening Programmes: 10 year effectiveness review by Mr Jonothan Earnshaw * Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) effectiveness review by Dr Robyn Fletcher and Holly Wilson-Guy (NHS England) ## Future seminar topics Our online seminars have looked at a range of topics to date, covering: * development of a clinical pathway for the modelling of targeted lung cancer screening * planning and implementing a screening in-service evaluation * using polygenic risk scores * multi-cancer detection tests * breast screening and breast density **If you have ideas for future topics, please email us [email protected]** ## Keep up to date We’ll post details of new screening seminars on this blog. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there’s no need to keep checking for new articles.

A new article has been published in Nature Medicine on the ethics of Multi-Cancer Detection tests (MCDs). It is authored by 3 members of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) MCD Task Group, Dr Tom Callender, Prof Anne-Marie Slowther and Prof Anne Mackie. The paper builds on evidence review work commissioned by the UK NSC and is part of a group of projects considering MCDs that the UK NSC Evidence Team is coordinating. MCDs can look for signs of several different cancers at once, most commonly using a blood sample. This new approach could change how we screen for cancer, as current UK screening programmes only check for one type of cancer at a time, such as breast or bowel cancer. However, introducing MCD testing raises important ethical questions. **Read thefull article in Nature Medicine.** The paper explores the ethical challenge of testing for many cancers with a single test. When considering a cancer screening programme, the UK NSC weighs up the possible benefits of screening against the possible harms. Possible benefits include catching cancer early and improving survival, while possible harms include false positive and false negative results, as well as overdiagnosis, and overtreatment – the treatment of cancers that would never have caused harm. This process of assessing benefits and harms is potentially particularly challenging for MCDs because not all cancers detected by the test will benefit equally from early detection. For some cancers, screening may do more harm than good. Evaluating MCDs therefore involves assessing benefits and harms both collectively across all cancers detected and individually by cancer type. If the detection of certain cancers by an MCD shows no benefit or causes harm, any modification of the test or filtering of the screening results would raise questions about withholding information and respecting patient autonomy. The paper also highlights other ethical considerations relating to: * the potential impact on existing single-cancer screening programmes * challenges around informed consent for a complex multi-condition test * healthcare inequalities * the efficient use of public resources Ethics is just one of several strands of work that the UK NSC MCD Task Group is considering when discussing the potential use of MCD tests in screening. We will keep you updated on progress of the work via this blog. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has been reviewing evidence relating to population screening for coeliac disease in adults. Coeliac disease is one of the health conditions the committee reviews regularly to assess the evidence that would support a national screening programme. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the evidence review process and the UK NSC commissioned an evidence map to outline the volume and type of evidence on screening for coeliac disease published since the previous UK NSC review of this topic in 2014. We are now offering stakeholders the chance to provide feedback on the evidence map and its conclusions. We are also asking stakeholders to highlight any issues related to coeliac disease screening in the adult population that it would be useful to explore. ## How to respond Download and read the 2025 evidence map on screening for coeliac disease. **Please email any feedback to****[email protected]****by 11.59pm GMT on Monday 16 February 2026.** ## About Coeliac disease Coeliac disease is a common bowel condition. It occurs when the immune system is too sensitive to a protein called gluten. Gluten is found in wheat, rye and barley, which are often used to make foods such as bread, pasta and biscuits. Coeliac disease damages the small intestine so the body cannot properly take in nutrients. It causes a range of symptoms, including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and bloating. Treatment is a strict gluten-free diet. ## The evidence The 2025 evidence map identified a substantial volume of new published evidence since 2014. It found that: * there is substantial evidence on specific risk groups in which coeliac disease may be more prevalent and that these groups could be considered for targeted screening programmes * a more in-depth investigation of published studies is needed to understand if blood tests used to screen for coeliac disease work as well in people without symptoms as they do in those who are unwell * there is limited evidence on whether screen detection of coeliac disease leads to improved outcomes - some relevant studies were found and further review of these could help answer this question * a more in-depth review of the included economic model could show whether screening the general population for coeliac disease would be cost effective ## Next steps Based on the findings of this evidence map, the UK NSC is working to commission further evidence synthesis work to assess the published evidence on screening for coeliac disease in adults in greater depth. This feedback exercise aims to gather insights, priorities, and considerations that will help shape the scope and direction of this future evidence synthesis. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

During the summer, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) asked stakeholders for their views on research about potential additional breast screening for women with dense breasts. We wanted feedback on 3 systematic reviews: * Review 1: Automated and manual measurements of mammographic breast density in individuals undergoing breast cancer screening * Review 2: Risk-adapted breast imaging in population breast cancer screening: A UK National Screening Committee Evidence Summary * Review 3: Economic evaluation of supplementary screening using imaging modalities for women with dense breast tissue: systematic literature review These publications looked at recent studies and new imaging techniques that might inform potential improvements to breast screening in the UK in the future. We received helpful feedback on several issues, which will help shape the UK NSC’s work on this topic. ## Background In the UK, women aged 50 to their 71st birthday are invited for breast screening every 3 years using mammograms (breast X-rays). Screening helps detect breast cancer and reduces the chance of death from the condition by between 20% and 40%. No screening test is perfect and tests in all screening programmes do miss some cancers. This is particularly the case in women who have dense breast tissue. Dense breasts make tumours harder to see on mammograms and also increase the risk of cancer. In 2019, the UK NSC looked at whether women with dense breasts should have extra ultrasound scans after normal mammogram results. That review found that there was not a standard test for density and there were high rates of false positive results. The committee did not recommend additional screening at that time as there was not enough evidence of benefit. Evidence in screening programmes usually relates to mortality. But as we know that breast screening does prevent deaths, we can look for measures that become obvious earlier, like cancer detection rates and interval cancers (cancers detected between scheduled screening appointments). ## Recent evidence developments Breast imaging has evolved rapidly since 2019. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) now recommends that women should know about their breast density and those with very dense breasts should be offered additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. In the USA, mammogram reports must now include information about breast density. The UK’s BRAID study is investigating whether short MRI scans, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), or automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) could improve cancer detection in women with dense breasts. ## What the 2025 reviews found ### Review 1 This review found good agreement between automated and manual breast density measures, notably with Volpara and Quantra equipment. It also found there is a need for standardised methodologies and more research. ### Review 2 The second review found that MRI scans were better than handheld ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) at finding cancers that mammograms missed and reducing interval cancers. The BRAID study supports these findings. MRI, and possibly CEM, show potential to improve screening by detecting more cancers, as previously shown by other studies. However, interval cancer data from BRAID is not yet available. ### Review 3 The third review found that MRI alone was potentially cost-effective for younger women with very dense breasts, but the studies were from non-UK settings. We need UK-specific cost-effectiveness analysis that considers age, risk profiles, screening frequency, and imaging methods. Ethnic mix in populations are not the same across countries, and we want to be sure that the test works for all of our women. ## What stakeholders told us Feedback on the 3 reviews covered several themes. ### Acting quickly Patients and patient advocates shared personal experiences that stressed how additional imaging such as CEM and MRI for women with dense breasts could save lives. They want this included in routine screening and pointed out that other countries already tell women about breast density and offer extra screening. Patients and patient advocates also think women should know their breast density to make informed choices. ### Overall risk assessment Many people said breast density should be part of a full risk assessment alongside family history, genetics, and other factors. They mentioned risk assessment tools such as CanRisk and called for breast density to be part of a complete approach to personalised screening. ### Health equity and access Stakeholders were concerned about fairness. Some worried that risk-based changes could create inequalities, especially if access to additional screening varied between areas. ### Professional support Some professional bodies, research and support organisations highlighted the need for validated, equitable, and standardised breast density assessment tools. They also highlighted the need for UK-specific data and warned that any changes must consider costs, workforce capacity, and infrastructure. ## Our response Here is a summary of our responses to the main points raised in the feedback on the 3 publications. ### Review 1: We understand concerns about which papers were not included and omission of some technical validation studies. However, the criteria were set to ensure relevance to UK screening populations. The lack of reporting on ethnic and socioeconomic diversity limits considerations of generalisability and equity. We recognise the practical challenges of implementing new systems, including time, resources and IT compatibility. We agree it is important to minimise variation between automated tools and human image readers. ### Review 2: We need more evidence on: * diagnostic accuracy of MRI and CEM across diverse populations * overdiagnosis * acceptability to women * mortality impact * impacts on underserved groups We acknowledge implementation challenges around workforce, infrastructure and capacity. We need to carefully consider the complexities of integrating additional imaging into existing screening services and addressing the timing between mammography and supplemental imaging to avoid bias. ### Review 3: We agree with calls for UK-specific cost-effectiveness modelling research due to variability in international data. We need to focus on the UK screening age range (50 to 70), as many of the included studies were on younger women. Research that mixes women with different breast densities is less helpful, so future studies should look at each density category separately. ## What happens next We will commission work to understand the clinical impact and costs of adding breast density to the screening pathways in the UK. This is a complex and very quickly developing field so any work must be flexible enough to add new risk factors in to the model. We will involve a wide range of stakeholders in modelling workshops to ensure the right range of current and possible risk modifiers are considered. ### Expert breast working group The UK NSC has set up a working group of breast cancer screening experts to help it consider new and emerging evidence and developments that could improve the UK breast screening programmes. At its first meeting, the group agreed to support future modelling projects that will incorporate breast density considerations and new tests that assess breast cancer risk, including AI methodologies. This approach aims to move us beyond ‘one-size-fits-all’ screening towards personalised, risk-based screening strategies in the future. We will keep you updated on the work of the breast working group via this blog. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to population screening for Type 2 diabetes in adults. It is asking stakeholders and members of the public to provide feedback on a 2025 evidence map and its conclusions. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC evidence review process. The 2025 evidence map was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since the previous evidence review in 2019. The 2019 review concluded there was no evidence to support whole population screening for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in adults in the UK. The 2025 evidence map reaffirms the conclusion of the 2019 review and concludes that this topic should be reviewed again in 3 years’ time. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, download the consultation documents by clicking on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s diabetes recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on 2 March 2026**. Consultation responses will be considered by the UK NSC when it updates its recommendation on this topic. ## About Type 2 diabetes Diabetes is a long-term (chronic) condition caused by too much glucose (sugar) in the blood. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the body does not produce enough insulin to function properly, or when the body’s cells do not react to insulin. This is called insulin resistance. Type 2 diabetes is far more common than type 1 diabetes. It accounts for more than 95% of patients with diabetes and approximately 537 million cases of diabetes worldwide. Diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases in the UK, and its prevalence is increasing. Registration figures from 2021-2022 from Diabetes UK showed that more than 4.3 million people in the UK were living with diabetes, and an additional 850,000 people could be living with diabetes who were yet to be diagnosed. Over time, diabetes can damage blood vessels in the heart, eyes, kidneys and nerves.  T2DM leads to complications within blood vessels that causes distress to patients and places a huge burden on the healthcare system. Early diagnosis is important to prevent the worst effects. A common test for T2DM is the HbA1c blood test which is less reliable for screening because of its low sensitivity and the need to be confirmed by a second test, such as a second HbA1c, a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). A further test, the 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) does not require fasting and has been used extensively in screening for gestational diabetes. It appears to be a promising screening tool, but the evidence base is sparse. Treatment focuses on reducing blood glucose levels. Treatment includes lifestyle changes, antidiabetic drugs, or patients can be prescribed insulin. ## The evidence The 2025 evidence map identified new published evidence since 2019 but: * there was an insufficient volume of evidence demonstrating the benefits of population screening for type 2 diabetes, which was the key research question * the evidence map findings are unlikely to impact on current recommendations on screening for T2DM as no new evidence was identified that would change those conclusions ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a serious rare inherited condition that affects nerves in the spinal cord. This can affect a person’s ability to move, speak, swallow and breathe. Following the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC’s) review of evidence on newborn screening for SMA, the committee endorsed a 2-pronged approach to: * develop a new comprehensive modelling study for screening for SMA in the UK context * plan in-service evaluation (ISE) of screening for SMA ISEs test proposed or modified screening programmes within ‘real world’ National Health Services. They help answer important evidence gaps and demonstrate how a screening programme would work in practice. This summer (2025) we published 4 documents relating to the UK NSC’s review of evidence on newborn screening for SMA. One of these documents was a report that concluded the ISE is needed to answer questions about whether screening for SMA should be recommended in the UK and how this might work in the NHS, how much it would cost, and whether it would be effective in everyday NHS practice. A partnership board to oversee planning for the ISE brings together screening experts from the 4 UK governments and NHS, organisations with a shared interest in newborn screening for SMA, clinicians, academics, genomic experts and patient and public voice members. The partnership board met in November to review progress and receive several updates on preparations for the ISE. ## **Research progress** The research component of the ISE is being commissioned via the NIHR’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The HTA funding committee met recently and confirmed that an application had been received in response to the advertised funding opportunity.  The application is progressing through the funding process, and the HTA funding committee decision is anticipated in March 2026. ## **Remit of partnership board** The partnership board agreed to update its terms of reference to reflect its ongoing responsibilities and future oversight of the ISE work. This will include reference to how the group will be informed about international SMA screening practices. ## **Clinical pathway preparations** David Elliman, chair of the clinical pathway group, provided an update on progress, including the development of a clear definition of SMA and guidelines for routine immunisations in children with SMA. ## **Laboratory readiness** Jim Bonham, chair of the laboratory group, gave an update on progress with preparing laboratories for the ISE. This includes the validation of testing for SMN2 copy numbers on dry blood spot samples. ## **NHS England preparations** NHS England has been working on detailed planning for the ISE in England, including meetings with laboratory representatives and finance colleagues. An implementation group has now been set up and is meeting this month (December 2025). ## **Scotland’s preparations for ISE** NHS Scotland confirmed it is on track to begin the ISE of newborn screening for SMA in Scotland in March 2026. Scotland is preparing its national newborn laboratory and developing information and training materials. The next partnership board meeting will take place in spring 2026. ## **Keep up to date** The UK NSC blog provides up-to-date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to screening for iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in pregnancy. The UK NSC does not currently recommend screening for this condition. We are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of a 2025 evidence map, which was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since the previous evidence review in 2021. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC evidence review process. The 2025 evidence map concludes that the volume and type of new evidence related to screening for IDA in pregnancy is currently insufficient to justify more in-depth work at this time. It recommends that the topic should be re-considered in 3 years’ time. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, click on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s anaemia recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on 24 February 2026**. ## About IDA in pregnancy Iron deficiency anaemia is caused by a lack of iron and is common in pregnancy. Symptoms can include tiredness, shortness of breath, heart palpitations and headaches. Anaemia during pregnancy is associated with various health complications for mother and baby. IDA accounts for almost 75% cases of anaemia in pregnancy. A multicentre study conducted from 2018 to 2019 across 86 maternity units in the UK and Ireland reported an overall prevalence of IDA during pregnancy of 30%. Iron tablets are recommended for pregnant women who are anaemic. However, mild-to-moderate IDA is often asymptomatic, and the benefits and harms of treating pregnant women with mild to moderate IDA are not well established. ## The evidence A 2021 UK NSC evidence summary did not recommend screening because the available evidence on the benefits and harms of treatment was limited and deemed poor quality. The 2025 evidence map identified new published evidence since 2021. It found: * insufficient evidence on maternal and infant outcomes associated with untreated iron deficiency * mixed results reported on the benefits and harms of treating pregnant women for IDA * continued uncertainty over whether pregnant women with mild to moderate IDA benefit from treatment * limited identified evidence to suggest benefits from screening and treating IDA in pregnancy ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) is today opening a public consultation on prostate cancer screening. It is consulting on its 2025 review of updated evidence and a draft updated recommendation. The UK NSC reviews evidence against detailed criteria to weigh up the balance of risks and benefits. It only recommends a screening programme if published peer-reviewed evidence shows that an end-to-end screening pathway, including diagnostic tests and treatment, would do more benefit than harm to the overall group of people who are invited. The committee commissioned the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR) to develop the updated 2025 prostate cancer screening modelling study. The SCHARR report predicts the potential impact of various screening strategies, including population screening and targeted approaches aimed at high-risk groups including black men, men with a family history and men with a BRCA gene variation. We have opened a 12-week public consultation period to ask individuals and organisations to provide feedback on this study and its conclusions, and on the draft recommendation below. ## Draft recommendation The UK NSC’s draft recommendation is to: * offer a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme to men with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene variants every 2 years, from age 45 to age 61 * not recommend population screening * not recommend targeted screening of Black men * not recommend targeted screening of men with family history * collaborate with the Transform screening research trial team to: * answer outstanding questions on screening effectiveness for black men and men with a family history – as soon as trial data becomes available * await results of the study to develop and trial a more accurate test than PSA alone, to improve the balance of benefit and harm of screening ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, download the consultation documents by clicking on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s prostate cancer recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. You can also access the consultation documents here: * modelling study * narrative paper * evidence review coversheet * infographic **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on Friday 20 February 2026.** The UK NSC secretariat and SCHARR team will review the consultation responses to determine whether the model and literature review need amending. If no further work is required then final evidence reports and feedback from the consultation will go to the 26 March 2026 UK NSC meeting when members are expected to agree a final updated recommendation. If the consultation responses identify a requirement to revisit the modelling and evidence summary, then it will be updated and considered by the UK NSC at the earliest possible opportunity. ## About prostate cancer Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, the second most common cause of cancer deaths in men (after lung cancer), and the most common cancer not to have a national screening programme. Each year in the UK, there are about 55,000 new cases and 12,000 deaths from the disease. The risk of getting prostate cancer increases with age. About 75% of prostate cancer deaths are in men aged 75 and over. The condition is very rare in men under 50. Men may also be at higher risk if they: * have specific genetic variants * are of black ethnic origin * have a close relative, for example a brother or father, who has had prostate cancer, or a sister or mother, who has had breast or ovarian cancer ## PSA testing, screening and treatment The UK NSC does not currently recommend a national screening programme for prostate cancer. Its previous evidence reviews found that the harms of screening outweighed the benefits due to: * high rates of false positive and false negative results from the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test, which is the usual first step to getting a prostate cancer diagnosis * the difficulty of distinguishing between harmless, low risk prostate cancers and aggressive cancers that need treatment * the overtreatment of prostate cancers that would not have gone on to cause harm * the potential serious life-long side effects of treatment, including urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence and erectile dysfunction ## The 2025 modelling study The updated 2025 SCHARR model has been informed by published peer-review evidence, national databases, input from experts and patient representatives, and workshops attended by a wide range of stakeholders. The model has been validated against data from 2 major, long-term, randomised controlled trials into the effectiveness and harms of using PSA testing to screen for prostate cancer: the Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) and the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The model assumes the PSA test is the initial test for all screening strategies followed by further tests, such as an MRI scan and biopsy, if the PSA level is high. It assessed each screening strategy for a one-off screening test. If that looked likely to be effective, the researchers also modelled regular repeat screening test scenarios. ## The TRANSFORM trial The UK NSC welcomes last week’s announcement that the first men have been invited to join the TRANSFORM screening trial. This randomised control trial, backed by £42 million of funding from Prostate Cancer UK and the government, will compare multiple screening options to each other and the current system. The UK NSC worked with Prostate Cancer UK on the design of TRANSFORM. It will liaise closely with the trial team to get timely access to any trial data that might help fill evidence gaps and inform future modifications to the UK NSC’s prostate cancer screening recommendation. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to screening for intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is one of the topics the committee reviews regularly for evidence relating to adult and antenatal screening. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC process of reviewing evidence and we are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of a 2025 evidence map on screening for intimate partner violence. The evidence map was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since the last evidence review in 2019. The 2025 evidence map reaffirms the conclusion of the 2019 review and concludes this topic should not be reviewed again until new evidence becomes available that is likely to have a significant impact on the UK NSC recommendation. This would mean any future requests to review the evidence for screening for intimate partner violence would need to be submitted through the UK NSC’s open call for topics. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, download the consultation documents by clicking on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s partner violence recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on 18****February 2026**. ## About intimate partner violence Intimate partner violence (sometimes referred to as IPV) refers to any incident or pattern of controlling, coercive, threatening, or violent behaviour by a current or former intimate partner. It may involve physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional harm. Intimate partner violence is linked to serious health problems, including physical and mental health issues and even death. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy can lead to complications or harm for both mother and baby. ## The latest evidence The 2025 evidence map identified 10 studies reporting on the effectiveness of intimate partner violence screening in healthcare settings since the 2019 review. The evidence map highlighted important gaps, including: * limited evidence for men, LGBTQ+ groups and ethnic minority populations * a lack of outcome data beyond detection and referral to specialist services Most studies focused on detection and referral, while key outcomes such as prevention of intimate partner violence, morbidity, mortality, neonatal outcomes, children’s wellbeing, and quality of life were not reported. Only one study reported on the reduction of intimate partner violence, and it found no significant impact. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to antenatal and newborn screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS). FXS is one of the health conditions the committee reviews regularly for evidence relating to antenatal screening. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC process of reviewing evidence and we are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of a 2025 evidence map on screening for FXS. This evidence map was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since a 2019 evidence review. The 2025 evidence map reaffirms the conclusions of the 2019 review. It therefore concluded that: * there was not enough evidence in relation to newborn screening for FXS to commission further synthesis work on this topic * UK NSC should not review the topic again until new evidence becomes available that is likely to have a significant effect on the recommendation * any future requests to review the evidence for newborn screening for FXS should be submitted through the UK NSC’s open call for topics To take part in the consultation, download the consultation documents by clicking on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s fragile X recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm GMT on Monday 16 February 2026**. ## About FXS FXS is the most common inherited cause of intellectual disability and a leading cause of autism spectrum disorder. It results from a genetic mutation that affects brain development and function. Individuals with FXS can have a range of developmental, behavioural, and physical features, including attention and learning problems, anxiety, seizures, and gastrointestinal problems. ## The latest evidence The 2025 evidence map identified a low volume of evidence published since the 2019 review. It found: * 5 guidelines or recommendations related to antenatal or newborn screening for FXS, with limited support for either * no studies reporting on the accuracy of available screening tests to detect FXS in pregnant women * one study reporting on the technical feasibility of newborn screening for FXS * no studies reporting on the benefits and harms of early screening interventions in infants and children identified with FXS through screening ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a public consultation on evidence relating to population screening for bladder cancer. The UK NSC does not currently recommend screening for this condition. We are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of a 2025 evidence map, which was commissioned to review literature on the topic published since the previous review in 2020, including any evidence on new tests and interventions. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC evidence review process. The 2025 evidence map has concluded that the overall volume of new evidence on bladder cancer screening published since 2020 is insufficient to recommend more in-depth work. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, click on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s bladder cancer recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm on 9 February 2026**. The consultation responses will be considered by the UK NSC when it updates its recommendation on this topic. ## About bladder cancer Bladder cancer is cancer found anywhere in the bladder. It is a complex disease that requires effective diagnostic and monitoring strategies. Early detection plays a crucial role in the prognosis and treatment of the disease. Treatments include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted medicines. There are around 10,500 new cases of bladder cancer in the UK each year and nearly half of those survive for 10 or more years. In around 20% of cases, bladder cancer has invaded the muscle wall by the time it is detected. In these cases, the cancer can spread rapidly and, even with optimal treatment, 5-year survival is only 50%. A 2015 evidence review did not recommend screening because there was no safe, precise and valid screening test. It also noted that, to be effective, a screening test must be able to detect cancers that are destined to become muscle-invading, but before they have done so. ## The evidence The 2025 evidence map found that the overall volume of new evidence on bladder cancer screening published since 2020 was insufficient to recommend further evidence synthesis work. The identified evidence included some biomarkers that might be suitable for confirming or ruling out suspected cases of bladder cancer. However, there was insufficient evidence of a test suitable for a population screening programme. The evidence map also found updates to 5 international clinical guidelines for population screening for bladder cancer, 3 additional guidelines and 2 overviews of guidelines. However, none of these recommend population screening of asymptomatic adults for bladder cancer. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to population screening for cytomegalovirus (CMV). The UK NSC does not currently recommend screening for CMV. We are asking individuals and organisations to provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of 2 new 2025 evidence reports – a systematic review of newborn screening for congenital CMV (cCMV) and an evidence map looking at the volume and type of evidence related to antenatal screening for CMV. Evidence maps are typically the first step in the UK NSC evidence review process. The committee had previously reviewed the evidence on newborn screening in 2017 and undertaken an evidence map exercise in 2021. The 2025 evidence reports re-evaluate the evidence on screening for CMV in both the antenatal and newborn periods. The evidence map concludes that a full evidence review of antenatal screening for CMV is now justified. The evidence review concludes that there needs to be more research to compare screening with standard care to establish if the benefits of newborn screening would outweigh the harms. ## How to respond To take part in the consultation, click on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s Cytomegalovirus recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm on 6 February 2026**. The consultation responses and final evidence report on newborn screening will be presented to the UK NSC and inform the committee’s decision on whether or not to change its recommendation on screening for CMV in the newborn. The UK NSC will reconsider its recommendation regarding antenatal screening following the completion of the suggested full evidence review and subsequent consultation. ## About cytomegalovirus CMV is a common virus which usually causes mild flu-like symptoms. It can be more serious if it is passed on to a baby before they are born when it is known as congenital CMV (cCMV). This can happen if a woman catches CMV, or if she had CMV before and it becomes active again when she is pregnant. Around 1 in 200 babies are thought to be born with CMV and a fifth of these may have long-term disability associated with the infection. This can include hearing loss and delays in how a child develops and learns. Overall, each year around 200 babies born in the UK with cCMV will experience long-term problems. ## 2025 systematic review of newborn screening This review found evidence that saliva and dried blood spot tests were highly effective at detecting cCMV cases, suggesting they could be suitable for use in newborn screening. However, there was limited evidence about how well tests could predict which babies would benefit from treatment. Universal screening could therefore lead to: * unneeded treatment for babies who are unlikely to be harmed by the infection * unnecessary worry for their families. The review concluded that there needs to be more research to compare screening with standard care to establish if the benefits would outweigh the harms. ## 2025 evidence map of antenatal screening The evidence map found that blood tests in the first 3 months of pregnancy can accurately detect when a mother first catches CMV and if it is passed on to her baby. There are also treatments that can reduce the chance of passing the infection from mother to baby, although studies are limited. There is good evidence that ultrasound scans of the baby, possibly combined with MRI scans, can detect problems that might cause long-term harm. There is also some evidence that if the fluid around the baby is infected by CMV, measuring the amount of virus in the fluid could help predict whether the baby will have long-term problems. The evidence map team concluded there is enough published literature, including primary research and systematic reviews, to justify commissioning a full evidence review of antenatal screening for CMV. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) has opened a consultation on evidence relating to population screening for antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions. We are asking stakeholders and members of the public to provide feedback on a 2025 evidence map and its conclusions. The evidence map looked at the latest literature on this topic and concluded that more in-depth work is not currently justified. It recommended the topic be reviewed again in 3 years’ time. The committee reviews the evidence for antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions regularly. A UK NSC evidence summary in 2019 found no evidence to support changing the pre-existing recommendation not to screen. The committee commissioned the 2025 evidence map to review literature published on the topic since that 2019 review, including evidence on new tests and interventions. To take part in the consultation, click on the grey ‘View documents’ button on the UK NSC’s antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions recommendation page. Then submit your response by clicking on the green ‘Submit comments’ button. **The deadline for responses is 11.59pm on 4 February 2026**. The consultation responses will be presented to the UK NSC before it considers updating its recommendation. ## Antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions Antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions include common mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), plus severe mental illness (SMI) such as psychosis and personality disorder. The nature of most of these conditions may range from mild to severe, requiring different kinds of care or treatment provided by universal and specialist services. The management and treatment of mental health conditions during pregnancy and the postnatal period need to consider the impact of interventions not only on the woman but also on her baby. In England, about 26% of women experience a mental health disorder during the perinatal period, with depression and anxiety being the most common. Screening tools exist which primarily focus on detecting anxiety and depression in women who have not previously experienced mental ill health. Examples include the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), and the Whooley questions. Treatment may involve psychological, psychosocial, or pharmacological interventions. Treatment is determined by the diagnosis, the woman’s previous mental health history, the possible harms and benefits to the woman and baby, and the acceptability of the treatment to the woman. There is NICE clinical guidance on recognising antenatal and postnatal mental health issues and making referrals. ## The evidence The 2025 evidence map identified a substantial volume of new published evidence since 2019. However, it concluded that: * it is unclear if the type of evidence available is likely to impact on the current recommendation * the volume of new evidence relating to the accuracy of screening tools for postnatal depression was limited * no new evidence was identified about whether the clinical detection and management of mental health conditions is currently well implemented in the UK * there is not enough new evidence on screening tools to detect common mental health conditions during pregnancy and interventions for those screen-detected conditions to justify further consideration in an evidence summary Based on this evidence map, more in-depth work is not currently justified, and it is recommended the topic be reviewed again in 3 years’ time. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee holds online seminars on important themes related to screening tests and programmes. Our next seminar will look at assessing the effectiveness of screening programmes, using the 10-year effectiveness review of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening as a case study. The seminar, held via MS Teams, will be on **Monday 1 December 2025, 10.30am to 12.00pm (GMT)**. To register to attend, please complete this short form. Registration closes at 11.59pm on 30 November 2025. Presentations will be followed by a panel Q&A session. ## Measuring the success of screening This seminar will look at: * why assessing the effectiveness of existing screening programmes is important * what is meant by ‘effectiveness’ * the development of an effectiveness review process We will hear from colleagues involved in the AAA screening effectiveness review, and how the resulting report has been used. The seminar will be chaired by Professor Anne Mackie, UK NSC Director of Programmes. Our presenters will be: * Phil Gardner – UK NSC Lead for Screening Data, IT, Standards and Effectiveness * Harriet Strachan – UK NSC Screening Data and Effectiveness Analytical Manager * Mr Jonothan Earnshaw – Consultant Vascular Surgeon (retired) and former NHS AAA Screening Programme Director * Dr Robyn Fletcher – Consultant in Public Health, Senior Clinical Lead for the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Diabetic Eye Screening Programmes, NHS England * Kate Jordan – Head of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) and Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) Operations, NHS England ## **UK NSC seminars** Anyone with a role or interest in screening is welcome to register for this event. Feel free to share the details with colleagues. Please note our seminars are not recorded, but we share the presentation slides in our blog and via our UK NSC seminars webpage. ## **Keep up to date  ** The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The charming Dutch city of Utrecht, renowned for its bell tower and picturesque canals, provided the perfect backdrop for the annual Nordic Screening Network meeting. Experts from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, the UK, and the Republic of Ireland gathered to share knowledge, discuss challenges, and explore innovative approaches to screening programmes. Individual and group conversations over the 2 days were as important as the formal presentations, giving everyone the chance to pick the brains of colleagues who are tackling similar challenges in other countries. ## Knowledge exchange Day one began with a welcome from our Dutch hosts Jerom van Geffen, from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, and Rob Riesmeijer, Head of the Centre for Population Screening at RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). Each delegation then gave a presentation about their respective national screening programmes using specially prepared posters. These provided valuable insights into the similarities and differences in the screening approaches between countries. A highlight of the first day was an interactive session on accessibility and people-centred approaches, led by RIVM’s Karin Honig. Then Professor Anne Mackie, Deputy Director of Screening at the Department of Health and Social Care which hosts the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), looked into her crystal ball to deliver a presentation on what the future might hold for screening, including multi-cancer detection tests (MCDs) and more tailored screening based on individual risk factors. ## **Practical collaboration** Day 2 was even more interactive, with parallel sessions that enabled delegates to dive deeper into specific topics of interest. Topics included: * the difficulties in deciding exactly who should be screened * the value of using mathematical modelling in screening decision-making * innovative approaches to assessing which conditions to include in newborn blood spot screening panels There was a timely discussion on adapting cervical screening programmes for HPV-vaccinated populations. And the Swedish delegation led a fascinating session on artificial intelligence (AI) in screenings, highlighting the impact this technology is already having in shaping the future of population health programmes. ## **Building on strong foundations** The Nordic Screening Network demonstrates the power of international collaboration. It provides a platform where common challenges can be discussed and scrutinised and screening experts from different countries can learn from each other. The UK NSC is active and highly respected on the international stage. Other countries are keen to learn from the UK’s evidence-based approach to population screening. This year, we have already hosted screening delegations from Norway, Japan and China, held online meetings with experts from the US and Australia, and attended an international discussion on newborn genetics. These conversations demonstrate the value of cross-border collaboration in advancing screening programmes worldwide. ## **Keep up to date** The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) is to host an online roundtable information-sharing event on novel cervical screening tests. The event, on **Thursday 29 January 2026** , is part of our horizon scanning activities and our commitment to stakeholder engagement. It is aimed at organisations that have developed, or are developing, new technologies relating to primary cervical screening tests and/or triage tests. Invitees will have individual 15-minute conversations (via Teams) with the UK NSC, to present and discuss their developments. ## Register your interest To register an interest in taking part in this event, please email the following information to [email protected] by **11.59pm on Monday 5 January 2026** : * the name of your organisation * your contact details * where on the current cervical screening pathway your new technology would be implemented * what type of novel test(s) your development involves (see Types of novel tests section below) We will inform you on Friday 16 January 2026 if you have been invited to take part. There is a limit of 3 attendees for each organisation. ## Types of novel tests We are interested in novel test developments for use within the cervical screening and diagnostic pathway that include: * HPV sample and collection methods (including different types of sample, such as urine, and different collection devices) * developments in HPV testing targets (such as genotyping and mRNA/DNA) * developments in cytology testing (such as digital cytology* or the use of AI) * other developments relevant to the cervical screening pathway (such as developments in post-HPV detection, or pre-colposcopy triage tests*) *Unpublished work only, due to existing evidence synthesis work already under way by the UK NSC. ## Additional information For more details about the work of the UK NSC and the decision-making process for screening recommendations, please refer to our information on: * UK NSC evidence review criteria * UK NSC evidence review process * UK NSC screening recommendations ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

We’re pleased to announce the publication of a new article in the International Journal of Neonatal Screening following work commissioned by the UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC’s) Blood Spot Task Group (BSTG). The paper explores the challenges, opportunities and practical approaches when developing mathematical models to support policy decisions in newborn blood spot (NBS) screening. Read the full article: Methodological and Procedural Considerations for Developing Decision Analytic Models to Assess the Health Economic Impacts of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Methodological Review Modelling studies use a set of techniques and methods to synthesise evidence from different sources with expert opinion. This enables the simulation of comparisons that often cannot be achieved using primary research methods1. This project combined a systematic review of the literature with a series of workshops involving stakeholders from the UK and internationally. These stakeholders included modelling experts, members of the UK NSC, health professionals and patient voice representatives. The new paper highlights the complexity of developing models in newborn screening and rare disease settings. It identifies gaps in current practice and makes recommendations for the improvement of model design, terminology, data infrastructure, and stakeholder collaboration. **Reference:  ** 1. Lombardo S, Seedat F, Elliman D, Marshall J. Policy-making and implementation for newborn bloodspot screening in Europe: a comparison between EURORDIS principles and UK practice. _The Lancet Regional Health – Europe_. 2023;**33**. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

_by guest blog authors**Ros Greiner and Heather Bailey** , of the Institute for Global Health, University College London_ Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common virus which can cause mild flu-like symptoms. It can be more serious if it is passed on to a baby before they are born when it is known as congenital CMV (cCMV). This can happen if a woman catches CMV, or if she had CMV before and it becomes active again when she is pregnant. Around 1 in 200 babies are thought to be born with CMV and a fifth of these may have long-term disability associated with the infection. This can include deafness and delays in how a child develops and learns. In 2021, the UK NSC conducted a scheduled review of evidence relating to its recommendation on screening for cCMV and held a 3-month public consultation on that evidence. As a group of researchers working on cCMV, we realised this was a unique dataset. The detailed and passionate responses contained a wealth of information about the lived experiences of children diagnosed with cCMV and their families. We reached out to the UK NSC to propose conducting an in-depth analysis of the responses. We also contacted UK charity CMV Action, seeking its collaboration. Findings from the analysis have now been published in an article in the Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. **Read the full article here:** The impact of congenital cytomegalovirus infection among families and caregivers: A qualitative analysis of responses to a public consultation on newborn screening in the UK. The project was funded by an Academy of Medical Sciences/Wellcome Trust/Government Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy/British Heart Foundation/Diabetes UK Springboard Award held by Heather Bailey [SBF005/1058]. ## Our findings We wanted to explore the views of people with personal experience of CMV in pregnancy or raising a child diagnosed with cCMV. We analysed the consultation responses to identify common patterns and experiences. Most respondents were caring for a child with CMV-related symptoms. It is worth noting, however, that most children born with cCMV do not develop long-term symptoms, so their families’ experiences are less likely to appear in public consultations. This provides important context for our findings. Families identified several missed opportunities along the often-lengthy journey from first noticing symptoms to getting a diagnosis. This caused them uncertainty, anxiety and distress. Families believed that not screening for CMV caused diagnostic delays, which they felt led to missed chances for treatments that might improve their child’s outcomes (for example, antiviral treatment or early therapies). Families also highlighted issues of some medical staff not promptly recognising cCMV symptoms or lacking awareness of the condition. When diagnosis was delayed, families felt they missed out on psychosocial support for themselves and their children. Overall, the consultation responses showed a range of experiences and unmet needs among families affected by cCMV. Our analysis highlights the importance of: * improving awareness of the condition * reducing diagnostic delays for children with cCMV symptoms * improving access to information and psychological support for affected families ## Implications Our findings add to a small but growing body of research that explores families’ experiences of raising children with long-term disabilities caused by cCMV. Our approach of analysing anonymous consultation responses is fairly new, and we hope other researchers might use this approach in future. These analyses could increase the amount and quality of scientific papers that inform future UK NSC evidence reviews and related policy development, such as clinical training. Through this work, we learned about the strengths and limitations of using UK NSC public consultation responses to study families’ experiences and opinions. This helped us suggest improvements to how responses are collected in future to make them more useful for research. For example, collecting basic background information (where respondents agree) would provide context and allow more detailed analysis. We would like to thank everyone who responded to the UK NSC consultation on CMV screening in 2021 and 22 and shared their experiences, which made this research possible. ## UK NSC evidence review process The UK NSC reviews evidence on a wide range of screening topics and holds public consultations on potential recommendations. These consultations give individuals and organisations the chance to comment on UK NSC evidence reports and flag any issues they think should be considered. See UK NSC evidence review process for more information. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].

Newborn screening for hereditary tyrosinaemia type 1 (HT1) is now being offered to all babies in England. HT1 has become the latest condition to be included in the NHS Newborn Blood Spot (NBS) Screening Programme following a recommendation by the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). **SeeNHS England announcement.** HT1 is a serious inherited metabolic disease (IMD) that prevents the body from breaking down a substance called tyrosine found in food. It affects about 7 babies per year in the UK and leads to the build-up of toxic substances that damage the liver, kidneys, and nervous system. Evidence reviewed by the UK NSC found that screening will help detect these babies in time for them to be offered drug treatment and a special diet before becoming ill. These are life-changing benefits that significantly reduce the risk of long-term complications and symptoms such as poor weight gain, jaundice, an enlarged liver, bleeding, and bruising, which can lead to liver and kidney damage. The roll-out of HT1 screening is the culmination of almost 2 years’ detailed implementation planning by NHS England (NHSE). A UK NSC oversight group and expert clinical and laboratory sub-groups helped lay the groundwork with collaboration between NBS screening laboratories, maternity services, specialist doctors and dieticians. It has also required a change in the testing methodology for IMD screening. The HT1 screening project team would like to thank everyone who has helped make this all possible. The focus will now switch to monitoring the implementation of screening as the 13 NBS laboratories become familiar with using the new testing methodology. NHSE has updated the NBS page on NHS.UK and the Screening tests for you and your baby leaflet to include the addition of HT1 to the screening programme. It has also published new information for parents of babies who screen positive for the condition. Elsewhere in the UK, Scotland hopes to implement HT1 screening early in 2026. Wales is working on developments to infrastructure, systems and clinical pathways so HT1 screening can be introduced as soon as possible and the UK NSC’s recommendation is also being considered within Northern Ireland. ## Keep up to date The UK NSC blog provides up to date news from the UK NSC. You can register to receive updates direct to your inbox, so there is no need to keep checking for new articles. If you have any questions about this blog article, or about the work of the UK NSC, please email [email protected].