Transparency data

UK NSC draft minutes March 2026

Updated 28 May 2026

These minutes are draft.

This meeting was held on 26 March 2026 at Victoria Street, London, and via Microsoft Teams.

Attendees

Members

• Professor Sir Mike Richards - Chair
• Dr Graham Shortland - Consultant Paediatrician (Vice-Chair)
• Professor Natalie Armstrong - Implementation Scientist 
• Eleanor Cozens - Patient and Public Voice (PPV)
• Heidi Douglas - Public Health Consultant (Co-opted Member)
• Dr Ros Given-Wilson - Chair, Adult Reference Group (ARG)
• Dr Sharon Hillier - Chair, Fetal, Maternal and Child Health (FMCH) group
• Professor Chris Hyde - Public Health Specialist
• Professor Anneke Lucassen - Clinical Geneticist
• Professor Katherine Payne - Health Economics (Co-opted Member)
• Dr Bethany Shinkins - Test Expert
• Professor Anne-Marie Slowther - Clinical Ethicist
• Professor Sian Taylor-Phillips - Chair, Research and Methodology Group (RMG)

UK Health Department officials 

• Carol Beattie - Senior Medical Officer, Department of Health, Northern Ireland
• Hayley Pareas - Screening Policy Manager, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)
• Heather Payne - Senior Medical Officer, Maternal and Child Health, Welsh Government
• Ray Smith - Head of Screening Policy, DHSC (attended part of the meeting)
• Tsitsi Muchayingeyi - Screening Policy Lead, DHSC
• Tasmin Sommerfield - National Screening Oversight, NHS Scotland
• Matthew Tester - Health Protection Policy, Welsh Government
• Laura McGlynn - Population Health, Scottish Government

Observers 

• Martin Allaby - Consultant in Public Health, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
• Nicola Brink - Public Health, States of Guernsey (attended part of the meeting)
• Harrison Carter - Screening Director, NHS England
• Sue De George - Screening Programmes Manager, Jersey
• Lisa Douet - National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Representative (attended part of the meeting)
• David Elliman - Clinical Lead for NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme
• Elizabeth Luckett - Senior Screening and Immunisation Manager, NHS England
• Clare Arnold - Public Health, States of Guernsey
• Zosia Miedzybrodzka - Clinical Lead, Scottish Genomics Network
• Lisa Saunders - Public Health, Isle of Man
• Susan Spillane - Assistant Director, Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) Ireland

Secretariat

• Andy De Souza - Senior Evidence Review Manager, Targeted Screening
• Jo Harcombe - Head of UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) Information and Engagement Management
• Mike Harris - Head of UK NSC Transparency and Public Understanding
• Peggie Huangfu - Senior Evidence Review Manager, Targeted Screening (attended part of the meeting)
• Ailsa Johnson - Secretariat Network Convenor
• Silvia Lombardo - Modelling Lead
• Anne Mackie - Director of Programmes, UK NSC
• John Marshall - Evidence Lead
• Carolina Martinelli - Targeted Screening Lead
• Zeenat Mauthoor - Secretariat Expert Committee and Policy Liaison Manager
• Omaer Syed - Senior Evidence Review Manager, Horizon Scanning
• David Thompson - Senior Evidence Review Manager
• Katy Town - Horizon Scanning Lead
• Cristina Visintin - Research Lead

Invited

• Phil Gardner - Lead for Screening Data, IT, Standards and Effectiveness, UK NSC
• Olivier Johnson - Economic Advisor, DHSC 
• Hassan Naqeebi - Economic Advisor, DHSC 
• Nadia Permalloo - Quality Improvement Lead, NHS England
• Marianne Scholes - Economic Advisor, DHSC 
• Harriet Strachan - Analytical Manager, Screening Data and Effectiveness, UK NSC

Welcome and apologies

The Chair, Prof Mike Richards, welcomed all to the meeting.

The Chair reminded attendees of the confidential nature of the discussions, presentations and papers for the meeting and reiterated that these should not be communicated outside the meeting until their publication on the UK NSC website. The committee was also informed that from Friday 27 March 2026 the pre-election period of sensitivity comes into effect across the UK ahead of elections. Although UK NSC is an independent scientific advisory committee it respects the restriction in place that affects all government officials and services in England and the other UK countries.

The meeting was attended by 13 members and quorate.

Apologies from members

• Dr Philippa Brice - PPV (Co-opted Member)

Call for any new declarations of interests

No new declarations of interest relevant to the meeting were raised.

Minutes of the last meeting

The committee approved the minutes from the 27 November 2025 meeting as a true and accurate record.

There were 5 actions from the November meeting.

Action 1: UK NSC to open public consultation on prostate cancer - completed and tabled on the agenda.

Action 2: the UK NSC Secretariat should commission evidence summaries on the use of triage tests (including genotyping) and digital cytology and to inform the submitter on the progress of the 2 open call topics - completed and is on the UK NSC’s workplan for 2026 to 2027.

Action 3: the UK NSC Secretariat to inform the submitter of the heart valve disease screening proposal of the outcome of this submission (no further work) - completed

Action 4: the UK NSC supported the work on EquipoISE and suggested that a blog article should be published to inform stakeholders of the UK NSC’s work on expanding newborn blood spot screening - completed and a blog article on introducing EquipoISE was published in January 2026.

Action 5: Mike Harris to send the updated stakeholder engagement strategy once finalised to UK NSC members for review and sign-off prior to publication - completed and engagement strategy blog article published in February 2026.

Matters arising - Director’s update

Prof Anne Mackie provided a verbal update on the following topics.

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) in-service evaluation (ISE)

UK NSC held a consultation in regard to extending the ISE of newborn screening for SCID. Views from the consultation, which ran from August to October 2025, illustrated that there was support for this extension. Comments from the consultation were shared with the FMCH reference group and with the committee that concurred that the SCID ISE should continue, as this would then allow more time to consider and address the recommendations from the ISE report. For example, to:

• offer screening for both SCID and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) on the same testing platform where appropriate and feasible
• ensure the SCID tests are robust and sustainable in this context
• assess whether there are follow-on tests (for example genetic tests) which can improve the accuracy of the SCID screening process
• provide an opportunity to gather 5-year follow-up information on the impact of positive screening results on children
• evaluate the cost, feasibility and accuracy of screening for SCID and SMA together

UK NSC stated that this was the best way to gather the information required to then progress this and to understand the implication of implementing screening for SCID alongside screening for SMA before a possible national programme is introduced. Members of UK NSC expressed their appreciation for all the comments received.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA)

Work on SMA continues for the proposed ISE of newborn screening and members will be updated in due course. UK NSC notes that Scotland’s SMA ISE was launched on 23 March 2026, for an initial period of 2 years.

GRAIL Galleri trial

The GRAIL Galleri trial has produced initial results, as detailed in its recent press release. UK NSC will keep abreast of developments.

EquipoISE

EquipoISE is the potential mechanism for considering the addition of multiple new conditions to the newborn blood spot screening programme, with the objective of evaluating their effectiveness and feasibility. UK NSC is currently engaged in detailed discussions with NIHR and Genomics England regarding implementation, funding and methodological approaches to this work.

Topics signed off electronically ahead of the meeting

The UK NSC Secretariat circulated evidence maps on the topics below to the committee to review and comment on ahead of the meeting, in order to balance the agenda. Following a 2-week period of review for each evidence map, members confirmed their support on the next steps for each topic as follows.

HPV genotyping

In 2024, UK NSC received an open call submission from a manufacturing company which asked the committee to look at using human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (CSP). The proposal suggested that using HPV genotyping would allow the programme to monitor persistent infections by specific HPV types and provide a more tailored clinical management offer. The proposal suggested this would help clinicians to identify people who are at higher risk and may need prompt colposcopy, avoiding unnecessary invasive procedures for those at lower risk.

As part of the open call process, an evidence map is commissioned if a proposal is examined and falls within the UK NSC remit. The 2025 evidence map assessed international guidelines and the volume and type of research on HPV genotyping (specifically diagnostic test accuracy, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility). The findings from the evidence map reported that international guidelines broadly support using partial HPV genotyping (particularly for HPV16/18) after a positive primary HPV test, often recommending direct referral to colposcopy for these types. Most diagnostic accuracy studies appear to show high sensitivity (but variable specificity), with limited clinical effectiveness and/or acceptability data. Modelling identified from the research indicates HPV16/18 genotyping could be cost effective. Therefore, the evidence map found that further work is justified in this area.

Members of the committee unanimously agreed with this and supported the proposal that an evidence summary on the use of HPV genotyping in the cervical screening programme should be commissioned and that it should have a broad focus to include all cervical screening triage strategies currently available.

Action 1: the Secretariat team will add HPV genotyping evidence summary to the UK NSC workplan for the year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027 and update and review at a future meeting.

Inherited cardiac conditions

In 2024, UK NSC received an open call submission that asked it to consider cascade screening for inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) based on genetic testing followed by other diagnostic testing for first-degree relatives of individuals with familial disease. The proposal suggested this would enable ICCs to be diagnosed at an earlier stage, which would help improve patient outcomes.

It is recognised that ICCs are among the common causes of sudden cardiac death among young people and can cause cardiac events throughout life. UK NSC recognised that NHS England had published a national ICC service specification that sets out the care pathway and service model for diagnosing and managing ICCs, including genetic cascade screening for first-degree relatives and specialist assessment of suspected cases. However, it was recognised that a service specification is not the same as having a nationally standardised screening programme and that there could be variation between centres and regions in access and how pathways are implemented. It was therefore decided to commission an evidence map as the first step.

The evidence map looked at 4 key questions to assess whether a more sustained review on cascade screening for ICCs should be commissioned, based on the volume and type of evidence available. The findings of the evidence map were that there was sufficient evidence on penetrance, test performance, clinical effectiveness and guidelines to justify commissioning further work. UK NSC members reviewed the evidence map and unanimously supported the conclusion. They expressed support for the proposal that the volume and type of evidence on cascade screening for ICCs is sufficient to justify a more in-depth review in the form of an evidence summary. It was agreed that an analytical framework should be developed to help organise and present the evidence from the Sheffield evidence synthesis group (ESG) evidence map and to also seek further advice from the UK NSC’s RMG where necessary. This would then accompany the evidence summary to be guided by the findings from the analytical framework and any associated discussions.

Action 2: the Secretariat team will inform the open call submitter on the outcome of the evidence map for ICCs and confirm that an evidence summary will be commissioned in due course.

Action 3: the Secretariat team will add ICCs evidence summary to the UK NSC workplan for 2026 to 2027 to be commissioned and then update and review at a future meeting.

Lynch syndrome

As part of the 2022 UK NSC’s open call, the committee received a proposal for a targeted screening programme utilising molecular diagnostic testing for Lynch syndrome in individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer, followed by the provision of risk-reducing interventions for those who test positive, as well as for other individuals identified with Lynch syndrome, including their family members. As UK NSC had expanded its remit to consider targeted screening and had not previously considered the evidence for Lynch syndrome screening, the expert evaluation group agreed that as a first step an evidence map should be commissioned.

This evidence map was developed to assess whether a more sustained review on screening for Lynch syndrome should be commissioned and to evaluate the volume and type of evidence on key issues related to screening for Lynch syndrome. UK NSC recognised there is available evidence and NICE guidelines on Lynch Syndrome testing in colorectal cancer patients. Therefore, the evidence map focused on the evidence for testing asymptomatic relatives of colorectal cancer patients with Lynch syndrome.

The evidence map looked at 3 key questions and found there is sufficient evidence to justify commissioning a more detailed review on Lynch syndrome. Members of the committee agreed with these findings and supported the proposal that the volume and type of evidence is sufficient to justify a more in-depth review and that an analytic framework should be developed which would highlight the key gaps and weaknesses in the evidence, to support further research. The evidence team will give updates on this work at future meetings of the RMG and ARG.

Action 4: the Secretariat team will inform the open call submitter on the outcome of the evidence map for Lynch syndrome and confirm that an analytic framework will be commissioned in due course.

Action 5: the Secretariat team will add Lynch syndrome analytic framework to the UK NSC workplan for 2026 to 2027 to be commissioned and then update and review at a future meeting.

The chair thanked members for reviewing the evidence maps and confirmed their decision on each topic in a timely manner ahead of the meeting.

Prostate cancer screening

David Thompson and Silvia Lombardo, UK NSC Secretariat, presented the findings from the public consultation on prostate cancer. The discussion at the meeting focused on the comments received from the consultation and the updates to the model. The accompanying narrative document should be read in conjunction with the prostate cancer coversheet and the modelling report.

Joining as observers for this item from the DHSC Health Protection Analysis Team were Marianne Scholes, Olivier Johnson and Hassan Naqeebi.

In November 2025, UK NSC opened its 3-month public consultation on a draft prostate cancer screening recommendation. The recommendation suggests that prostate cancer screening should be offered to men with BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants every 2 years from ages 45 to 61.

Nearly 1,000 responses were received:

• approximately 900 from the public
• 80 from stakeholders - comprising about 40 organisations and 40 individual professionals, mainly clinicians, public health professionals and academics

The committee was informed that the consultation responses were mixed. Overall, many stakeholders, particularly members of the public, disagreed with the draft recommendation, advocating for population screening and were critical of the model’s findings. However, other stakeholders supported UK NSC’s evidence-based approach, emphasising the need to balance benefits against overdiagnosis and overtreatment and considered the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR) model to have been undertaken to a high standard. Calls for further research were also noted, with particular mention of the importance of the TRANSFORM trial in providing robust data for safer and more accurate prostate cancer diagnosis.

Responses were analysed and grouped into high level themes. The themes were described and responded to in as much detail as possible and are reported in the coversheet. The committee discussed the findings of the model and the main themes emerging from the consultation comments, noting the large number of submissions.

Many personal responses came from men with prostate cancer, their families and friends, and the committee expressed its sincere appreciation to all for taking time to submit such personal accounts. The committee noted from multiple comments that there appeared to be misconceptions about the screening pathway used in the model: many thought that a direct PSA-to-biopsy pathway had been modelled, when in fact the modelled pathway involved PSA, followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), then biopsy and finally treatment and/or surveillance. Some felt that the modelling work relied heavily on older biopsy techniques and therapies and that newer and more modern therapies had not been captured. However, the SCHARR model simulated the most modern screening pathway which has evidence to support it. The estimates of benefits and harms in the model are based on large-scale clinical trials and the most up-to-date lived experience of men with recently diagnosed prostate cancer in England. The committee noted that many submitters felt that the harms of screening had been overstated while the benefits were underestimated, relating personal experiences of having benefitted from a PSA test. Screening practices in Sweden were frequently referenced as a comparator. Concerns about inequalities, especially for Black men and deprived populations, were prevalent. Guidance to GPs was also raised.

Technical themes focused on the model itself. Overdiagnosis was often misunderstood as an input rather than a prediction of the model. Stakeholders questioned cost-effectiveness thresholds and the differences between deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the responses, the distinction between deterministic and probabilistic analyses was clarified, noting that probabilistic results provide a more realistic picture due to uncertainty in prostate cancer progression and detection and they are therefore the main basis for the study’s conclusions. The impact of national screening on opportunistic PSA testing remains uncertain and is acknowledged as a limitation.

The committee was informed of the recent updates to the model, following ongoing stakeholder dialogue. Separate analyses were conducted for:

• the general population
• Black men
• family members of men with prostate cancer
• family members of individuals with breast, ovarian or prostate cancer
• men with BRCA1 variants
• men with BRCA2 variants

Under the updated assumptions and using the NICE threshold, screening did not do more good than harm in:

• the general population
• BRCA1 variant carriers
• men who had any family member with prostate cancer
• men who had any family member with breast, ovarian or prostate cancer

For Black men, there is ongoing uncertainty on whether screening would cause more good than harm. Conversely, screening appears effective for men with pathogenic BRCA2 variants with biennial screening in men aged 45 to 61 associated with higher incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to annual screening strategies. The updated recommendation reflects these findings. Members were asked to discuss and agree on the recommendation and confirm their satisfaction with the coversheet documentation by Friday 27 March 2026.

Prostate cancer screening recommendation

The UK NSC recommendation on prostate cancer screening was discussed further and confirmed as follows.

UK NSC recognises the strong support for prostate cancer screening expressed by many stakeholders and the devastating effects of prostate cancer which they describe. UK NSC supports screening where there is evidence that it will do more good than harm, and will continue to encourage research and examine evidence so that the benefits of an organised screening programme can be extended to more men as soon as the evidence supports this. The following recommendations are based on the UK NSC evidence review, modelling work and consultation with stakeholders.

Repeat screening in men who have a pathogenic^{[footnote 1]} BRCA2 variant with a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer is likely to do more good than harm. Guidance from UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG) provides a starting point for an implementation strategy in this high-risk population. UK NSC recommends that:

• a nationally managed approach to biennial PSA testing in men aged 45 to 61 who have pathogenic germline^{[footnote 2]} BRCA2 variants with a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer should be implemented

• the best methods to ensure cascade screening for germline BRCA2 status in order to proactively identify and invite men for repeat PSA testing should be evaluated. Evaluation should include, for example, acceptability to the population and professionals, accessibility and the resource impact associated with the strategy

• population screening of men for BRCA2 variants is not currently recommended as the evidence suggests that the presence of a pathogenic BRCA2 variant in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer confers a lower risk of clinically significant prostate cancer

Beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, the current modelling exercise did not consider any other genetic variants that might confer an increased risk of prostate cancer. Other genetic variants may be considered as new evidence emerges. The intention is to learn as screening is rolled out and work with experts to optimise the pathways and agree evidence requirements that will allow the addition of other high-risk genetic variants to the screening offer.

UK NSC does not currently recommend prostate cancer screening in the general population or targeted screening of men with a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer, without a pathogenic BRCA2 variant, as screening in these groups is likely to cause more harm than good. The main harms of screening include causing incontinence and erectile dysfunction in men who did not need treatment.

UK NSC does not currently recommend targeted screening of Black men who do not have a pathogenic BRCA2 variant for prostate cancer. This is due to a lack of available data, which means we do not know whether screening would cause more good than harm. UK NSC will work closely with the UK TRANSFORM trial to resolve these uncertainties as soon as possible.

UK NSC is in close contact with researchers and aware that new evidence is likely to be published over the next few years. The committee is hopeful that there will be new tests and a better understanding of prostate cancer that will support much wider screening. To ensure that the committee is able to review significant new evidence and update its position, the model will remain ‘open’ so that new information can be fed in as it arrives.

Bladder cancer

Omaer Syed, UK NSC Secretariat, presented on the review and public consultation on bladder cancer screening.

Bladder cancer is the growth of abnormal tissues which form in the lining of the bladder and can occur anywhere within this organ. In some cases, the cancer can spread outside the bladder to other parts of the body by the lymphatic system. This is known as metastatic bladder cancer. The most common sign of bladder cancer is blood in the urine. Exposure to harmful substances, such as tobacco smoke, over many years can lead to abnormal changes of the bladder cells. The condition is more common in older adults over the age of 60 and it appears to be more common in men than women.

UK NSC last examined the evidence to offer population screening for bladder cancer in 2020 and recommended that screening should not be offered as there is no reliable screening marker that meets the UK NSC criterion to offer a safe, precise and valid test for this condition. This was also found in the previous 2015 review.

The UK NSC’s 2025 evidence map looked at 2 main questions:

1. What are the diagnostic accuracies of screening tests which identify pre-muscle invading bladder cancer?

2. Are there any national or international guidelines or recommendations on population screening for bladder cancer?

The evidence map found that some biomarkers show promise for diagnosing bladder cancer, but the available evidence is too limited to support population screening of asymptomatic people or to change the UK NSC’s current position. Updated and additional guidelines were identified, but none recommended general population screening of asymptomatic adults.

UK NSC ran a public consultation for 12 weeks from November 2025 to February 2026 and received a total of 5 comments. The comments were shared with ARG members who were supportive of the replies to the comments and the proposed recommendation.

The possibility of archiving the topic was discussed should future reviews continue to yield insufficient evidence. The UK NSC Secretariat confirmed that archiving a topic does not preclude future consideration but, at present, bladder cancer should remain on the UK NSC’s list of recommendations to be kept under regular review.

Based on the findings of the evidence map there is currently insufficient evidence to justify further work and so UK NSC does not recommend the introduction of a population screening programme for bladder cancer. UK NSC will re-examine the evidence for this condition as per its regular review process and should there be no change in the evidence base it will consider archiving this topic.

Targeted screening

Carolina Martinelli, UK NSC Secretariat, provided a verbal update on the development of the targeted screening work, following the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation in 2022 to expand the UK NSC’s remit to consider targeted screening.

She noted that this work has been progressed over time through a range of discrete projects, evidence reviews and discussions, which have helped to explore key concepts and support more consistent terminology. The Secretariat is now bringing these strands together to develop a structured and strategic programme of work for targeted screening. UK NSC and its reference groups will meet in April 2026 to begin this process and agree next steps.

Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Screening (IPDS) effectiveness review

Phil Gardner and Harriet Strachan, UK NSC Secretariat, presented the review assessing the effectiveness of the IDPS programme. Nadia Permalloo, Quality Improvement Lead from NHS England, joined the meeting for this discussion.

The IDPS programme screens pregnant women for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and syphilis, aiming to reduce vertical transmission through detection and intervention early in pregnancy. The programme works collaboratively, involving multidisciplinary working between screening, treatment and vaccination teams, as well as national organisations and data providers such as the Integrated Screening Outcomes Surveillance Service (ISOSS).

An advisory group, with representation from screening leads, clinicians, data leads and public health experts across the 4 nations, was established to guide this review. The group considered the metrics and data sources, including screening programme data, mortality statistics, birth rates and audit data.

Findings of the review noted that there is very high coverage and strong impact in reducing HIV and hepatitis B transmission. Rates of congenital syphilis are rising in line with wider population trends, reinforcing the importance of timely assessment and access to antenatal care. In England, the proportion of women who screen positive and are seen within the 10-day timeframe set by the national standard has risen and been over 70% since 2016, but it has been below both the acceptable and achievable level throughout. In April 2023, the standard timeframe was reduced to 5 days.

The review highlighted ongoing equity challenges, particularly for women born outside England or with complex social needs, and identified areas for further improvement in data, pathways and follow-up.

Although cases of congenital syphilis are rising, they remain below the World Health Organization (WHO) global target for elimination. The rate of congenital syphilis in England is now above the European target, however. The increases are attributed to wider population trends, late or absent antenatal care access and infection later in pregnancy.

The IDPS programme has substantially reduced HIV and hepatitis B vertical transmission rates and continues to be effective and cost efficient. The rises in congenital syphilis and new syphilis diagnoses highlight the ongoing importance of the programme, with areas for improvement including increasing timely assessments, expanding data collection on declines and outcomes, and understanding barriers to antenatal care booking.

Consideration of a second syphilis screen in the third trimester was noted, with UK NSC already reviewing the evidence for this.

Members noted the clinical success of the screening programme in preventing transmission and the value of ongoing work, including the UK NSC’s review of third trimester syphilis screening.

The Chair thanked Phil, Harriet, Nadia and colleagues in the IDPS programme for their ongoing hard work and support. It was noted that the report will be published on GOV.UK in due course.

Stakeholder update

Mike Harris and Jo Harcombe, UK NSC Secretariat, presented a summary of the UK NSC’s recent engagement and stakeholder activity.

UK NSC recently held an online roundtable engagement day dedicated to cervical screening and innovations in diagnostic tests and equipment. This event welcomed representatives from 10 organisations, each contributing distinct viewpoints and technological advancements.

The updated stakeholder strategy has been published.

The number of subscribers to the UK NSC blog and UK NSC recommendations continues to increase. It was noted that prostate cancer continues to be the most frequently viewed recommendation, reflecting its current prominent profile.

Fetal, Maternal and Child Health (FMCH) group

Dr Sharon Hillier, Chair of the FMCH group, provided UK NSC with a confidential update from their January 2026 meeting. Following a successful recruitment exercise, she confirmed that the FMCH had welcomed 5 new members.

It was noted that consultations have recently taken place on screening for:

• cytomegalovirus (CMV)
• fragile X syndrome
• antenatal and postnatal mental health problems
• iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in pregnancy

It was noted that open consultations were taking place on:

• targeted antenatal screening for human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) which closes on 13 May 2026
• screening for biliary atresia in newborns, which closes on 20 May 2026
• antenatal screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV), which closes on 3 June 2026

Adult Refence Group (ARG) update

The ARG Chair, Dr Ros Given-Wilson, provided a confidential update from their February meeting, noting that the group had welcomed 5 new members following a successful recruitment campaign.

It was noted that consultations had recently taken place on population screening for:

• bladder cancer
• intimate partner violence
• type 2 diabetes in adults
• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the general adult population (due to close on 7 April 2026)

There is also a stakeholder feedback exercise on the evidence relating to screening adults for coeliac disease.

Research and Methodology Group (RMG) update

Dr Sian Taylor-Philips, Chair of the RMG, gave a verbal update on the confidential work from their meeting in February.

Any other business

The committee noted that due to consultations on several topics closing just before the committee meeting, Chair’s action would need to be taken on the 5 topics listed below to ensure a timely final recommendation can be made. Each topic has been shared with the relevant expert reference group.

Members were asked to contact the secretariat team should a committee member have an interest and/or expertise in one of the topics and for them to view the evidence map. The 5 topics are:

• diabetes type 2 (in adults)
• fragile X syndrome (antenatal and newborn)
• intimate partner violence (adults)
• hypertension (adults)
• cardiovascular disease (CVD) (adults)

These topics will be signed off after the March 2026 UK NSC meeting and appended to the March 2026 meeting minutes.

Next meeting

Thursday 25 June 2026.

Chair’s actions

Action 1: population screening for intimate partner violence

Initial status

Screening for intimate partner violence is one of UK NSC’s existing recommendations which UK NSC seeks to keep under regular review. UK NSC last examined the evidence on this topic in 2019 following an evidence summary, where it was agreed that a population screening programme for intimate partner violence should not be introduced. Based on the evidence available at the time, UK NSC found that:

• there was a lack of evidence that screening would reduce partner violence or improve health outcomes
• it was not known how effective interventions would be at reducing partner violence or health problems
• there was not enough research to be sure that a test would be accurate enough to be used in a screening programme
• the extent of partner violence within different groups of the UK population was not known

As part of UK NSC’s process to keep recommendations under review, UK NSC commissioned an evidence map in 2025 to gauge the volume and type of evidence related to screening for intimate partner violence to see whether the evidence would be sufficient to justify commissioning further synthesis work on this topic. The 2025 evidence map was based on a single question which was: what is the volume and type of evidence on the reported effectiveness of intimate partner violence screening in healthcare settings?

The findings of the evidence map were that although there is limited evidence for men, LGBTQ+ groups and ethnic minority populations, there is overwhelmingly a lack of outcome data beyond detection and referral to specialist services. Only one study reported on the reduction of intimate partner violence and found no significant impact.

Reason for Chair’s action

The evidence map for intimate partner violence was shared with both the FMCH group as well as the ARG via email to comment on. It was agreed that a 12-week public consultation would then be held. This took place from 26 November 2025 to 18 February 2026. The consultation received a total of 4 public consultation comments. As the consultation closed after the FMCH meeting in January 2026 and just before the ARG meeting on 26 February 2026, the documents were sent electronically to both groups in March 2026. Following a 2-week period to comment and review comments from each respective expert group this was not tabled in time for discussion at the UK NSC’s meeting on 26 March 2026. However, it was raised under any other business (AOB) to inform members of its imminent arrival. In order not to delay the recommendation of this topic, it was agreed that Chair’s action should be taken.

The outcome of the evidence map that looked at the volume and type of evidence related to population screening for intimate partner violence is that it remains limited. UK NSC recognises the importance of trust, safety, trauma-informed practice and professional judgement in disclosing and access to care and recognises that NICE guidance plays an important role in identifying, preventing and reducing intimate partner violence, which UK NSC welcomes.

Decision

The FMCH group, ARG and the UK NSC Chair noted the findings of the evidence map for population screening for intimate partner violence and agreed that no further work should be commissioned at this time. As there has been minimal evidence development in the last 2 reviews for screening for intimate partner violence, UK NSC recommends that this topic should be archived and that any future requests to consider the evidence on this topic should be submitted via UK NSC’s open call for topics.

Chair’s confirmation

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed: Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chair, UK NSC

Date: 15 April 2026 

Action 2: antenatal and newborn population screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS)

Initial status 

Antenatal screening for FXS is one of UK NSC’s existing recommendations which the committee keeps under regular review. UK NSC last examined the evidence for this topic in 2019 alongside looking at newborn screening for FXS following a proposal raised via stakeholders during the 2014 consultation. In 2019 UK NSC commissioned 2 evidence maps. The first evidence map focused on a single question which was: is there is a test which is suitable for whole population screening that has been evaluated in the pregnant population? The second evidence map looked at 3 key questions:

1. Is there a test, which is suitable for whole population screening, that has been evaluated in the newborn population?
2. Are any treatments and/or early interventions available for people with FXS and how effective are they?
3. Are there any guidelines and/or recommendations for antenatal or newborn screening for FXS?

Based on the evidence available at the time, UK NSC found that antenatal screening of FXS should not be introduced because: 

• the test is not accurate - some babies with a positive result will never have symptoms
• some mothers may have to make difficult decisions regarding their pregnancy without knowing if their baby will develop symptoms
• the test is labour intensive and not suitable for use in a screening programme
• there is a lack of evidence that screening would improve outcomes in children compared to usual health care

In addition to this, UK NSC recommended that newborn screening for FXS should not be recommended. Although the use of PCR-based methods could be feasible, these lacked larger studies to support their wider use and so the evidence base on newborn screening for FXS is limited, particularly in regard to prospective studies in large unselected newborn populations. Furthermore, as there were no national or international guidelines that were identified by the evidence maps, UK NSC could not recommend population screening for FXS either in pregnancy or in newborns.

UK NSC made a recommendation based on the findings of the evidence maps that no further work was justified to examine antenatal screening for FXS and that this should be considered again as part of the UK NSC’s regular review cycle. As newborn screening for FXS was not part of the UK NSC’s list of regular reviews any future submissions to consider this should be submitted via UK NSC’s open call.

As part of UK NSC’s process to keep recommendations under review, UK NSC commissioned an evidence map in 2025 to gauge the volume and type of evidence related to antenatal screening for FXS. In addition to this, UK NSC also received an open call submission in 2022 to look again at newborn screening for FXS. As a result, UK NSC decided to commission an evidence map for both cohorts of FXS screening - in pregnancy and in newborns.

The 2025 evidence map looked to gauge the volume and type of evidence related to both antenatal and newborn screening for FXS and to see whether there is sufficient evidence to justify further evidence synthesis work. The evidence map looked at 4 key questions:

1. Are there any guidelines and/or recommendations for antenatal or newborn screening for FXS?
2. What is the volume and type of evidence on the accuracy of screening tests for FXS in the pregnant population?
3. What is the volume and type of evidence on the accuracy of newborn screening tests for FXS using dried blood spots (DBS)?
4. What is the volume and type of evidence available on the benefits and/or harms of early interventions in infants and children with FXS identified through screening? (Subquestion: does early initiation of treatment following screening provide better outcomes for FXS compared to initiation of treatment following clinical detection?)

The findings of the evidence map were that, overall, there is limited guideline support for antenatal or newborn screening for FXS. There is no evidence on antenatal test accuracy, and newborn dried blood spot test accuracy is limited, so cases may be missed and some positives may be false. Also, there appeared to be no evidence that suggested that early detection via screening improves outcomes, as benefits and/or harms of early intervention after screening have not been studied. 

Reason for Chair’s action 

The evidence map for FXS was shared with the FMCH group via email to comment on. It was then agreed that a public consultation should be opened. The consultation ran for 12 weeks from 24 November 2025 to 16 February 2026. Comments from the consultation were collated and reviewed internally. Responses were drafted and shared electronically with FMCH in March 2026 to review and comment on within a 2-week period. Members of FMCH noted the terrible impact this condition can have on babies and their families. However, FMCH agreed that the evidence to support a population screening programme was absent and agreed with the responses presented.

The outcome of the evidence map that looked at the volume and type of evidence related to population screening FXS is that it remains limited. 

Decision 

The FMCH group and the UK NSC Chair noted the findings of the evidence map for population screening for FXS in both antenatal and newborn screening and agree that no further evidence synthesis work should be commissioned at this time. It was agreed that antenatal screening for FXS should be archived as following 2 reviews the evidence base had not changed. Any proposals to ask UK NSC to reconsider this should be submitted through UK NSC’s open call process. As for newborn screening for FXS, it was agreed that this should not be added to the UK NSC’s list of regular reviews and that any future consideration of this topic should also be submitted via UK NSC’s open call for topics.

Chair’s confirmation 

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed: Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chair, UK NSC

Date: 15 April 2026 

Action 3: population screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD)

Initial status

A review of evidence on screening specifically for cardiovascular disease was due.

CVD is a group of conditions that affect the heart and blood vessels. It includes coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure (HF), peripheral artery disease (PAD), atrial fibrillation (AF) and others. CVD often happens when fatty material builds up inside arteries (atherosclerosis), which can narrow them and reduce blood flow to the heart, brain and limbs. Blood clots can also form and may cause a stroke, heart attack or deep vein thrombosis. Risk factors for CVD include high blood pressure (hypertension), diabetes, high cholesterol, air pollution, smoking and obesity.

An evidence map was commissioned as the first step and 2 questions were considered:

1. What is the distribution of CVD across different population groups in the UK?
2. What is the volume and type of evidence available on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions used to treat asymptomatic adults with CVD, or in need of treatment to mitigate risk of CVD, who were identified through screening?

The findings of the evidence map found that overall, there was sufficient evidence for both question 1 and question 2 to justify further work being commissioned.

In relation to question 1, some studies identified that CVD was more commonly diagnosed in older adults and in males from South Asian and Black backgrounds. A risk in developing CVD was seen to be higher in people from more deprived areas and with lower income or education, while some evidence also pointed to differences by region and higher rates in homeless people, but results varied between studies.

In regards to question 2, more recent studies were identified. However, they appeared to differ widely in what type of screening was used, what treatments offered and what results were reported. Evidence about the NHS Health Check in England mostly came from observational studies, and some of these suggested fewer deaths and fewer illnesses. Studies from other countries had mixed results, and many reported changes in risk scores or risk factors (like blood pressure or cholesterol) rather than clear outcomes like heart attacks, strokes, or deaths.

Reason for Chair’s action

The evidence map was shared with the ARG via email to comment on in February 2026. The responses from the reference group were not finalised in time for the March 2026 UK NSC meeting and it was agreed to send via Chair’s action in order to prevent any delay in next steps.

The ARG agreed that the further evidence synthesis work on screening for CVD should be commissioned. It is recommended that an evidence summary be undertaken, focusing on whether particular population subgroups may benefit from targeted approaches to CVD screening. 

Decision

The UK NSC Chair noted the findings of the evidence map for population screening for CVD and agreed that, based on varying but progressive evidence base for CVD, further evidence synthesis work should be considered and commissioned, focusing on whether particular population subgroups may benefit from targeted approaches to CVD screening.

It is agreed that an evidence summary should therefore be commissioned.

Chair’s confirmation 

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed: Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chair, UK NSC

Date: 15 May 2026

Action 4: population screening for hypertension

Initial status 

A review of evidence on screening specifically for hypertension was due.

Hypertension (high blood pressure) is a long-term condition where the pressure of blood in the arteries stays consistently too high. It often has no symptoms, but over time it can damage blood vessels and strain the heart.

It is diagnosed through repeated blood pressure readings (in clinic or at home) and is often described in stages based on how high the readings are.

Untreated high blood pressure can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, kidney disease and vision problems.

An evidence map was commissioned as the first step and 3 questions were considered:

1. What is the volume and type of evidence on how the prevalence of hypertension varies between people with and without specific risk factors?
2. What is the volume and type of evidence on the effectiveness of a screening programme for hypertension in reducing hypertension-related mortality and morbidity?
3. What is the volume and type of evidence available on the effectiveness of interventions in adults with screen-detected hypertension?

Although question 1 identified a substantial number of reviews on the prevalence of hypertension in people with and without a wide range of risk factors, these reviews either examined established risk factors in understudied countries and regions, or where there was no geographical restriction, and focused on risk factors that are unlikely to be directly applicable to the UK population and context.

For question 2, only 2 systematic reviews and one new primary study were found after the original search dates. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) found a multicomponent programme (with hypertension screening as the main element) reduced cardiovascular-related hospital admissions. A retrospective cohort study suggested that hypertension screening may be associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, although this association was not statistically significant.

For question 3 only one large Korean study was identified that found early treatment may help people with screen-detected hypertension. However, the evidence base is very limited and not sufficient to apply such outcomes to the UK context due to different care pathways and population factors.

Reason for Chair’s action

The hypertension evidence map was shared with the ARG by email for comment in December 2025. After reviewing the findings, the ARG concluded that further work on hypertension screening alone was not justified. Given the overlap with CVD, and because hypertension is a risk factor for CVD, the group suggested waiting for the CVD evidence map to report before deciding next steps. Following the completion of the CVD evidence map it was agreed that although hypertension may not be pursued as a standalone condition it would be beneficial to have this captured under the umbrella term of CVD.

The responses from the reference group on CVD were not finalised in time for the March 2026 UK NSC meeting and it was agreed that both CVD and hypertension should be sent via Chair’s action in order to prevent any delay in next steps.

The ARG agreed that:

• it is not recommended that an evidence summary should be undertaken on screening for hypertension in adults as a stand-alone intervention. However, consideration should be given to whether screening for hypertension should be evaluated as part of a muti-component intervention to screen for CVD

• further evidence synthesis work on screening for CVD should be commissioned - it is recommended that an evidence summary be undertaken, focusing on whether particular population subgroups may benefit from targeted approaches to CVD screening

Decision

The UK NSC Chair noted the findings of the evidence map for population screening for hypertension and agrees that further evidence synthesis work for this condition should not be commissioned. However, consideration should be given to whether screening for hypertension should be evaluated as part of a muti-component intervention to screen for CVD and that further evidence synthesis work for CVD should be commissioned.

It is agreed that an evidence summary should therefore not be commissioned for hypertension and that this topic be archived. Hypertension should be considered as part of any current and future evidence reviews for CVD.

Chair’s confirmation 

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed: Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chair, UK NSC

Date: 15 May 2026

Action 5: type 2 diabetes

Initial status

Screening for type 2 diabetes is one of UK NSC’s existing recommendations which the committee seeks to keep under regular review. UK NSC last examined the evidence on this topic in 2019 following an evidence summary where it was agreed that a population screening programme for type 2 diabetes should not be introduced. Based on the evidence available at the time, UK NSC found that:

• there was no evidence that screening is more beneficial than not screening
• there was no evidence that finding type 2 diabetes early by screening results in a greater health benefit than standard care
• more research is needed to review tests and benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes

As part of UK NSC’s process to keep recommendations under review, UK NSC commissioned an evidence map in 2025 to gauge the volume and type of available evidence related to screening for type 2 diabetes to see whether the evidence would be sufficient to justify commissioning further synthesis work on this topic.

The 2025 evidence map was based on a single question which was: is there enough evidence from randomised controlled trials demonstrating the benefits of population screening for type 2 diabetes?

The evidence map identified 3 references covering 2 RCTs which reported that screening for type 2 diabetes did not improve mortality outcomes when compared with no screening. The studies found no major psychological harms overall, although one reported a short-term rise in anxiety among people diagnosed with diabetes after screening.

Reason for Chair’s action

The evidence map for type 2 diabetes was shared with the ARG on 30 September 2025 via email. ARG members were invited to review and comment on the evidence map ahead of its circulation to UK NSC for pre-consultation and then for public consultation, which took place between 8 December 2025 and 2 March 2026. The consultation received a total of 6 comments. As the consultation closed after the ARG meeting in February 2026, the documents were sent to ARG electronically, inviting members to read the comments submitted and take a steer on the draft responses to the themes raised. Members were given a 2-week period to respond by 15 April 2026, after the UK NSC’s March 2026 meeting. In order not to delay the recommendation of this topic it was agreed that Chair’s action should be taken.

Decision

The ARG and the UK NSC Chair noted the findings of the evidence map for type 2 diabetes and comments received during the consultation, which members were grateful for. Both ARG and the UK NSC Chair recognise that although 2 RCTs were identified from the search, it remains that evidence is not strong enough to suggest that population screening would improve the outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, further work on this topic should not be commissioned at this time and UK NSC should return to review the evidence on type 2 diabetes at a later time as part of its regular review cycle.

Chair’s confirmation 

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed: Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chair, UK NSC

Date: 18 May 2026

1. Includes ‘pathogenic’ and ‘likely pathogenic’ BRCA2 variants, as defined by clinical guidelines. ↩

2. Germline variants are inherited genetic variants, which are present in every cell of the body; these are different to somatic variants, which are not inherited and are confined to specific cells or tissues. ↩