OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the early outcome of an organised mammography screening programme in an area with little opportunistic screening. SETTING: The municipality of Copenhagen, Denmark, during four invitation rounds 1991-99. METHODS: The following outcome measures were used: rates of participation, recall, false positive, and cancer detection. Benign biopsy, distribution of tumour size, lymph node status, and malignancy grade. RESULTS: A total of 106,933 screens were undertaken, and 824 invasive breast carcinomas or CIS were detected. The detection rate was 11.9 per 1000 participants in the first invitation round, and it continued to be high in subsequent rounds. The percentage of CIS cases was 11%. Coverage declined from 71% in the first round to 62% in the fourth, although 91% of those participating in the previous three rounds attended. The programme operated with a high recall rate. The false positive rate was also high, being 5.6% at first screen, and 1.8% later on. However, 90% of false positives were sorted out already at assessment. The percentage of screen detected invasive breast cancers with a tumour diameter < or = 10 mm was 39% compared with 16% of all invasive breast cancers in these age groups in Copenhagen before screening. CONCLUSION: Copenhagen is an area with a high incidence of breast cancer and with relatively little opportunistic screening. The start of a screening programme with a high recall rate in this area resulted in a detection rate above 1%. The Copenhagen programme met or exceeded most of the interim measures recommended in the European Guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the early outcome of an organised mammography screening programme in an area with little opportunistic screening. SETTING: The municipality of Copenhagen, Denmark, during four invitation rounds 1991-99. METHODS: The following outcome measures were used: rates of participation, recall, false positive, and cancer detection. Benign biopsy, distribution of tumour size, lymph node status, and malignancy grade. RESULTS: A total of 106,933 screens were undertaken, and 824 invasive breast carcinomas or CIS were detected. The detection rate was 11.9 per 1000 participants in the first invitation round, and it continued to be high in subsequent rounds. The percentage of CIS cases was 11%. Coverage declined from 71% in the first round to 62% in the fourth, although 91% of those participating in the previous three rounds attended. The programme operated with a high recall rate. The false positive rate was also high, being 5.6% at first screen, and 1.8% later on. However, 90% of false positives were sorted out already at assessment. The percentage of screen detected invasive breast cancers with a tumour diameter < or = 10 mm was 39% compared with 16% of all invasive breast cancers in these age groups in Copenhagen before screening. CONCLUSION: Copenhagen is an area with a high incidence of breast cancer and with relatively little opportunistic screening. The start of a screening programme with a high recall rate in this area resulted in a detection rate above 1%. The Copenhagen programme met or exceeded most of the interim measures recommended in the European Guidelines.
Authors: Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse H Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Peter Dalgaard; Maj-Britt Jensen; Ulla Brix Tange; Mogens Blichert-Toft; Fritz Rank; Henning Mouridsen; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-01-13
Authors: My von Euler-Chelpin; Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Julie Aarestrup; Lise G Bjerregaard; Kathrine D Meyle; Dorthe C Pedersen; Line K Gjærde; Britt W Jensen; Jennifer L Baker Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Ondrej Majek; Jan Danes; Miroslava Skovajsova; Helena Bartonkova; Lucie Buresova; Daniel Klimes; Petr Brabec; Pavel Kozeny; Ladislav Dusek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stephanie Huynh; My von Euler-Chelpin; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Ole Hertel; Anne Tjønneland; Elsebeth Lynge; Ilse Vejborg; Zorana J Andersen Journal: Environ Health Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Sophie Sell Hellmann; Sisse Helle Njor; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Ilse Vejborg; Zorana Jovanovic Andersen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Zorana J Andersen; Jennifer L Baker; Kristine Bihrmann; Ilse Vejborg; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 6.466