Literature DB >> 14561265

Integrating self-referral for mammography into organised screening: results from an Italian experience.

L Bucchi1, F Falcini, G P Baraldi, A Bondi, R Bonsanto, P Bravetti, F Desiderio, P Sassoli de Bianchi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-referred screenees with respondents to invitation for main performance indicators of mammography screening.
SETTING: First round of an organised, population-based screening programme in six districts of northern Italy.
METHODS: The screening test was a two-view mammography. Eligible women aged 50-69 years were invited. Self-referred attendees were accepted if they were eligible for screening and had not yet been invited or had been invited >6 months before presentation. Age-specific performance indicators were compared with the calculation of their ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Total ratios were age standardised. In situ carcinomas were excluded.
RESULTS: The eligible population was 183 542 women. There were 112 188 respondents to invitation and 20 280 self-referred attendees. Self-referral rate was inversely related to age. Performance indicators were as follows: recall rate, 5.6% for self-referred attendees vs 5.5% for respondents (ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08); total aspiration cytology rate, 37.3% vs 28.3% (1.37, 1.24 to 1.51); biopsy rate, 17.0 vs 12.6 x 1000 (1.51, 1.35 to 1.67); total detection rate, 10.7 vs 7.5 x 1000 (1.70, 1.48 to 1.94); detection rate of pT1 carcinoma, 7.0 vs 6.1 x 1000 (1.35, 1.14 to 1.59); detection rate of pT2-4 carcinoma, 3.5 vs 1.2 x 1000 (3.51, 2.75 to 4.43); false-positive rate, 4.5% vs 4.7% (0.93, 0.87 to 0.99); positive predictive value (PPV) of mammography, 19.1% vs 13.5% (1.59, 1.39 to 1.82); PPV of biopsy, 63.7% vs 60.6% (1.13, 0.98 to 1.29); detected:expected ratio, 5.02 vs 3.37 (1.49, 1.28 to 1.74). All differences were more pronounced among or restricted to women aged 50-54 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-referred screenees were similar to respondents to invitation in main indicators of screening feasibility such as recall rate and PPV of biopsy, while showing important increases in detection rates and detected:expected ratios, especially among women aged 50-54 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14561265     DOI: 10.1177/096914130301000307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  4 in total

1.  Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Baldacchini; Orietta Giuliani; Silvia Mancini; Rosa Vattiato; Fabio Falcini; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Cinzia Campari; Debora Canuti; Enza Di Felice; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Stefano Ferretti; Nicoletta Bertozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Incidence, detection, and tumour stage of breast cancer in a cohort of Italian women with negative screening mammography report recommending early (short-interval) rescreen.

Authors:  Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Foca; Americo Colamartini; Fabio Falcini; Carlo Naldoni; Alba C Finarelli; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Lauro Bucchi
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 8.775

3.  Pattern of Mammography Utilization by Women Attending Asokoro District Hospital, Abuja, Nigeria.

Authors:  Oku S Bassey; Michael E Aghahowa; Sabastine N Esomonu; Adenike T Adeniji-Sofoluwe; Chidi V Nnabuchi; Oluseun A Aluko-Olokun; Chidimma S Awodu
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2022-05-04

4.  Would 1.0 cm be a more suitable cutoff to subdivide pT1 tumors in hormone receptor-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer?

Authors:  Changjun Wang; Yidong Zhou; Hanjiang Zhu; Wei Huang; Ziyuan Chen; Feng Mao; Yan Lin; Xiaohui Zhang; Songjie Shen; Ying Zhong; Yan Li; Qiang Sun
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 4.452

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.