Literature DB >> 15814020

Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Rebecca Smith-Bindman1, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Diana L Miglioretti, Julietta Patnick, Karla Kerlikowske.   

Abstract

To compare the performance of screening mammography in the USA and the UK, a consecutive sample of screening mammograms was obtained in women aged 50 and older from 1996 to 1999 who participated in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in the USA (n = 978,591) and the National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program in the UK (n = 3.94 million), including 6943 diagnosed with breast cancer within 12 months of screening. Recall rates were defined as the percentage of screening mammograms with a recommendation for further evaluation including diagnostic mammography, ultrasound, clinical examination or biopsy, and cancer detection rates including invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a screening mammogram. All results were stratified by whether examinations were first or subsequent and adjusted to a standard age distribution. Among women who underwent a first screening mammogram, 13.3% of women in the USA versus 7.2% of women in the UK were recalled for further evaluation (relative risk for recall 1.9; 95% CI 1.8-1.9). For subsequent examinations recall rates were approximately 50% lower, but remained twice as high in the USA as in the UK. A similar percentage of women underwent biopsy in each setting, but rates of percutaneous biopsy were lower and rates of open surgical biopsy were higher in the USA. Women undergo screening approximately every 18 months in the USA and every 36 months in the UK. Based on a 20-year period of screening, the estimated percentage of women who would be recalled for additional testing was nearly threefold higher in the USA. The number of cancers detected was also higher in the USA (55 versus 43), and most of the increase was in the detection of small invasive and in situ cancers. The numbers of large cancers detected ( > 2 cm) were very similar between the two countries. Recall rates are approximately two to three times higher in the USA than in the UK. Importantly, despite less frequent screening in the USA, there are no substantial differences in the rates of detection of large cancers. Efforts to improve mammographic screening in the USA should target lowering the recall rate without reducing the cancer detection rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15814020     DOI: 10.1258/0969141053279130

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


  25 in total

1.  Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Authors:  Wasfi I Suleiman; Sarah J Lewis; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Michael G Evanoff; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-05-07

2.  Who evaluates public health programmes? A review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance?

Authors:  Talya Salz; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Victor J Catullo; Margarita L Zuley; Dilip D Shinde; Christiane M Hakim; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Ellen S O'Meara; Dustin Key; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; Brian L Sprague; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Implementation of the German Mammography Screening Program (German MSP) and First Results for Initial Examinations, 2005-2009.

Authors:  Daniela Malek; Vanessa Kääb-Sanyal
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.