Literature DB >> 15900044

Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.

Johannes D M Otten1, Nico Karssemeijer, Jan H C L Hendriks, Johanna H Groenewoud, Jacques Fracheboud, André L M Verbeek, Harry J de Koning, Roland Holland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recall rate (i.e., the rate at which mammographically screened women are recalled for additional assessment) in the Dutch breast screening program (0.89% in 2000 for subsequent examinations) is the lowest worldwide, with possible consequences including higher rates of late-detected (i.e., "missed") interval and screen-detected cancers. To estimate the effect of changes in recall rate on earlier detection of cancers, we carried out a blinded review of interval and screen-detected cancers in the Dutch screening program.
METHODS: A total of 495 sets of screen-negative mammograms (prediagnostic mammogram and the immediate previous mammogram) were collected from women participating in the biennial Dutch screening program. Of these, 250 were from control subjects, and 245 were from women who were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer (123 interval and 122 screen-detected cancers). These mammograms were read by 15 radiologists who specialize in screening mammography and were blinded to outcome. Mean detection sensitivities for different false-positive rates were calculated using a linear mixed model. These results were used to calculate the effect of recall rate adjustment on earlier detection of cancers and numbers of false-positives.
RESULTS: Increasing the recall rate to 2.0% would increase the detection rate from 4.20 per thousand to 4.52 per thousand due to the earlier detection of interval cancers. Moreover, 0.54 per thousand of the screen-detected cancers would be detected 2 years earlier (late screen-detected cancers). At recall rates of 3.0% and 4.0% the detection rate would increase to 4.58 per thousand and 4.63 per thousand, respectively, and 0.64 per thousand and 0.72 per thousand, respectively, of the screen-detected cancers would be detected 2 years earlier. For each 1.0% incremental increase in recall rate above 5.0%, the detection rate would increase by approximately 0.03 per thousand, with positive predictive values decreasing to below 10%.
CONCLUSION: Breast cancer can be detected earlier by lowering the threshold for recall, especially for recall rates of 1%-4%. With further recall rate increases, cancer detection levels off with a disproportionate increase of false-positive rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15900044     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  15 in total

1.  Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Authors:  Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Benefits of double reading of screening mammograms: retrospective study on a consecutive series.

Authors:  F Caumo; S Brunelli; M Zorzi; I Baglio; S Ciatto; S Montemezzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  [Mammography screening].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; N Becker; K Bock; K Anders; W Bautz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000-2005.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jacques Fracheboud; Menno L Plaisier; Rudi M H Roumen; B Martin van Ineveld; Mike van Beek; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel Vulkan; Roger G Blanks; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.