R L Bennett1, R G Blanks, J Patnick, S M Moss. 1. Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey, UK. rachel.bennett@icr.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present results from the UK NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) for the six-year period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2005, and to compare these with targets. METHODS: Data are collected annually from all UK screening units on standard KC62 return forms. RESULTS: The prevalence of screen-positive cancer (cancer detection rate) has increased at both rounds during the six-year period. At the incident round, cancer detection rates increased by 24%, from 5.4 per 1000 in 2000 to 6.7 per 1000 in 2005 and the detection of small cancers (< or = 10 mm) has increased by 40%. Generally, quality measures in the programme continue to improve. However, while rates of recall at the incident screen decreased from 3.8% in 2000 to 3.6% in 2005, at the prevalent round, in 2005, 22% of units continued to recall more than 10% of women to assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the performance of the programme continues to improve. In the future, analysis of data on interval cancers will assist the interpretation of cancer detection rates.
OBJECTIVE: To present results from the UK NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) for the six-year period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2005, and to compare these with targets. METHODS: Data are collected annually from all UK screening units on standard KC62 return forms. RESULTS: The prevalence of screen-positive cancer (cancer detection rate) has increased at both rounds during the six-year period. At the incident round, cancer detection rates increased by 24%, from 5.4 per 1000 in 2000 to 6.7 per 1000 in 2005 and the detection of small cancers (< or = 10 mm) has increased by 40%. Generally, quality measures in the programme continue to improve. However, while rates of recall at the incident screen decreased from 3.8% in 2000 to 3.6% in 2005, at the prevalent round, in 2005, 22% of units continued to recall more than 10% of women to assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the performance of the programme continues to improve. In the future, analysis of data on interval cancers will assist the interpretation of cancer detection rates.
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Garnet L Anderson; Aaron K Aragaki; JoAnn E Manson; Marcia L Stefanick; Kathy Pan; Wendy Barrington; Lewis H Kuller; Michael S Simon; Dorothy Lane; Karen C Johnson; Thomas E Rohan; Margery L S Gass; Jane A Cauley; Electra D Paskett; Maryam Sattari; Ross L Prentice Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yiwey Shieh; Martin Eklund; George F Sawaya; William C Black; Barnett S Kramer; Laura J Esserman Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 66.675
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