Literature DB >> 18664650

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

Solveig Hofvind1, Pamela M Vacek, Joan Skelly, Donald L Weaver, Berta M Geller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most screening mammography in the United States differs from that in countries with formal screening programs by having a shorter screening interval and interpretation by a single reader vs independent double reading. We examined how these differences affect early detection of breast cancer by comparing performance measures and histopathologic outcomes in women undergoing opportunistic screening in Vermont and organized screening in Norway.
METHODS: We evaluated recall, screen detection, and interval cancer rates and prognostic tumor characteristics for women aged 50-69 years who underwent screening mammography in Vermont (n = 45 050) and in Norway (n = 194 430) from 1997 through 2003. Rates were directly adjusted for age by weighting the rates within 5-year age intervals to reflect the age distribution in the combined data and were compared using two-sided Z tests.
RESULTS: The age-adjusted recall rate was 9.8% in Vermont and 2.7% in Norway (P < .001). The age-adjusted screen detection rate per 1000 woman-years after 2 years of follow-up was 2.77 in Vermont and 2.57 in Norway (P = .12), whereas the interval cancer rate per 1000 woman-years was 1.24 and 0.86, respectively (P < .001). Larger proportions of invasive interval cancers in Vermont than in Norway were 15 mm or smaller (55.9% vs 38.2%, P < .001) and had no lymph node involvement (67.5% vs 57%, P = .01). The prognostic characteristics of all invasive cancers (screen-detected and interval cancer) were similar in Vermont and Norway.
CONCLUSION: Screening mammography detected cancer at about the same rate and at the same prognostic stage in Norway and Vermont, with a statistically significantly lower recall rate in Norway. The interval cancer rate was higher in Vermont than in Norway, but tumors that were diagnosed in the Vermont women tended to be at an earlier stage than those diagnosed in the Norwegian women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18664650      PMCID: PMC2720695          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn224

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


  34 in total

1.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Virginia L Ernster; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Mark B Dignan; Robert D Rosenberg; Nicole Urban; Yingye Zheng; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities.

Authors:  F Houn; M L Brown
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.

Authors:  J Brown; S Bryan; R Warren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-30

6.  Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Susan C Harvey; Berta Geller; Robert G Oppenheimer; Melanie Pinet; Leslie Riddell; Brian Garra
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Dulcy E Wolverton; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  33 in total

1.  Telomere length variation in normal epithelial cells adjacent to tumor: potential biomarker for breast cancer local recurrence.

Authors:  Xin Zhou; Alan K Meeker; Kepher H Makambi; Ourania Kosti; Bhaskar V S Kallakury; Mary K Sidawy; Christopher A Loffredo; Yun-Ling Zheng
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.944

2.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  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

6.  Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  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

9.  Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  S Hofvind; B M Geller; J Skelly; P M Vacek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.