Literature DB >> 22972813

Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation.

Livia Giordano1, Lawrence von Karsa, Mariano Tomatis, Ondrej Majek, Chris de Wolf, Lesz Lancucki, Solveig Hofvind, Lennarth Nyström, Nereo Segnan, Antonio Ponti, G Van Hal, P Martens, O Májek, J Danes, M von Euler-Chelpin, A Aasmaa, A Anttila, N Becker, Z Péntek, A Budai, S Mádai, P Fitzpatrick, T Mooney, M Zappa, L Ventura, A Scharpantgen, S Hofvind, P Seroczynski, A Morais, V Rodrigues, M J Bento, J Gomes de Carvalho, C Natal, M Prieto, C Sánchez-Contador Escudero, R Zubizarreta Alberti, S B Fernández Llanes, N Ascunce, M Ederra Sanza, G Sarriugarte Irigoien, D Salas Trejo, J Ibáñez Cabanell, M Wiege, G Ohlsson, S Törnberg, M Korzeniewska, C de Wolf, J Fracheboud, J Patnick J, L Lancucki, S Ducarroz, E Suonio.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To summarize participation and coverage rates in population mammographic screening programmes for breast cancer in Europe.
METHODS: We used the European Network for Information on Cancer (EUNICE), a web-based data warehouse (EUNICE Breast Cancer Screening Monitoring, EBCSM) for breast cancer screening, to obtain information on programme characteristics, coverage and participation from its initial application in 10 national and 16 regional programmes in 18 European countries.
RESULTS: The total population targeted by the screening programme services covered in the report comprised 26.9 million women predominantly aged 50-69. Most of the collected data relates to 2005, 2006 and/or 2007. The average participation rate across all programmes was 53.4% (range 19.4-88.9% of personally invited); or 66.4% excluding Poland, a large programme that initiated personal invitations in 2007. Thirteen of the 26 programmes achieved the European Union benchmark of acceptable participation (>70%), nine achieved the desirable level (>75%). Despite considerable invitation coverage across all programmes (79.3%, range 50.9-115.2%) only 48.2% (range 28.4-92.1%) of the target population were actually screened. The overall invitation and examination coverage excluding Poland was 70.9% and 50.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the feasibility of European-wide screening monitoring using the EBCSM data warehouse, although further efforts to refine the system and to harmonize standards and data collection practices will be required, to fully integrate all European countries. The more than three-fold difference in the examination coverage should be taken into account in the evaluation of service screening programmes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22972813     DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012085

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


  43 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  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

3.  Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Giuseppe Argenziano; Iris Zalaudek; Max Wolf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.

Authors:  Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Martin Daniaux; Wolfgang Buchberger; Rudolf Knapp; Willi Oberaigner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 5.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-12

7.  Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.984

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.  Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Diana L Miglioretti; Clyde B Schechter; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Jeroen J van den Broek; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Aimee M Near; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Young Chandler; Harry J de Koning; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Scott Mayer McKinney; Marcin Sieniek; Varun Godbole; Jonathan Godwin; Natasha Antropova; Hutan Ashrafian; Trevor Back; Mary Chesus; Greg S Corrado; Ara Darzi; Mozziyar Etemadi; Florencia Garcia-Vicente; Fiona J Gilbert; Mark Halling-Brown; Demis Hassabis; Sunny Jansen; Alan Karthikesalingam; Christopher J Kelly; Dominic King; Joseph R Ledsam; David Melnick; Hormuz Mostofi; Lily Peng; Joshua Jay Reicher; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Richard Sidebottom; Mustafa Suleyman; Daniel Tse; Kenneth C Young; Jeffrey De Fauw; Shravya Shetty
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.