Oliver Heidinger1, Jan Heidrich2, Wolf Ulrich Batzler2, Volker Krieg2, Stefanie Weigel3, Walter Heindel3, Hans-Werner Hense4. 1. Epidemiological Cancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, Münster, Germany. Electronic address: Oliver.Heidinger@krebsregister.nrw.de. 2. Epidemiological Cancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Germany. 4. Epidemiological Cancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, Münster, Germany; Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Münster, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Program sensitivity (PS), i.e., the ratio of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers, is a major outcome in population-based mammography screening programs (MSP). This study evaluated PS within the digital MSP in Germany focussing on the impact of age and histological subtype. METHODS: Data of 838,579 first-time participants aged 50-69 years who were screened in 2005-2008 were linked with cancer registry data from Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia. Invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) were detected either at screening or during the 24 month post-screening interval. PS was evaluated with respect to age at screening, in-situ or invasive cancer and histological characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 6767 cancers were detected at screening and 1884 cancers were diagnosed during the post-screening interval. The overall PS amounted to 78.2% and increased from 72.1% at age 50-54 years to 82.4% at age 65-69 years (p for trend <0.0001). PS was higher for non-lobular (79.1%) than lobular carcinomas (72.1%, p < 0.0001). The highest PS was observed in DCIS across all ages (>90%), while PS was lowest among participants aged 50-54 years with invasive breast cancer (67.7%), particularly among those with lobular subtype (62.8%). Interval cancers showed generally more advanced tumour stages. CONCLUSIONS: While overall PS was high, differences across subgroups indicated that youngest screening participants are at higher risk of interval cancer. Age-adapted recall and assessment strategies in younger participants may need to be considered to improve PS in younger women.
INTRODUCTION: Program sensitivity (PS), i.e., the ratio of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers, is a major outcome in population-based mammography screening programs (MSP). This study evaluated PS within the digital MSP in Germany focussing on the impact of age and histological subtype. METHODS: Data of 838,579 first-time participants aged 50-69 years who were screened in 2005-2008 were linked with cancer registry data from Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia. Invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) were detected either at screening or during the 24 month post-screening interval. PS was evaluated with respect to age at screening, in-situ or invasive cancer and histological characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 6767 cancers were detected at screening and 1884 cancers were diagnosed during the post-screening interval. The overall PS amounted to 78.2% and increased from 72.1% at age 50-54 years to 82.4% at age 65-69 years (p for trend <0.0001). PS was higher for non-lobular (79.1%) than lobular carcinomas (72.1%, p < 0.0001). The highest PS was observed in DCIS across all ages (>90%), while PS was lowest among participants aged 50-54 years with invasive breast cancer (67.7%), particularly among those with lobular subtype (62.8%). Interval cancers showed generally more advanced tumour stages. CONCLUSIONS: While overall PS was high, differences across subgroups indicated that youngest screening participants are at higher risk of interval cancer. Age-adapted recall and assessment strategies in younger participants may need to be considered to improve PS in younger women.
Authors: Rob M G van Bommel; Roy Weber; Adri C Voogd; Joost Nederend; Marieke W J Louwman; Dick Venderink; Luc J A Strobbe; Matthieu J C Rutten; Menno L Plaisier; Paul N Lohle; Marianne J H Hooijen; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Laura Steponaviciene; Ieva Vincerzevskiene; Ruta Briediene; Vincas Urbonas; Rasa Vanseviciute-Petkeviciene; Giedre Smailyte Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: M Goossens; I De Brabander; J De Grève; C Van Ongeval; P Martens; E Van Limbergen; E Kellen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Guilherme Del Fiol; Wendy Kohlmann; Richard L Bradshaw; Charlene R Weir; Michael Flynn; Rachel Hess; Joshua D Schiffman; Claude Nanjo; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-01
Authors: Dana S Al-Mousa; Maram Alakhras; Kelly M Spuur; Haytham Alewaidat; Mostafa Abdelrahman; Mohammad Rawashdeh; Patrick C Brennan Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2020-06-23