Sabine Geiger-Gritsch1,2,3, Martin Daniaux4, Wolfgang Buchberger5, Rudolf Knapp6, Willi Oberaigner7,8,9. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Tirol Kliniken Ltd., Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. sabine.geiger-gritsch@tirol-kliniken.at. 2. Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-Private University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria. sabine.geiger-gritsch@tirol-kliniken.at. 3. Area 4 Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, Oncotyrol-Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria. sabine.geiger-gritsch@tirol-kliniken.at. 4. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. Medical Department, Tirol Kliniken Ltd., Innsbruck, Austria. 6. Department of Radiology, Kufstein County Hospital, Kufstein, Austria. 7. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Tirol Kliniken Ltd., Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 8. Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-Private University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria. 9. Area 4 Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, Oncotyrol-Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systems for the delivery of screening mammography vary among countries and these differences can influence screening effectiveness. We evaluated the performance of organized mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria, an approach that differs from many other population-based screening programs. METHODS: Data on women aged 40-69 years screened in the period from June 2008 to May 2012 were collected within the framework of an organized screening program. A total of 272,555 invitations were sent to the target population living in Tyrol and 176,957 screening examinations were performed. We analyzed the main performance indicators as defined by European Union (EU) guidelines and some important estimates of harms. RESULTS: The estimated 2‑year participation rate was 56.9%. As ultrasound is implemented as second-line screening procedure, 76.2% of all women screened underwent supplementary ultrasound. In total 2322 women were recalled for further assessment (13.1 per 1000 screens) and 1351 biopsies were performed (7.6 per 1000 screens). The positive predictive value was 28.2% for assessment and 48.5% for biopsies. The cancer detection rate was 3.7 per 1000 screens and the proportion of all stage II+ screen-detected cancers was 35.5%. The interval cancer rate was 0.33 and 0.47 per 1000 screens in the first and second years, respectively. The estimated cumulative risk for a false positive screening result and an unnecessary biopsy for women following the invitation approach was 21.1% and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The performance of our population-based screening approach combining mammography and ultrasound is very favorable and potential harm is kept very low compared to other European mammography screening programs for breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Systems for the delivery of screening mammography vary among countries and these differences can influence screening effectiveness. We evaluated the performance of organized mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria, an approach that differs from many other population-based screening programs. METHODS: Data on women aged 40-69 years screened in the period from June 2008 to May 2012 were collected within the framework of an organized screening program. A total of 272,555 invitations were sent to the target population living in Tyrol and 176,957 screening examinations were performed. We analyzed the main performance indicators as defined by European Union (EU) guidelines and some important estimates of harms. RESULTS: The estimated 2‑year participation rate was 56.9%. As ultrasound is implemented as second-line screening procedure, 76.2% of all women screened underwent supplementary ultrasound. In total 2322 women were recalled for further assessment (13.1 per 1000 screens) and 1351 biopsies were performed (7.6 per 1000 screens). The positive predictive value was 28.2% for assessment and 48.5% for biopsies. The cancer detection rate was 3.7 per 1000 screens and the proportion of all stage II+ screen-detected cancers was 35.5%. The interval cancer rate was 0.33 and 0.47 per 1000 screens in the first and second years, respectively. The estimated cumulative risk for a false positive screening result and an unnecessary biopsy for women following the invitation approach was 21.1% and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The performance of our population-based screening approach combining mammography and ultrasound is very favorable and potential harm is kept very low compared to other European mammography screening programs for breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasm; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Screening; Ultrasonography
Authors: L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Antonio Ponti; Julietta Patnick; Nieves Ascunce; Sisse Njor; Mireille Broeders; Livia Giordano; Alfonso Frigerio; Sven Törnberg; 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; L Lancucki; S Ducarroz; E Suonio Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse H Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Walter Schwartz; Peter Dalgaard; Maj-Britt Jensen; Ulla Brix Tange; Mogens Blichert-Toft; Fritz Rank; Henning Mouridsen; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-01-13
Authors: Willi Oberaigner; Martin Daniaux; Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Rudolf Knapp; Uwe Siebert; Wolfgang Buchberger Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 3.295