Literature DB >> 29613846

Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Elizabeth S Burnside1, Daniel Vulkan1, Roger G Blanks1, Stephen W Duffy1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine whether low levels of recall lead to increased interval cancers and the magnitude of this effect. Materials and Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme during a 36-month period (April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2008), with 3-year follow-up in women aged 50-70 years. Data on recall, cancers detected at screening, and interval cancers were available for each of the 84 breast screening units and for each year (n = 252). The association between interval cancers and recalls was modeled by using Poisson regression on aggregated data and according to age (5-year intervals) and screening type (prevalent vs incident). Results The authors analyzed 5 126 689 screening episodes, demonstrating an average recall to assessment rate (RAR) of 4.56% (range, 1.64%-8.42%; standard deviation, 1.15%), cancer detection rate of 8.1 per 1000 women screened, and interval cancer rate (ICR) of 3.1 per 1000 women screened. Overall, a significant negative association was found between RAR and ICR (Poisson regression coefficient: -0.039 [95% confidence interval: -0.062, -0.017]; P = .001), with approximately one fewer interval cancer for every additional 80-84 recalls. Subgroup analysis revealed similar negative correlations in women aged 50-54 years (P = .002), 60-64 years (P = .01), and 65-69 years (P = .008) as well as in incident screens (P = .001) and prevalent screens (P = .04). No significant relationship was found in women aged 55-59 years (P = .46). Conclusion There was a statistically significant negative correlation between RAR and ICR, which suggests the merit of a minimum threshold for RAR. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29613846      PMCID: PMC6027996          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018171539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  30 in total

1.  Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Michael J Schell; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Should a standard be defined for the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of recall in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme?

Authors:  R L Bennett; R G Blanks
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2006-08-14       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 3.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1987

4.  Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.

Authors:  C D Lehman; E White; S Peacock; M J Drucker; N Urban
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jeong Mi Park; Jason P Fine; Gale A Sisney
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done?

Authors:  B C Yankaskas; C N Klabunde; R Ancelle-Park; G Renner; H Wang; J Fracheboud; G Pou; J-L Bulliard
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  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

Review 8.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document.

Authors:  N Perry; M Broeders; C de Wolf; S Törnberg; R Holland; L von Karsa
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors.

Authors:  Andrea J Cook; Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Addressing the challenge of assessing physician-level screening performance: mammography as an example.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Yunzhi Lin; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; Perry J Pickhardt; Yirong Wu; Roberta M Strigel; Mai A Elezaby; Eve A Kerr; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; R M Given-Wilson; S L Cohen; J Patnick; R J Alison; M G Wallis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  A review of the PERFORMS scheme in breast screening.

Authors:  Alastair Gale; Yan Chen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Association between radiologists' and facilities' characteristics and mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Isabelle Théberge; Nathalie Vandal; Linda Perron; Marie-Hélène Guertin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Evaluation of reader performance during interpretation of breast cancer screening: the Recall and detection Of breast Cancer in Screening (ROCS) trial study design.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos; Craig K Abbey; Daniëlle van der Waal; Tanya Geertse; Eric Tetteroo; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

Authors:  Lorena Squillace; Lorenzo Pizzi; Flavia Rallo; Carmen Bazzani; Gianni Saguatti; Francesca Mezzetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.