Literature DB >> 30092313

Accuracy of mammography and clinical breast examination in the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Colombia.

Luz Helena Alba1, Sandra Díaz2, Oscar Gamboa3, César Poveda4, Andrés Henao5, Fernando Perry2, Catherine Duggan6, Fabián Gil7, Raúl Murillo8.   

Abstract

Most evidence on breast cancer screening accuracy derives from high income countries. We evaluated screening accuracy and factors related to program implementation in Bogota, Colombia. Between 2008 and 2012 participants underwent clinical breast examination (CBE) and mammography. Positive results underwent histological verification. Adherence to screening protocols was analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were estimated and adjusted by overdiagnosis. Impact of alternative screening algorithms on follow-up was explored, including combined screening tests and modified coding systems for mammography. In total, 7436 women aged 50-69 were enrolled; 400 discontinued and 1003 non-compliant with screening protocols. 23 cancer cases were diagnosed. Mammography sensitivity and specificity were 78.3% (95%CI 77.3-99.3) and 99.4% (95%CI 99.2-99.6). CBE sensitivity was 39.1% (95%CI 37.9-40.3) and specificity 83.4% (95%CI 82.6-84.3). Parallel mammography and CBE showed the highest sensitivity (95.6%) and combined as serial tests the lowest (positive CBE followed by mammography 13.0%). A simplified coding system for mammography (recall/no-recall) had 6.3% of positive results and a minor reduction in specificity compared with standard mammography, but reported the best balance between recall rates and screening protocol compliance. Call-backs had high rates of loss-to-follow-up; thus, alternative screening algorithms might help increase screening compliance and follow-up in low and middle income countries, particularly in populations with poor screening history and low access to health services.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast neoplasms; Clinical breast exam; Colombia; Mammography; Massive screening; Sensitivity; Specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30092313     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  4 in total

1.  Wealth stratified inequalities in service utilisation of breast cancer screening across the geographical regions: a pooled decomposition analysis.

Authors:  Rashidul Alam Mahumud; Khorshed Alam; Syed Afroz Keramat; Andre M N Renzaho; Md Golam Hossain; Rezwanul Haque; Gail M Ormsby; Jeff Dunn; Jeff Gow
Journal:  Arch Public Health       Date:  2020-06-10

2.  Clinical Utility of a Hand-Held Scanner for Breast Cancer Early Detection and Patient Triage.

Authors:  Julie M Clanahan; Sanjana Reddy; Robyn B Broach; Anne F Rositch; Benjamin O Anderson; E Paul Wileyto; Brian S Englander; Ari D Brooks
Journal:  JCO Glob Oncol       Date:  2020-02

3.  The iBreastExam versus clinical breast examination for breast evaluation in high risk and symptomatic Nigerian women: a prospective study.

Authors:  Victoria L Mango; Olalekan Olasehinde; Adeleye D Omisore; Funmilola O Wuraola; Olusola C Famurewa; Varadan Sevilimedu; Gregory C Knapp; Evan Steinberg; Promise R Akinmaye; Boluwatife D Adewoyin; Anya Romanoff; Philip E Castle; Olusegun Alatise; T Peter Kingham
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 38.927

4.  Factors related to clinical breast examination: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Maryam Rabiei; Seyyed Hamid Hoseini; Shiva Khodarahmi; Elham Sepahvand; Elham Shirali
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2022-06-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.