Lauro Bucchi1, Alessandra Ravaioli2, Flavia Baldacchini2, Orietta Giuliani2, Silvia Mancini2, Rosa Vattiato2, Fabio Falcini2,3, Paolo Giorgi Rossi4, Cinzia Campari5, Debora Canuti6, Enza Di Felice7, Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi7, Stefano Ferretti8, Nicoletta Bertozzi7. 1. Romagna Cancer Registry, Romagna Cancer Institute (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRST, IRCCS), Meldola, Forlì, Italy. lauro.bucchi@irst.emr.it. 2. Romagna Cancer Registry, Romagna Cancer Institute (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRST, IRCCS), Meldola, Forlì, Italy. 3. Local Health Authority, Forlì, Italy. 4. Epidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 5. Cancer Screening Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Local Health Authority, Rimini, Italy. 7. Department of Health, Regional Administration, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy. 8. University of Ferrara and Local Health Authority, Ferrara, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of 5 years of annual mammography screening at age 45-49 with the results of 5 years of biennial screening at age 50-54 and 55-69. METHODS: In an Italian screening programme, data from 1,465,335 mammograms were analysed. Recall rates, invasive assessment rates, surgical biopsy (including excisional biopsy and definitive surgical treatment) rates, and cancer detection rates were calculated for the first screen (first) and, cumulatively, for the second and subsequent screens (second+). RESULTS: The rate ratios between younger women and the two groups of older ones were (in parentheses, original figures per 1000 mammograms if not otherwise specified): recall rate: first 1.11 (103.6 vs. 93.5) and 1.11 (vs. 93.2), second+ 2.10 (208.9 vs. 99.7) and 2.77 (vs. 75.5); invasive assessment rate: first 0.94 (23.0 vs. 24.5) and 0.94 (vs. 24.6), second+ 1.63 (35.8 vs. 22.0) and 1.56 (vs. 23.0); surgical biopsy rate: first 0.68 (5.9 vs. 8.6) and 0.45 (vs. 13.2), second+ 1.35 (11.5 vs. 8.5) and 0.88 (vs. 13.0); total detection rate: first 0.63 (4.3 vs. 6.7) and 0.37 (vs. 11.7), second+ 1.30 (8.9 vs. 6.8) and 0.74 (vs. 12.0); total positive predictive value of surgical biopsy: first 0.93 (72.8% vs. 78.0%) and 0.82 (vs. 88.9%), second+ 0.96 (77.2% vs. 80.5%) and 0.83 (vs. 92.7%). CONCLUSION: Younger women experienced two to threefold higher cumulative recall rates at second+ screens and limited differences in surgical biopsy rate. Albeit encouraging, these results must be completed with further investigation, especially on interval cancer incidence. KEY POINTS: • At repeated screens, cumulative recall rate was two- to threefold higher for younger women. • Differences in cumulative surgical referral and surgical biopsy rates were moderate. • Differences in positive predictive value of surgical biopsy were particularly small.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of 5 years of annual mammography screening at age 45-49 with the results of 5 years of biennial screening at age 50-54 and 55-69. METHODS: In an Italian screening programme, data from 1,465,335 mammograms were analysed. Recall rates, invasive assessment rates, surgical biopsy (including excisional biopsy and definitive surgical treatment) rates, and cancer detection rates were calculated for the first screen (first) and, cumulatively, for the second and subsequent screens (second+). RESULTS: The rate ratios between younger women and the two groups of older ones were (in parentheses, original figures per 1000 mammograms if not otherwise specified): recall rate: first 1.11 (103.6 vs. 93.5) and 1.11 (vs. 93.2), second+ 2.10 (208.9 vs. 99.7) and 2.77 (vs. 75.5); invasive assessment rate: first 0.94 (23.0 vs. 24.5) and 0.94 (vs. 24.6), second+ 1.63 (35.8 vs. 22.0) and 1.56 (vs. 23.0); surgical biopsy rate: first 0.68 (5.9 vs. 8.6) and 0.45 (vs. 13.2), second+ 1.35 (11.5 vs. 8.5) and 0.88 (vs. 13.0); total detection rate: first 0.63 (4.3 vs. 6.7) and 0.37 (vs. 11.7), second+ 1.30 (8.9 vs. 6.8) and 0.74 (vs. 12.0); total positive predictive value of surgical biopsy: first 0.93 (72.8% vs. 78.0%) and 0.82 (vs. 88.9%), second+ 0.96 (77.2% vs. 80.5%) and 0.83 (vs. 92.7%). CONCLUSION: Younger women experienced two to threefold higher cumulative recall rates at second+ screens and limited differences in surgical biopsy rate. Albeit encouraging, these results must be completed with further investigation, especially on interval cancer incidence. KEY POINTS: • At repeated screens, cumulative recall rate was two- to threefold higher for younger women. • Differences in cumulative surgical referral and surgical biopsy rates were moderate. • Differences in positive predictive value of surgical biopsy were particularly small.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Mass screening; Premenopause
Authors: Martha B Mainiero; Ana Lourenco; Mary C Mahoney; Mary S Newell; Lisa Bailey; Lora D Barke; Carl D'Orsi; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary K Hayes; Phan Tuong Huynh; Peter M Jokich; Su-Ju Lee; Constance D Lehman; David A Mankoff; Joshua A Nepute; Samir B Patel; Handel E Reynolds; M Linda Sutherland; Bruce G Haffty Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Kath Moser; Sarah Sellars; Margot Wheaton; Julie Cooke; Alison Duncan; Anthony Maxwell; Michael Michell; Mary Wilson; Valerie Beral; Richard Peto; Mike Richards; Julietta Patnick Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Sue M Moss; Christopher Wale; Robert Smith; Andrew Evans; Howard Cuckle; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873