Luca Alessandro Carbonaro1, Sighelgaita Sonia Rizzo1,2, Simone Schiaffino3, Anna Pisani Mainini4, Nicole Berger5, Rubina Manuela Trimboli6, Francesco Sardanelli1,7. 1. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milan, Italy. 2. Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Gateshead, NE9 6SX, UK. 3. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milan, Italy. schiaffino.simone@gmail.com. 4. Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy. 5. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Integrative Biomedical Research PhD Program, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the interval mammogram rate, i.e. the undertaking of an additional mammography between scheduled screening rounds, and identify factors influencing this phenomenon. METHODS: Data from our screening programme for the year 2014, excluding prevalent rounds, were analysed. Information about the number of women who underwent interval mammograms was obtained reviewing the questionnaires and searching the department database. Data on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, number of screening rounds, previous recalls, general practitioner, and city of residence (used as a proxy of local socio-economic differences) were evaluated using chi-square test. RESULTS: Of 2780 screened women (incident rounds), 2566 had complete data (92%). The interval mammogram rate was 384/2566 (15%, 95% confidence interval 14-17%). Women classified with American College of Radiology c or d breast density categories showed a higher interval mammography probability than those with a and b density (p < 0.001); women in their second round showed a higher probability of interval mammogram compared to women in their fifth, sixth, or seventh round (p ≤ 0.004). No significant differences were found between women with and without an interval mammogram when considering previous recalls for a negative work-up (p = 0.241), positive breast cancer family history (p = 0.538), and city of residence (p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: The interval mammogram rate was relatively low (15%). Higher breast density and first of years of adherence to the programme were associated with higher interval mammogram rate.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the interval mammogram rate, i.e. the undertaking of an additional mammography between scheduled screening rounds, and identify factors influencing this phenomenon. METHODS: Data from our screening programme for the year 2014, excluding prevalent rounds, were analysed. Information about the number of women who underwent interval mammograms was obtained reviewing the questionnaires and searching the department database. Data on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, number of screening rounds, previous recalls, general practitioner, and city of residence (used as a proxy of local socio-economic differences) were evaluated using chi-square test. RESULTS: Of 2780 screened women (incident rounds), 2566 had complete data (92%). The interval mammogram rate was 384/2566 (15%, 95% confidence interval 14-17%). Women classified with American College of Radiology c or d breast density categories showed a higher interval mammography probability than those with a and b density (p < 0.001); women in their second round showed a higher probability of interval mammogram compared to women in their fifth, sixth, or seventh round (p ≤ 0.004). No significant differences were found between women with and without an interval mammogram when considering previous recalls for a negative work-up (p = 0.241), positive breast cancer family history (p = 0.538), and city of residence (p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: The interval mammogram rate was relatively low (15%). Higher breast density and first of years of adherence to the programme were associated with higher interval mammogram rate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasm; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Mass screening; Secondary prevention
Authors: Rianne de Gelder; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Chris de Wolf; Jacques Fracheboud; Gerrit Draisma; Doris Schopper; Harry J de Koning Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: S Ciatto; D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; G Borsato; P Peterlongo; M A Gentilini; F Caumo; A Frigerio; N Houssami Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Ciatto; D Ambrogetti; R Bonardi; S Catarzi; G Risso; M Rosselli Del Turco; P Mantellini Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Kristine Bihrmann; Allan Jensen; Anne Helene Olsen; Sisse Njor; Walter Schwartz; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Samiratou Ouédraogo; Tienhan S Dabakuyo-Yonli; Philippe Amiel; Vincent Dancourt; Agnès Dumas; Patrick Arveux Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-09-18