Literature DB >> 8719146

Results from the NHS breast screening programme 1990-1993.

S M Moss1, M Michel, J Patnick, L Johns, R Blanks, J Chamberlain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To present results from the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) for the three year period 1990 to 1993, and to examine the extent to which interim targets are being met.
METHODS: Data have been collated from all screening programmes in the United Kingdom on standard "Korner" returns, supplemented for the year 1991/92 by data from the radiology quality assurance programme. Most of the data refer to the prevalent screening round, but some data on rescreening are also available.
RESULTS: The total cancer detection rate at prevalent screens was 6.0/1000, 18% being in situ cancers; the detection rate of invasive cancers < or = 10 mm in diameter was 1.3/1000, but data on size were missing for 12% of cancers. Referral rates were significantly lower for programmes using two view mammography at the prevalent screen than for those using single view, and cancer detection rates were significantly higher. For prevalent screens over the three year period, 70% of programmes had a referral rate of < or = 7%, 87% had a benign biopsy rate of < or = 5/1000, and 79% had a cancer detection rate of > or = 5/1000. By contrast, only 30% of programmes appeared to meet the target detection rate of > 1.5/1000 for invasive cancers < or = 10 mm in diameter.
CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of interim targets are being met by the NHSBSP, the rate of detection of small invasive cancers requires careful monitoring. Collection of more accurate data on size of cancers and interval cancer rates will give a better indication of progress towards the target mortality reduction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8719146     DOI: 10.1177/096914139500200403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  9 in total

1.  Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

Authors:  R M Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-20

2.  Breast cancer screening. Screening has to be combined with good surgical and oncological services.

Authors:  C Palmieri; S Fishpool
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-02

3.  Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Linn A Abraham; Jessica S Fosse; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Calculating appropriate target cancer detection rates and expected interval cancer rates for the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme. Interval Cancer Working Group.

Authors:  S Moss; R Blanks
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative.

Authors:  D Paquette; J Snider; F Bouchard; I Olivotto; H Bryant; K Decker; G Doyle
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Authors:  R L Bennett; S J Sellars; S M Moss
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Interval cancers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  J Fracheboud; H J de Koning; P M Beemsterboer; R Boer; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; B M van Ineveld; M J Broeders; A E de Bruyn; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Preliminary effectiveness of breast cancer screening among 1.22 million Chinese females and different cancer patterns between urban and rural women.

Authors:  Yubei Huang; Hongji Dai; Fengju Song; Haixin Li; Ye Yan; Zhenhua Yang; Zhaoxiang Ye; Sheng Zhang; Hong Liu; Yali Cao; Li Xiong; Yahong Luo; Tie Pan; Xiangjun Ma; Jie Wang; Xiuling Song; Ling Leng; Yeping Zhang; Jie Sun; Jialin Wang; Hengmin Ma; Lingzhi Kong; Zhenglong Lei; Yaogang Wang; Wang Peishan; Jiali Han; Xishan Hao; Kexin Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Survival from breast cancer in England and Wales up to 2001.

Authors:  A Leary; I E Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.