Literature DB >> 8935470

Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen, The Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975-92.

J D Otten1, J A van Dijck, P G Peer, H Straatman, A L Verbeek, M Mravunac, J H Hendriks, R Holland.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of breast cancer screening in different age categories over two decades.
DESIGN: Important determinants of reduced breast cancer mortality such as attendance, mammography performance, cancer detection, and disease stage were recorded.
SETTING: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1975-92.
SUBJECTS: Since 1975 more than 40,000 women aged 35 years and older have been invited biennially for breast screening in a population based project in Nijmegen. MAIN
RESULTS: Rates of attendance, referral, detection, and disease stage were calculated, as well as the specificity of screening mammography and the predictive value of referral and biopsy. From round 3 onwards, the attendance rate of women younger than 50 years stabilised at 70%, in women of 50-69 years it was 62%, and in women aged 70 and over it was 22%. In these three age categories, the referral rates of a positive screening mammography per 1000 screened women were 4.9, 6.2, and 11.8, respectively. Specificity rates were between 99% and 100%. Current predictive values of referral were high: in the specific age categories 39%, 59%, and 68% of the referred women had cancer. Detection rates remained fairly stable over the rounds 4-9, at 1.9, 3.6, and 8.0 cancers per 1000 screened women. In the two year period between screening the numbers of interval cancers per 1000 screened women were 2.2, 2.2, and 2.9, for the three age categories respectively. With regard to invasive cancers detected during screening, the percentage of small tumours (< or = 20 mm on the mammogram) was 84% in each age category. For women younger than 50 years, the proportion of intraductal carcinoma in all the cancers detected at screening was 40%, while it was 15% in the other age categories.
CONCLUSION: Throughout the nine rounds, the screening outcomes were found to be adequate, particularly considering the high specificity rate and the predictive value of referral without the interference of a low detection rate. Although the occurrence of interval cancers seemed high, it was similar to other screening programmes. Despite a relatively low referral rate, the ratios of screen detected versus interval cancer cases were favourable. Well organised screening programmes can achieve good mammography results without too many false positives. It is important that women continue to participate in a screening programme because cancer can still be detected even after several successive negative screening examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8935470      PMCID: PMC1060295          DOI: 10.1136/jech.50.3.353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  21 in total

1.  Mammography screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1993-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer.

Authors:  B Fisher; J Costantino; C Redmond; E Fisher; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; L Ore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Efficacy of mammographic screening of the elderly: a case-referent study in the Nijmegen program in The Netherlands.

Authors:  J A van Dijck; R Holland; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; M Mravunac
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1994-06-15       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  J A van Dijck; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1993-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  L Tabàr; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day; A Gad; O Gröntoft
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 6.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification.

Authors:  R Holland; J L Peterse; R R Millis; V Eusebi; D Faverly; M J van de Vijver; B Zafrani
Journal:  Semin Diagn Pathol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.464

7.  National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2.

Authors:  J Chamberlain; S M Moss; A E Kirkpatrick; M Michell; L Johns
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-08-07

8.  Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's north western region.

Authors:  C B Woodman; A G Threlfall; C R Boggis; P Prior
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-01-28

9.  Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; W Black; R Harris; B K Rimer; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Comparative pathology of breast cancer in a randomised trial of screening.

Authors:  T J Anderson; J Lamb; P Donnan; F E Alexander; A Huggins; B B Muir; A E Kirkpatrick; U Chetty; W Hepburn; A Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive assessment in the Dutch breast cancer screening program versus usual care: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Johanna M Timmers; Johanna A Damen; Ruud M Pijnappel; André L Verbeek; Gerard J den Heeten; Eddy M Adang; Mireille J Broeders
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2014-07-31

3.  Determinants of non-compliance to recommendations on breast cancer screening among women participating in the French E3N cohort study.

Authors:  Camille Flamant; Estelle Gauthier; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality?

Authors:  C H van Gils; J D Otten; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 5.  Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?

Authors:  J A van Dijck; M J Broeders; A L Verbeek
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.923

6.  Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Theodora M Ripping; Jessica Chubak; Mireille J M Broeders; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Effect of repeated invitations on uptake of colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: analysis of prevalence and incidence screening.

Authors:  R J C Steele; I Kostourou; P McClements; C Watling; G Libby; D Weller; D H Brewster; R Black; F A Carey; C Fraser
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-10-27

8.  Screening mammography and Pap tests among older American women 1996-2000: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD).

Authors:  Truls Ostbye; Gary N Greenberg; Donald H Taylor; Ann Marie M Lee
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Authors:  C H van Gils; J D Otten; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Theodora Maria Ripping; Rebecca A Hubbard; Johannes D M Otten; Gerard J den Heeten; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.