Literature DB >> 9495236

Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening.

J Fracheboud1, H J de Koning, P M Beemsterboer, R Boer, J H Hendriks, A L Verbeek, B M van Ineveld, A E de Bruyn, P J van der Maas.   

Abstract

Based on an extensive cost-effectiveness analysis, the Dutch nation-wide breast cancer screening programme started in 1990, providing a biennial screen examination to women aged 50 to 69 years. The programme is monitored by the National Evaluation Team, which annually collects tabulated regional evaluation data to determine performance indicators. This study presents (trends in) the outcomes of initial and subsequent screening rounds, 1990-1995, and compares them to the predictions of the cost-effectiveness-analysis. Up to 1996, 88% of the target population was covered by the programme and more than 2.4 x 10(6) women were invited. The overall attendance rate was 77.5% with little differences between screening rounds and age groups; the highest rate was found in non-urbanised areas (82.4%). Of 1,000 initially (and 2 years thereafter) screened women, 13.4 (6.6) were referred for further investigation, 9.7 (4.4) were biopsied and 6.4 (3.4) had breast cancer. The positive predictive values of screen test and biopsy were 47% (51%) and 66% (78%), respectively. DCIS was diagnosed in 0.9 (0.5) and invasive cancers < or = 10 mm in 1.5 (1.0) per 1,000 screens. Lymph node metastases were found in 28% (24%) of the invasive cancers. Except the increasing attendance, which was much higher than expected, the results were fairly constant over the years. Contrary to initial screens, the results of subsequent screens did not fulfil expectations with regard to breast cancer detection and tumour size distribution. We conclude that the nation-wide screening programme is being implemented successfully. Given the results, the programme should contribute to a substantial breast cancer mortality reduction in the future. The discrepancy between observed and expected results in subsequent screens has to be watched carefully.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9495236     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19980302)75:5<694::aid-ijc6>3.0.co;2-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  20 in total

1.  Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

Authors:  Rianne Hupse; Maurice Samulski; Marc Lobbes; Ard den Heeten; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; David Beijerinck; Ruud Pijnappel; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Prospect-EPIC Utrecht: study design and characteristics of the cohort population. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

Authors:  L K Boker; P A van Noord; Y T van der Schouw; N V Koot; H B Bueno de Mesquita; E Riboli; D E Grobbee; P H Peeters
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).

Authors:  Louise E Johns; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  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

7.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Value of breast imaging in women with painful breasts: observational follow up study.

Authors:  L E Duijm; G L Guit; J H Hendriks; J O Zaat; W P Mali
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-11-28

9.  Combining method of detection and 70-gene signature for enhanced prognostication of breast cancer.

Authors:  J M N Lopes Cardozo; M K Schmidt; L J van 't Veer; F Cardoso; C Poncet; E J T Rutgers; C A Drukker
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Low fertility and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women.

Authors:  Clara C Elbers; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Cisca Wijmenga; Diederick E Grobbee; Yvonne T van der Schouw
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-10-16       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.