BACKGROUND: Although increasing rates of breast carcinoma incidence have been observed in Asian countries, appropriate strategies for detecting early stage breast carcinoma in such communities have been difficult to formulate, particularly because no large population screening trial specifically involving Asian women has been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of mammography as a screening technique for Singaporean women, who are predominantly Chinese. METHODS: In this prospective study, 166,600 women in Singapore ages 50-64 years were randomized to either 2-view mammography without physical examination (67,656) or observation (97,294, controls) over 2 years. RESULTS: Of these women, 28,231 (41.7%) responded and were screened; they were more likely to be married, have more formal education, be working, be Chinese, and be in a higher socioeconomic group (P < 0.001 for all variables). To assess for response bias that could affect outcome, results were also evaluated for nonrespondents (n = 39,425). The incidence rate of cancers among nonrespondents (1 per 1000 woman-years) was less than the 1.3 in women not invited to have screening (P = 0.03, relative risk [RR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.7). However, cancers arising from nonrespondents did not differ significantly in stage distribution when compared with cancers within the control group. For every 1000 women screened, 4.8 cancers were detected. The prevalence ratio (the number of cancers detected per 1000 women at first screening divided by the corresponding incidence rate in controls per year) was 3.6 for screened women and 2.4 for women invited to have screening. The majority of cancers detected through screening were early stage, with 64% as either ductal carcinoma in situ (26%) or Stage I disease (38%) and was significantly more than the corresponding 26% in women not invited to have screening (P < 0.001). When only invasive cancers were considered, screened women still had more early cancers, with 65% having no lymph node involvement, compared with 47% in the group not invited to have screening (P = 0.001; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7). Women who were screened had half the risk of having Stage II or later cancers (P < 0.0001; RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7) when compared with women not invited to have screening. This higher detection rate of early cancers through screening was accomplished with acceptable recall rates of 8% for further mammographic films or physical examination and a biopsy rate of 1.0% (10 per 1000 women screened). The interval cancer rate was 2.1 per 10,000 women screened in the first year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These positive results of intermediate measures suggest that, in Asian communities, screening mammography could be an important modality for detecting early stage breast carcinoma. However, the low compliance rates suggest that health education efforts must focus on issues related to acceptability if such programs are to succeed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although increasing rates of breast carcinoma incidence have been observed in Asian countries, appropriate strategies for detecting early stage breast carcinoma in such communities have been difficult to formulate, particularly because no large population screening trial specifically involving Asian women has been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of mammography as a screening technique for Singaporean women, who are predominantly Chinese. METHODS: In this prospective study, 166,600 women in Singapore ages 50-64 years were randomized to either 2-view mammography without physical examination (67,656) or observation (97,294, controls) over 2 years. RESULTS: Of these women, 28,231 (41.7%) responded and were screened; they were more likely to be married, have more formal education, be working, be Chinese, and be in a higher socioeconomic group (P < 0.001 for all variables). To assess for response bias that could affect outcome, results were also evaluated for nonrespondents (n = 39,425). The incidence rate of cancers among nonrespondents (1 per 1000 woman-years) was less than the 1.3 in women not invited to have screening (P = 0.03, relative risk [RR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.7). However, cancers arising from nonrespondents did not differ significantly in stage distribution when compared with cancers within the control group. For every 1000 women screened, 4.8 cancers were detected. The prevalence ratio (the number of cancers detected per 1000 women at first screening divided by the corresponding incidence rate in controls per year) was 3.6 for screened women and 2.4 for women invited to have screening. The majority of cancers detected through screening were early stage, with 64% as either ductal carcinoma in situ (26%) or Stage I disease (38%) and was significantly more than the corresponding 26% in women not invited to have screening (P < 0.001). When only invasive cancers were considered, screened women still had more early cancers, with 65% having no lymph node involvement, compared with 47% in the group not invited to have screening (P = 0.001; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7). Women who were screened had half the risk of having Stage II or later cancers (P < 0.0001; RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7) when compared with women not invited to have screening. This higher detection rate of early cancers through screening was accomplished with acceptable recall rates of 8% for further mammographic films or physical examination and a biopsy rate of 1.0% (10 per 1000 women screened). The interval cancer rate was 2.1 per 10,000 women screened in the first year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These positive results of intermediate measures suggest that, in Asian communities, screening mammography could be an important modality for detecting early stage breast carcinoma. However, the low compliance rates suggest that health education efforts must focus on issues related to acceptability if such programs are to succeed.
Authors: Eunjung Lee; Chris Hsu; David Van den Berg; Giske Ursin; Woon-Puay Koh; Jian-Min Yuan; Daniel O Stram; Mimi C Yu; Anna H Wu Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Valerie A McCormack; Anya Burton; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva; John H Hipwell; Caroline Dickens; Dorria Salem; Rasha Kamal; Mikael Hartman; Charmaine Pei Ling Lee; Kee-Seng Chia; Vahit Ozmen; Mustafa Erkin Aribal; Anath Arzee Flugelman; Martín Lajous; Ruy Lopez-Riduara; Megan Rice; Isabelle Romieu; Giske Ursin; Samera Qureshi; Huiyan Ma; Eunjung Lee; Carla H van Gils; Johanna O P Wanders; Sudhir Vinayak; Rose Ndumia; Steve Allen; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sue Moss; Jong Won Lee; Jisun Kim; Ana Pereira; Maria Luisa Garmendia; Reza Sirous; Mehri Sirous; Beata Peplonska; Agnieszka Bukowska; Rulla M Tamimi; Kimberly Bertrand; Chisato Nagata; Ava Kwong; Celine Vachon; Christopher Scott; Beatriz Perez-Gomez; Marina Pollan; Gertraud Maskarinec; Graham Giles; John Hopper; Jennifer Stone; Nadia Rajaram; Soo-Hwang Teo; Shivaani Mariapun; Martin J Yaffe; Joachim Schüz; Anna M Chiarelli; Linda Linton; Norman F Boyd Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: M Massaccesi; C Digesù; G Macchia; F Deodato; M Ciuffreda; E Cucci; L Caravatta; G Corrado; G D A Padula; R De Vizia; N Cellini; V Valentini; G Sallustio; G Ferrandina; F Pacelli; A G Morganti Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Eunjung Lee; David Van Den Berg; Chris Hsu; Giske Ursin; Woon-Puay Koh; Jian-Min Yuan; Daniel O Stram; Mimi C Yu; Anna H Wu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Wen Yee Chay; Whee Sze Ong; Puay Hoon Tan; Nicholas Qi Jie Leo; Gay Hui Ho; Chia Siong Wong; Kee Seng Chia; Khuan Yew Chow; Minhan Tan; Peter Ang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Fei Gao; David Machin; Khuan-Yew Chow; Yu-Fan Sim; Stephen W Duffy; David B Matchar; Chien-Hui Goh; Kee-Seng Chia Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ali Ozhand; Eunjung Lee; Anna H Wu; Merete Ellingjord-Dale; Lars A Akslen; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Giske Ursin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 3.240