Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Breast Cancer | Research article

Flemish breast cancer screening programme: 15 years of key performance indicators (2002–2016)

Authors: M. Goossens, I. De Brabander, J. De Grève, C. Van Ongeval, P. Martens, E. Van Limbergen, E. Kellen

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We examined 15 years of key performance indicators (KPIs) of the population-based mammography screening programme (PMSP) in Flanders, Belgium.

Methods

Individual screening data were linked to the national cancer registry to obtain oncological follow-up. We benchmarked crude KPI results against KPI-targets set by the European guidelines and KPI results of other national screening programmes. Temporal trends were examined by plotting age-standardised KPIs against the year of screening and estimating the Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC).

Results

PMSP coverage increased significantly over the period of 15 years (+ 7.5% AAPC), but the increase fell to + 1.6% after invitation coverage was maximised. In 2016, PMSP coverage was at 50.0% and opportunistic coverage was at 14.1%, resulting in a total coverage by screening of 64.2%. The response to the invitations was 49.8% in 2016, without a trend. Recall rate decreased significantly (AAPC -1.5% & -5.0% in initial and subsequent regular screenings respectively) while cancer detection remained stable (AAPC 0.0%). The result was an increased positive predictive value (AAPC + 3.8%). Overall programme sensitivity was stable and was at 65.1% in 2014.
In initial screens of 2015, the proportion of DCIS, tumours stage II+, and node negative invasive cancers was 18.2, 31.2, and 61.6% respectively. In subsequent regular screens of 2015, those proportions were 14.0, 24.8, and 65.4% respectively. Trends were not significant.

Conclusion

Besides a suboptimal attendance rate, most KPIs in the Flemish PMSP meet EU benchmark targets. Nonetheless, there are several priorities for further investigation such as a critical evaluation of strategies to increase screening participation, organising a biennial radiological review of interval cancers, analysing the effect that preceding opportunistic screening has on the KPI for initial screenings, and efforts to estimate the impact on breast cancer mortality.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205–40.CrossRef Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205–40.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Broeders M, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19:14–25.CrossRef Broeders M, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19:14–25.CrossRef
3.
4.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:4–22.CrossRef Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:4–22.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Boyer B, Canale S, Arfi-Rouche J, Monzani Q, Khaled W, Balleyguier C. Variability and errors when applying the BIRADS mammography classification. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:388–97.CrossRef Boyer B, Canale S, Arfi-Rouche J, Monzani Q, Khaled W, Balleyguier C. Variability and errors when applying the BIRADS mammography classification. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:388–97.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Henau K, et al. Regional variation of incidence for smoking and alcohol related cancers in Belgium, 2014. Henau K, et al. Regional variation of incidence for smoking and alcohol related cancers in Belgium, 2014.
7.
go back to reference Segi M, Fujisaku S, Kurihama M, Naray Y, Sasajima K. The age-adjusted death rates for malignant neoplasms in some selected sites in 23 countries in 1954-1955 and their geographical correlation. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1960;72:91–103.CrossRef Segi M, Fujisaku S, Kurihama M, Naray Y, Sasajima K. The age-adjusted death rates for malignant neoplasms in some selected sites in 23 countries in 1954-1955 and their geographical correlation. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1960;72:91–103.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Clegg L, et al. Estimating average annual per cent change in trend analysis. Stat Med. 2009;28:3670–8.CrossRef Clegg L, et al. Estimating average annual per cent change in trend analysis. Stat Med. 2009;28:3670–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Autier P, et al. Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2010;341:c3620.CrossRef Autier P, et al. Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2010;341:c3620.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Leslie W, et al. Trends in hip fracture rates in Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:883–9.CrossRef Leslie W, et al. Trends in hip fracture rates in Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:883–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Blanks R, Moss S, Wallis M. Monitoring and evaluating the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: evaluating the variation in radiological performance between individual programmes using PPV-referral diagrams. J Med Screen. 2001;8:24–8.CrossRef Blanks R, Moss S, Wallis M. Monitoring and evaluating the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: evaluating the variation in radiological performance between individual programmes using PPV-referral diagrams. J Med Screen. 2001;8:24–8.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference De Gauquier K, Remacle A, Fabri V, Mertens R. Evaluation of the first round of the national breast cancer screening programme in Flanders, Belgium. Arch Public Health. 2006;64:71–80. De Gauquier K, Remacle A, Fabri V, Mertens R. Evaluation of the first round of the national breast cancer screening programme in Flanders, Belgium. Arch Public Health. 2006;64:71–80.
14.
go back to reference Adriana MJ, et al. Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(9):2067–73.CrossRef Adriana MJ, et al. Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(9):2067–73.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Timmermans L, et al. Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(8):1808–19.CrossRef Timmermans L, et al. Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(8):1808–19.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Puddu M, Tafforeau J. Opportuniteit van borstkankerscreening bij vrouwen tussen 40 en 49 jaar. Brussel: Wetenschappelijk Instituut Volksgezondheid; 2005. Puddu M, Tafforeau J. Opportuniteit van borstkankerscreening bij vrouwen tussen 40 en 49 jaar. Brussel: Wetenschappelijk Instituut Volksgezondheid; 2005.
17.
go back to reference Heidinger O, et al. Digital mammography screening in Germany: impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity. Breast. 2015;24(3):191–6.CrossRef Heidinger O, et al. Digital mammography screening in Germany: impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity. Breast. 2015;24(3):191–6.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sankatsing V, et al. Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:256.CrossRef Sankatsing V, et al. Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:256.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Domingo L, et al. Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S. , Norway and Spain. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2520–8.CrossRef Domingo L, et al. Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S. , Norway and Spain. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2520–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Théberge I, et al. Clinical image quality and sensitivity in an organized mammography screening program. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69(1):16–23.CrossRef Théberge I, et al. Clinical image quality and sensitivity in an organized mammography screening program. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69(1):16–23.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Goossens M, et al. Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017;26(5):396–403.CrossRef Goossens M, et al. Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017;26(5):396–403.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Goossens M, Van Hal G, Van der Burg M, et al. Quantifying independent risk factors for failing to rescreen in a breast cancer screening program in Flanders, Belgium. Prev Med. 2014;69:280–6.CrossRef Goossens M, Van Hal G, Van der Burg M, et al. Quantifying independent risk factors for failing to rescreen in a breast cancer screening program in Flanders, Belgium. Prev Med. 2014;69:280–6.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Maxwell A, Beattie C, Lavelle J, Lyburn I, Sinnatamby R, Garnett S, Herbert A. The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study. J Med Screen. 2013;20:91–8.CrossRef Maxwell A, Beattie C, Lavelle J, Lyburn I, Sinnatamby R, Garnett S, Herbert A. The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study. J Med Screen. 2013;20:91–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Flemish breast cancer screening programme: 15 years of key performance indicators (2002–2016)
Authors
M. Goossens
I. De Brabander
J. De Grève
C. Van Ongeval
P. Martens
E. Van Limbergen
E. Kellen
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6230-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Cancer 1/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine