Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 7/2019

01-07-2019 | Breast Cancer | Breast

An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme

Authors: R. G. Blanks, R. M. Given-Wilson, S. L. Cohen, J. Patnick, R. J. Alison, M. G. Wallis

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To develop methods to model the relationship between cancer detection and recall rates to inform professional standards.

Methods

Annual screening programme information for each of the 80 English NHSBSP units (totalling 11.3 million screening tests) for the seven screening years from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2016 and some Dutch screening programme information were used to produce linear and non-linear models. The non-linear models estimated the modelled maximum values (MMV) for cancers detected at different grades and estimated how rapidly the MMV was reached (the modelled ‘slope’ (MS)). Main outcomes include the detection rate for combined invasive/micro-invasive and high-grade DCIS (IHG) detection rate and the low/intermediate grade DCIS (LIG) detection rate.

Results

At prevalent screens for IHG cancers, 99% of the MMV was reached at a recall rate of 7.0%. The LIG detection rate had no discernible plateau, increasing linearly at a rate of 0.12 per 1000 for every 1% increase in recall rate. At incident screens, 99% of the MMV for IHG cancer detection was 4.0%. LIG DCIS increased linearly at a rate of 0.18 per 1000 per 1% increase in recall rate.

Conclusions

Our models demonstrate the diminishing returns associated with increasing recall rates. The screening programme in England could use the models to set recall rate ranges, and other countries could explore similar methodology.

Key Points

• Question: How can we determine optimum recall rates in breast cancer screening?
• Findings: In this large observational study, we show that increases in recall rates above defined levels are almost exclusively associated with false positive recalls and a very small increase in low/intermediate grade DCIS.
• Meaning: High recall rates are not associated with increases in detection of life-threatening cancers. The models developed in this paper can be used to help set recall rate ranges that maximise benefit and minimise harm.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240 Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240
4.
go back to reference Tabàr L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O (1992) Update of the Swedish-two county programme of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30:187–210 Tabàr L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O (1992) Update of the Swedish-two county programme of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30:187–210
5.
go back to reference Blanks RG, Day NE, Moss SM (1996) Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen 3:79–81CrossRefPubMed Blanks RG, Day NE, Moss SM (1996) Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen 3:79–81CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European communities Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European communities
7.
go back to reference Evans AJ, Blanks RG (2002) Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 57:1086–1089CrossRefPubMed Evans AJ, Blanks RG (2002) Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 57:1086–1089CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Surg 150(8):739–745CrossRefPubMed Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Surg 150(8):739–745CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Benson JR, Jatoi I, Toi M (2016) Treatment of low risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ: is nothing better than something? Lancet Oncol 17(1):e442–e451CrossRefPubMed Benson JR, Jatoi I, Toi M (2016) Treatment of low risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ: is nothing better than something? Lancet Oncol 17(1):e442–e451CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EAM, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ (2013) Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observation in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 49:3517–3525CrossRefPubMed Van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EAM, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ (2013) Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observation in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 49:3517–3525CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283(1):49–58CrossRefPubMed Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283(1):49–58CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Raffle AE, Muir Gray JA (2007) Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford University Press Raffle AE, Muir Gray JA (2007) Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford University Press
16.
go back to reference Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and United Kingdom. JAMA 290:2129–2138 Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and United Kingdom. JAMA 290:2129–2138
17.
go back to reference Wallis MG, Lawrence GM, Brenner RJ (2008) Improving quality outcomes in a single-payer system: lessons learnt from the UK Breast Screening Program. J Am Coll Radiol 5:737–743 Wallis MG, Lawrence GM, Brenner RJ (2008) Improving quality outcomes in a single-payer system: lessons learnt from the UK Breast Screening Program. J Am Coll Radiol 5:737–743
18.
go back to reference Given-Wilson R, Blanks RG, Moss SM et al (1999) An evaluation of breast cancer screening in South Thames (West) Region of the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme: the first 10 years. Breast 8:66–71 Given-Wilson R, Blanks RG, Moss SM et al (1999) An evaluation of breast cancer screening in South Thames (West) Region of the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme: the first 10 years. Breast 8:66–71
19.
go back to reference Burnside ES, Vulcan D, Blanks RG, Duffy SW (2018) The association between screening mammography recall rate and interval cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Programme: a cohort study. Radiology 288(1):47–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Burnside ES, Vulcan D, Blanks RG, Duffy SW (2018) The association between screening mammography recall rate and interval cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Programme: a cohort study. Radiology 288(1):47–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Metadata
Title
An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme
Authors
R. G. Blanks
R. M. Given-Wilson
S. L. Cohen
J. Patnick
R. J. Alison
M. G. Wallis
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5957-2

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

European Radiology 7/2019 Go to the issue