Top

Published in:

01-10-2019 | Mammography | Breast

Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting

Authors: Lauro Bucchi, Alessandra Ravaioli, Flavia Baldacchini, Orietta Giuliani, Silvia Mancini, Rosa Vattiato, Fabio Falcini, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Cinzia Campari, Debora Canuti, Enza Di Felice, Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi, Stefano Ferretti, Nicoletta Bertozzi, on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2019

Abstract

Objective

To compare the results of 5 years of annual mammography screening at age 45–49 with the results of 5 years of biennial screening at age 50–54 and 55–69.

Methods

In an Italian screening programme, data from 1,465,335 mammograms were analysed. Recall rates, invasive assessment rates, surgical biopsy (including excisional biopsy and definitive surgical treatment) rates, and cancer detection rates were calculated for the first screen (first) and, cumulatively, for the second and subsequent screens (second+).

Results

The rate ratios between younger women and the two groups of older ones were (in parentheses, original figures per 1000 mammograms if not otherwise specified): recall rate: first 1.11 (103.6 vs. 93.5) and 1.11 (vs. 93.2), second+ 2.10 (208.9 vs. 99.7) and 2.77 (vs. 75.5); invasive assessment rate: first 0.94 (23.0 vs. 24.5) and 0.94 (vs. 24.6), second+ 1.63 (35.8 vs. 22.0) and 1.56 (vs. 23.0); surgical biopsy rate: first 0.68 (5.9 vs. 8.6) and 0.45 (vs. 13.2), second+ 1.35 (11.5 vs. 8.5) and 0.88 (vs. 13.0); total detection rate: first 0.63 (4.3 vs. 6.7) and 0.37 (vs. 11.7), second+ 1.30 (8.9 vs. 6.8) and 0.74 (vs. 12.0); total positive predictive value of surgical biopsy: first 0.93 (72.8% vs. 78.0%) and 0.82 (vs. 88.9%), second+ 0.96 (77.2% vs. 80.5%) and 0.83 (vs. 92.7%).

Conclusion

Younger women experienced two to threefold higher cumulative recall rates at second+ screens and limited differences in surgical biopsy rate. Albeit encouraging, these results must be completed with further investigation, especially on interval cancer incidence.

Key Points

• At repeated screens, cumulative recall rate was two- to threefold higher for younger women.

• Differences in cumulative surgical referral and surgical biopsy rates were moderate.

• Differences in positive predictive value of surgical biopsy were particularly small.

Available only for authorised users

Executive summary (2006) In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 5–14

Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening: viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358CrossRefPubMed

Siu AL (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296CrossRefPubMed

Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):72–82CrossRefPubMed

Moser K, Sellars S, Wheaton M et al (2011) Extending the age range for breast screening in England: pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of randomization. J Med Screen 18:96–102CrossRefPubMed

European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (2018) Recommendations from European Breast Guidelines. Should organised mammography screening vs. no mammography screening be used for early detection of breast cancer in women aged 45 to 49? Available via https://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations/details/5bbf4f4e9a8bbc0fd5635575. Accessed 15 November 2018

Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314:1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oberaigner W, Daniaux M, Geiger-Gritsch S, Knapp R, Siebert U, Buchberger W (2011) Introduction of organised mammography screening in Tyrol: results following first year of complete rollout. BMC Public Health 11:673CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Distante V, Ciatto S, Frigerio A et al (2007) Recommendations of a national Italian consensus conference on the opportunity of extending screening service by mammography to 40-49 and 70-74 years of age women. Epidemiol Prev 31:15–22

10.

Bucchi L, Falcini F, Baraldi GP et al (2003) Integrating self-referral for mammography into organised screening: results from an Italian experience. J Med Screen 10:134–138CrossRefPubMed

11.

Bucchi L, Ravaioli A, Foca F, Colamartini A, Falcini F, Naldoni C (2008) Incidence of interval breast cancers after 650,000 negative mammographies in 13 Italian health districts. J Med Screen 15:30–35CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sassoli de Bianchi P, Ravaioli A, Ferretti S et al (2017) Extension of the target age range of mammography screening programme and governance of mammography practice in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Northern Italy). Epidemiol Prev 41:38–45

13.

Ventura L, Giorgi D, Giordano L, Frigerio A, Mantellini P, Zappa M (2015) Mammographic breast cancer screening in Italy: 2011-2012 survey. Epidemiol Prev 39(3 Suppl 1):21–29PubMed

14.

Giordano L, Castagno R, Giorgi D et al (2015) Breast cancer screening in Italy: evaluating key performance indicators for time trends and activity volumes. Epidemiol Prev 39(3 Suppl 1):30–39PubMed

15.

Ponti A, Mano MP, Tomatis M et al (2015) Audit system on Quality of breast cancer diagnosis and Treatment (QT): results of quality indicators on screen-detected lesions in Italy, 2011-2012. Epidemiol Prev 39(3 Suppl 1):40–47PubMed

16.

Morrone D, Giordano L, Artuso F et al (2016) Factors associated with breast screening radiologists’ annual mammogram reading volume in Italy. Radiol Med 121:557–563CrossRefPubMed

17.

Fletcher SW (1997) Breast cancer screening among women in their forties: an overview of the issues. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:5–9CrossRef

18.

Boyle P, Parkin DM (1991) Statistical methods for registries. In: Jensen OM, Parkin DM, MacLennan R, Muir CS, Skeet RG (eds) Cancer registration: principles and methods. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp 126–158

19.

Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner M (2000) Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines, 2nd edn. British Medical Journal Books, London

20.

Moss S (2004) Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer? Br J Cancer 91:413–417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE (2007) Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 146:516–526CrossRefPubMed

22.

van den Ende C, Oordt-Speets AM, Vroling H, van Agt HME (2017) Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 141:1295–1306CrossRefPubMed

23.

Moss SM, Wale C, Smith R, Evans A, Cuckle H, Duffy SW (2015) Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16:1123–1132CrossRefPubMed

24.

Njor SH, Paci E, Rebolj M (2018) As you like it: how the same data can support manifold views of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer 143:1287–1294CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pitman JA, McGinty GB, Soman RR, Drotman MB, Reichman MB, Arleo EK (2017) Screening mammography for women in their 40s: the potential impact of the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:697–702CrossRefPubMed

26.

Sankatsing VD, Heijnsdijk EA, van Luijt PA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ (2015) Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands. Int J Cancer 137:1990–1999CrossRefPubMed

27.

Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC et al (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R45–R49CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kerlikowske K, Barclay J (1997) Outcomes of modern screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:105–111CrossRef

29.

Sickles EA (1997) Breast cancer screening outcomes in women ages 40-49: clinical experience with service screening using modern mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:99–104CrossRef

30.

Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabár L, Chen HH, Smith TC (1997) Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:93–97CrossRef

31.

Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440CrossRefPubMed

32.

White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2004) Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1832–1839CrossRefPubMed

33.

Wai ES, D’yachkova Y, Olivotto IA et al (2005) Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography. Br J Cancer 92:961–966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA et al (2013) Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med 173:807–816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, Houssami N, Irwig L (2007) Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 8:1129–1138

Title: Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting
Authors: Lauro Bucchi
Alessandra Ravaioli
Flavia Baldacchini
Orietta Giuliani
Silvia Mancini
Rosa Vattiato
Fabio Falcini
Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Cinzia Campari
Debora Canuti
Enza Di Felice
Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi
Stefano Ferretti
Nicoletta Bertozzi
on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation
Publication date: 01-10-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Mammography
Mammography
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Intrahepatic dynamic contrast MR lymphangiography: initial experience with a new technique for the assessment of liver lymphatics

Defining the incremental value of 3D T2-weighted imaging in the assessment of prostate cancer extracapsular extension

Comparison of MR T1 and T2 mapping parameters to characterize myocardial and skeletal muscle involvement in systemic idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM)

US-guided microwave ablation for primary hyperparathyroidism: a safety and efficacy study

Diagnostic accuracy of hepatic proton density fat fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of liver steatosis with histology as reference standard: a meta-analysis

Image-based biomarkers for solid tumor quantification