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
- 16 Downloads
To develop methods to model the relationship between cancer detection and recall rates to inform professional standards.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
KeywordsBreast neoplasms Mass screening Mammography Recall rate
Trial age extension trial
Ductal carcinoma in situ
False positive (non-cancer) recalls
Korner return used to collect NHS data (breast screening return is no. 62)
Low/intermediate grade (DCIS)
Modelled maximum value
Modelled slope (how rapidly MMV is reached)
National Health Service Breast Screening Programme
Recall rate at which 95% of MMV is reached
Positive predictive value
The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute
The work arose from initial discussions at the Clinical Advisory Group for NHSBSP assessment work (members Roger Blanks, Claire Borrelli, Sue Cohen, Alison Duncan, Rosalind Given-Wilson, Jacquie Jenkins, Olive Kearins, Sarah Pinder, Mark Sibbering, Nisha Sharma, Jim Steel, Anne Turnbull and Matthew Wallis).
Roger Blanks and Rupert Alison receive funding from the Public Health England.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Julietta Patnick.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because there is no identifiable patient data.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because there is no identifiable patient data.
- 1.Consolidated Standards for NHS Breast Screening Programme April 2017 Public Health England https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589227/Breast_draft_standards_V1.7.pdf accessed 20/7/2017
- 2.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 108:2205–2240Google Scholar
- 3.http://www.agex.uk/ accessed 1 Jan 2018
- 4.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 30:187–210Google Scholar
- 6.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 communitiesGoogle Scholar
- 8.Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17:109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00446-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.NHS Digital, Breast Screening Programme, England - 2015-16 https://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB23376 accessed 1 Jan 2018
- 15.Raffle AE, Muir Gray JA (2007) Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- 16.Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and United Kingdom. JAMA 290:2129–2138Google Scholar
- 17.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 5:737–743Google Scholar
- 18.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 8:66–71Google Scholar
- 20.Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI et al (2018) Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2