Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 5517–5527 | Cite as

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

  • Lauro BucchiEmail author
  • 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
Breast
  • 148 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Mass screening Mammography Breast neoplasms Premenopause Biopsy 

Abbreviations

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

ECIBC

European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer

FNA

Fine-needle aspiration

GISMa

Italian Group for Mammography Screening

NCB

Needle core biopsy

PPV

Positive predictive value

VAB

Vacuum-assisted biopsy

Notes

Acknowledgements

The membership of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation is as follows: Stefano Ferretti (University of Ferrara and Local Health Authority, Ferrara, Italy); Nicoletta Bertozzi, Enza Di Felice, Alba Carola Finarelli, Carlo Naldoni, Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi (Department of Health, Regional Administration, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy); Flavia Baldacchini, Lauro Bucchi, Orietta Giuliani, Silvia Mancini, Alessandra Ravaioli, Rosa Vattiato (Romagna Cancer Institute, IRST, IRCCS, Meldola, Forlì, Italy); Fabio Falcini (Romagna Cancer Institute, IRST, IRCCS, Meldola, Forlì, and Local Health Authority, Forlì, Italy); Elisabetta Borciani, Giorgio Celoni, Giorgio Gatti, Rosella Schianchi (Local Health Authority, Piacenza, Italy); Nicoletta Piazza, Marella Zatelli (Local Health Authority, Parma, Italy); Paolo Giorgi Rossi (Epidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy); Cinzia Campari, Antonella Cattani, Luisa Paterlini (Cancer Screening Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy); Carlo Alberto Mori, Rita Vacondio (Cancer Screening Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy); Valeria Bellelli, Giuliano Carrozzi, Rossella Corradini, Claudia Mauri, Rossella Negri (Local Health Authority, Modena, Italy); Carmen Bazzani, Marilena Manfredi, Francesca Mezzetti, Adriana Pasquini, Gianni Saguatti (Local Health Authority, Bologna, Italy); Licia Caprara, Stefania Cortecchia, Margherita De Lillo, Roberto Nannini (Local Health Authority, Imola, Italy); Giorgio Benea, Aldo De Togni, Caterina Palmonari, Roberto Pasqualini (Local Health Authority, Ferrara, Italy); Patrizia Bravetti, Monica Serafini, Benedetta Vitali (Local Health Authority, Ravenna, Italy); Antonella Bagni, Claudia Imolesi, Mauro Palazzi (Local Health Authority, Cesena, Italy); Debora Canuti, Lorenzo Menghini, Giancarla Monticelli (Local Health Authority, Rimini, Italy).

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Lauro Bucchi.

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

Three of the authors have significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because of its retrospective nature.

Ethical approval

Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained (ID: IRST 100.37).

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• multicentre study

Supplementary material

330_2019_6050_MOESM1_ESM.docx (305 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 305 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    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 5–14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening: viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siu AL (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):72–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 18:96–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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 314:1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 11:673CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 31:15–22Google Scholar
  10. 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 10:134–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 15:30–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 41:38–45Google Scholar
  13. 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):21–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):30–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):40–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morrone D, Giordano L, Artuso F et al (2016) Factors associated with breast screening radiologists’ annual mammogram reading volume in Italy. Radiol Med 121:557–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher SW (1997) Breast cancer screening among women in their forties: an overview of the issues. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 126–158Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner M (2000) Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines, 2nd edn. British Medical Journal Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moss S (2004) Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer? Br J Cancer 91:413–417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 146:516–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 141:1295–1306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 16:1123–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 143:1287–1294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 209:697–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 137:1990–1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC et al (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R45–R49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kerlikowske K, Barclay J (1997) Outcomes of modern screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 22:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 22:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 96:1432–1440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 96:1832–1839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 92:961–966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 173:807–816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 8:1129–1138Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauro Bucchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandra Ravaioli
    • 1
  • Flavia Baldacchini
    • 1
  • Orietta Giuliani
    • 1
  • Silvia Mancini
    • 1
  • Rosa Vattiato
    • 1
  • Fabio Falcini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paolo Giorgi Rossi
    • 3
  • Cinzia Campari
    • 4
  • Debora Canuti
    • 5
  • Enza Di Felice
    • 6
  • Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi
    • 6
  • Stefano Ferretti
    • 7
  • Nicoletta Bertozzi
    • 6
  • on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation
  1. 1.Romagna Cancer RegistryRomagna Cancer Institute (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRST, IRCCS)ForlìItaly
  2. 2.Local Health AuthorityForlìItaly
  3. 3.Epidemiology UnitAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS di Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  4. 4.Cancer Screening UnitAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS di Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  5. 5.Local Health AuthorityRiminiItaly
  6. 6.Department of HealthRegional Administration, Emilia-Romagna RegionBolognaItaly
  7. 7.University of Ferrara and Local Health AuthorityFerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations