Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting
- 148 Downloads
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.
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+).
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%).
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.
• 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.
KeywordsMass screening Mammography Breast neoplasms Premenopause Biopsy
Ductal carcinoma in situ
European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer
Italian Group for Mammography Screening
Needle core biopsy
Positive predictive value
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).
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because of its retrospective nature.
Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained (ID: IRST 100.37).
• multicentre study
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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