Skip to main content

Stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates among participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment volume 135, pages 291–299 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program was rolled out county by county over the course of a decade, from 1996 to 2005, and now encompasses all Norwegian women aged 50–69 years. We aim to compare DCIS and stage-specific invasive breast cancer incidence rates among participants, non-participants, and women not yet invited to the screening program over this entire implementation period. We estimate stage-specific breast tumor incidence rates for 640,347 women 50–69 years of age invited to the screening program between 1996 and 2007. We compare incidence rates and stage distribution among women diagnosed with breast cancer who were invited and participated, invited but not participated, and women not yet invited to the screening program using two-sided Chi-squared tests to determine statistical significance between groups. The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 3.0 times higher and invasive breast cancer was 1.5 times higher for invited participants compared to invited non-participants (p < 0.001). While the incidence of Stage I cancer was two times higher among participants compared to non-participants (p < 0.001), the incidences of Stages III and IV cancer were two and three times lower, respectively, among participants compared to non-participants (p < 0.001 for both). No significant differences in stage-specific incidence or treatment utilization rates were observed between invited non-participants and not yet invited women, except for stage IV cancers, which were detected at a higher rate among women who were not yet invited (7.5 vs. 4.6 %, p = 0.001). Compared with women invited who did not participate, participants in the screening program are more likely to be diagnosed with DCIS and early stage invasive breast cancer and are less likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer. More research is required to determine whether these differences in stage-specific incidences among invited participants and non-participants are associated with differences in mortality rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Abbreviations

NBCSP:

Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

CRN:

Cancer Registry of Norway

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

References

  1. Vainio H, Bianchini F (eds) (2002) IARC handbook of cancer prevention Volume 7 Breast Cancer Screening. IARCPress, Lyon. http://www.iarc.fr. Accessed December 7, 2011

  2. Food and Drug Administration (1997) Quality Mammography Standards. Final Rules-21 CRF Parts 16 and 900 (docket No. 95N-0192) RIN 0910-AA24 edition. 2011. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, pp 55925–55926

  3. Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement (2009). Ann Intern Med 151:716–236

    Google Scholar 

  4. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH et al (2010) Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 17:25–30

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jorgensen KJ, Klahn A, Gotzsche PC (2007) Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med 5:12

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC, Maehlen J (2011) Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol 12:1118–1124

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami HO (2010) Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 363:1203–1210

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten L (2011) Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ 343:d4411. doi:10.1136/bmj.d441

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Olsen AH, Njor SH, Lynge E (2007) Estimating the benefits of mammography screening: the impact of study design. Epidemiology 18:487–492

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Paap E, Holland R, den Heeten GJ et al (2010) A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study. Cancer Causes Control 21:1569–1573

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2003) Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361:1405–1410

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M (2011) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD001877

  15. Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group (2006) Reduction in breast cancer mortality from the organised service screening with mammography: 2. Validation with alternative analytic methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:52–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group (2006) Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalager M, Haldorsen T, Bretthauer M, Hoff G, Thoresen SO, Adami HO (2009) Improved breast cancer survival following introduction of an organized mammography screening program among both screened and unscreened women: a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 11:R44

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF (2003) International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(18):1384–1393

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 290(16):2129–2137

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, Thoresen S, Skaane P (2007) Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 22:447–455

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Buiatti E, Barchielli A, Bartolacci S et al (2003) The impact of organised screening programmes on the stage-specific incidence of breast cancer in some Italian areas. Eur J Cancer 39:1776–1782

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Devesa SS (2006) Assessing the impact of screening mammography: breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in Connecticut (1943–2002). Breast Cancer Res Treat 99:333–340

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L et al (2006) Benefit of screening mammography in reducing the rate of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17:921–929

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Larsen IK, Smastuen M, Johannesen TB et al (2009) Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 45:1218–1219

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations). 2001. www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/for-20011221-1477-eng.doc. Accessed January 24, 2011

  26. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2010) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (UICC International Union Against Cancer), 7th edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  27. Perry N, Broeders MJ, de Wolf C, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 2006. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Communities. ISBN 92-79-01258-4

  28. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ (2011) Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 33:111–121

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lynge E, Braaten T, Njor SH et al (2011) Mammography activity in Norway 1983 to 2008. Acta Oncol 50:1062–1067

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the US National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (KO5 CA 104699 to J.G.E).

Competing interests

The authors report no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Cancer Registry of Norway, Research Department, P.O. Box 5313, 0304, Oslo, Norway

    Solveig Hofvind

  2. Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, P.O. Box 4, St. Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway

    Solveig Hofvind

  3. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Departments of Radiology and Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, 911 Broxton Avenue #303, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA

    Christoph I. Lee

  4. University of Washington, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, 325 Ninth Avenue, P.O. Box 359780, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA

    Joann G. Elmore

  5. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health Seattle, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Avenue, P.O. Box 359780, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA

    Joann G. Elmore

Authors
  1. Solveig Hofvind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph I. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joann G. Elmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solveig Hofvind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofvind, S., Lee, C.I. & Elmore, J.G. Stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates among participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135, 291–299 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2162-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2162-x

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Population screening
  • Screening mammography
  • Cancer incidence
  • Stage-specific incidence
  • Mastectomy rate