Seventeen-year evaluation of breast cancer screening: the DOM project, The Netherlands

Miltenburg, G. A. J.; Peeters, Petra H.M.; Fracheboud, Jacques; Collette, H. J. A.

doi:10.1038/bjc.1998.609

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From other case -control screening studies, there is a range of results from a very small benefit to large reductions in mortality as observed in this study (Palli et al, 1989;Mittenburg et al, 1998;Fielder et al, 2004;Elmore et al, 2005;Gabe et al, 2007). Our estimated benefit may be slightly biased in favour of screening by the selection of recently diagnosed cases (1995 -2004), which will of necessity be relatively rapidly fatal and therefore may underrepresent screening-exposed fatal cancers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

A case–control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although breast cancer screening has been shown to work in randomised trials, there is a need to evaluate service screening programmes to ensure that they are delivering the benefit indicated by the trials. We carried out a case -control study to investigate the effect of mammography service screening, in the NHS breast screening programme, on breast cancer mortality in the East Anglian region of the UK. Cases were deaths from breast cancer in women diagnosed between the ages of 50 and 70 years, following the instigation of the East Anglia Breast Screening Programme in 1989. The controls were women (two per case) who had not died of breast cancer, from the same area, matched by date of birth to the cases. Each control was known to be alive at the time of death of her matched case. All women were known to the breast screening programme and were invited, at least once, to be screened. There were 284 cases and 568 controls. The odds ratio (OR) for risk of death from breast cancer in women who attended at least one routine screen compared to those who did not attend was 0.35 (CI: 0.24, 0.50). Adjusting for self-selection bias gave an estimate of the breast cancer mortality reduction associated with invitation to screening of 35% (OR ¼ 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.88). The effect of actually being screened was a 48% breast cancer mortality reduction (OR ¼ 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84). The results suggest that the National Breast Screening Programme in East Anglia is achieving a reduction in breast cancer deaths, which is at least consistent with the results from the randomised controlled trials of mammographic screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

A case–control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optimal screening interval has been investigated and a study by White et al [18] found no evidence that American female patients aged $50 years who undergo biennial mammography screening have an increased risk of late-stage breast cancer compared with patients who undergo annual screening. However, results from other studies are inconsistent regarding the relative advantages of 1-year vs 2-year screening intervals [19,20], and a study from Finland estimated the effectiveness of intensive screening with poor attendance to be the same as that of infrequent screening with a high attendance rate [21]. It is obvious that finding an optimal screening interval in an organised screening setting is a complex issue, owing to individual characteristics and social conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway

Hofvind¹,

Geller²,

Skelly³

et al. 2012

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography as performed in Vermont, USA, and Norway. Methods: Incident screening data from 1997 to 2003 for female patients aged 50-69 years from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (116 996 subsequent screening examinations) and the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (360 872 subsequent screening examinations) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the initial (based on screening mammogram only) and final (screening mammogram plus any further diagnostic imaging) interpretations were directly adjusted for age using 5-year age intervals for the combined Vermont and Norway population, and computed for 1 and 2 years of follow-up, which ended at the time of the next screening mammogram. Results: For the 1-year follow-up, sensitivities for initial assessments were 82.0%, 88.2% and 92.5% for 1-, 2-and .2-year screening intervals, respectively, in Vermont (p50.022). For final assessments, the values were 73.6%, 83.3% and 81.2% (p50.047), respectively. For Norway, sensitivities for initial assessments were 91.0% and 91.3% (p50.529) for 2-and .2-year intervals, and 90.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for final assessments (p50.630). Specificity was lower in Vermont than in Norway for each screening interval and for all screening intervals combined, for both initial (90.6% vs 97.8% for all intervals; p,0.001) and final (98.8% vs 99.5% for all intervals; p,0.001) assessments. Conclusion: Our study showed higher sensitivity and specificity in a biennial screening programme with an independent double reading than in a predominantly annual screening program with a single reading. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrates that higher recall rates and lower specificity are not always associated with higher sensitivity of screening mammography. Differences in the screening processes in Norway and Vermont suggest potential areas for improvement in the latter.

show abstract

“…About 45% of the controls were screened more than once in the index period (18% of the cases). Several other case-control studies found that the effect of screening on the risk of breast cancer mortality increases with the number of screens (4,28,29). Further analysis showed that the majority of the reduction observed is particularly due to nonattendance of screening examination among those who received their first invitation between age 70 and 75 years: 19% (27 of 141) of the controls never attended screening compared with 82% of the cases (23 of 28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Mammography Screening and Risk of Breast Cancer Death: A Population-Based Case–Control Study

Otto

Fracheboud

Verbeek

et al. 2012

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Because the efficacy of mammography screening had been shown in randomized controlled trials, the focus has turned on its effectiveness within the daily practice. Using individual data of women invited to screening, we conducted a case-control study to assess the effectiveness of the Dutch populationbased program of mammography screening.Methods: Cases were women who died from breast cancer between 1995 and 2003 and were closely matched to five controls on year of birth, year of first invitation, and number of invitations before case's diagnosis. ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between attending either of three screening examinations prior to diagnosis and the risk of breast cancer death were calculated using conditional logistic regression and corrected for self-selection bias.Results: We included 755 cases and 3,739 matched controls. Among the cases, 29.8% was screen-detected, 34.3% interval-detected, and 35.9% never-screened. About 29.5% of the never-screened cases had stage IV tumor compared with 5.3% of the screen-detected and 15.1% of the interval-detected cases. The OR (95% CIs), all ages (49-75 years), was 0.51 (0.40-0.66) and for the age groups 50-69, 50-75, and 70-75 years were 0.61 (0.47-0.79), 0.52 (CI 0.41-0.67), and 0.16 (0.09-0.29), respectively.Conclusion: The study provides evidence for a beneficial effect of early detection by mammography screening in reducing the risk of breast cancer death among women invited to and who attended the screening.Impact: This is the first case-control study that accurately accounts for equal screening opportunity for both cases and matched controls by number of invitations before case's diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(1); 66-73. Ó2011 AACR.

show abstract

Seventeen-year evaluation of breast cancer screening: the DOM project, The Netherlands

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

A case–control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality

A case–control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality

Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway

Mammography Screening and Risk of Breast Cancer Death: A Population-Based Case–Control Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About