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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
References
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 5–14
Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening: viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358
Siu AL (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296
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):72–82
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 18:96–102
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
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 314:1599–1614
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 11:673
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 31:15–22
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 10:134–138
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 15:30–35
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 41:38–45
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):21–29
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):30–39
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):40–47
Morrone D, Giordano L, Artuso F et al (2016) Factors associated with breast screening radiologists’ annual mammogram reading volume in Italy. Radiol Med 121:557–563
Fletcher SW (1997) Breast cancer screening among women in their forties: an overview of the issues. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:5–9
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 126–158
Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner M (2000) Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines, 2nd edn. British Medical Journal Books, London
Moss S (2004) Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer? Br J Cancer 91:413–417
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 146:516–526
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 141:1295–1306
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 16:1123–1132
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 143:1287–1294
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 209:697–702
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 137:1990–1999
Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC et al (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R45–R49
Kerlikowske K, Barclay J (1997) Outcomes of modern screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:105–111
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 22:99–104
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 22:93–97
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 96:1432–1440
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 96:1832–1839
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 92:961–966
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA et al (2013) Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med 173:807–816
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 8:1129–1138
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 305 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bucchi, L., Ravaioli, A., Baldacchini, F. et al. Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting. Eur Radiol 29, 5517–5527 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w