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

on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Radiology
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Mammography
Biopsy
Neoplasms
Referral and Consultation
Incidence

Keywords

  • Biopsy
  • Breast neoplasms
  • Mammography
  • Mass screening
  • Premenopause

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years : comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting. / on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation.

In: European Radiology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7cfbb6fe53924666b47d1321050ae4b0,
title = "Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting",
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 = "Biopsy, Breast neoplasms, Mammography, Mass screening, Premenopause",
author = "{on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation} and Lauro Bucchi and Alessandra Ravaioli and Flavia Baldacchini and Orietta Giuliani and Silvia Mancini and Rosa Vattiato and Fabio Falcini and Rossi, {Paolo Giorgi} and Cinzia Campari and Debora Canuti and {Di Felice}, Enza and {Sassoli de Bianchi}, Priscilla and Stefano Ferretti and Nicoletta Bertozzi and Finarelli, {Alba Carola} and Carlo Naldoni and Lauro Bucchi and Elisabetta Borciani and Giorgio Celoni and Giorgio Gatti and Rosella Schianchi and Nicoletta Piazza and Marella Zatelli and Rossi, {Paolo Giorgi} and Antonella Cattani and Luisa Paterlini and Mori, {Carlo Alberto} and Rita Vacondio and Valeria Bellelli and Giuliano Carrozzi and Rossella Corradini and Claudia Mauri and Rossella Negri and Carmen Bazzani and Marilena Manfredi and Francesca Mezzetti and Adriana Pasquini and Gianni Saguatti and Licia Caprara and Stefania Cortecchia and {De Lillo}, Margherita and Roberto Nannini and Giorgio Benea and {De Togni}, Aldo and Caterina Palmonari and Roberto Pasqualini and Patrizia Bravetti and Monica Serafini and Benedetta Vitali and Antonella Bagni",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w",
language = "English",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Annual mammography at age 45–49 years and biennial mammography at age 50–69 years

T2 - comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting

AU - on behalf of the Emilia-Romagna Region Workgroup for Mammography Screening Evaluation

AU - Bucchi, Lauro

AU - Ravaioli, Alessandra

AU - Baldacchini, Flavia

AU - Giuliani, Orietta

AU - Mancini, Silvia

AU - Vattiato, Rosa

AU - Falcini, Fabio

AU - Rossi, Paolo Giorgi

AU - Campari, Cinzia

AU - Canuti, Debora

AU - Di Felice, Enza

AU - Sassoli de Bianchi, Priscilla

AU - Ferretti, Stefano

AU - Bertozzi, Nicoletta

AU - Finarelli, Alba Carola

AU - Naldoni, Carlo

AU - Bucchi, Lauro

AU - Borciani, Elisabetta

AU - Celoni, Giorgio

AU - Gatti, Giorgio

AU - Schianchi, Rosella

AU - Piazza, Nicoletta

AU - Zatelli, Marella

AU - Rossi, Paolo Giorgi

AU - Cattani, Antonella

AU - Paterlini, Luisa

AU - Mori, Carlo Alberto

AU - Vacondio, Rita

AU - Bellelli, Valeria

AU - Carrozzi, Giuliano

AU - Corradini, Rossella

AU - Mauri, Claudia

AU - Negri, Rossella

AU - Bazzani, Carmen

AU - Manfredi, Marilena

AU - Mezzetti, Francesca

AU - Pasquini, Adriana

AU - Saguatti, Gianni

AU - Caprara, Licia

AU - Cortecchia, Stefania

AU - De Lillo, Margherita

AU - Nannini, Roberto

AU - Benea, Giorgio

AU - De Togni, Aldo

AU - Palmonari, Caterina

AU - Pasqualini, Roberto

AU - Bravetti, Patrizia

AU - Serafini, Monica

AU - Vitali, Benedetta

AU - Bagni, Antonella

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Biopsy

KW - Breast neoplasms

KW - Mammography

KW - Mass screening

KW - Premenopause

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063191068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063191068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w

DO - 10.1007/s00330-019-06050-w

M3 - Article

C2 - 30887204

AN - SCOPUS:85063191068

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

ER -