Aims and objectives
The primary aim of a breast screening programme is to reduce mortality from breast cancer through early detection.
The key factors necessary to achieve this goal,
are a high acceptance by the target population,
and a high level of quality of the entire screening process.
The radiologist has a role of primary importance,
taking the greatest overall responsibility for mammographic image quality,
and diagnostic interpretation.
Although the efficacy of mammography is well documented,
its use as a modality for mass screening has recognized limitations.
Approximately...
Methods and materials
Between January 2007 through December 2012,
a total of 151,567 women aged 50-69 participated in the Screening Program in Cantabria.
The mammogram modality chosen depended on their place of residence,
which means that women living in rural areas where explored with an analogue mammographic equipment installed in a mobile unit and those who lived in or nearby urban areas were screened with either direct digital or indirect digital mammography in fixed units.
Of the 151,567 screening mammograms,
17,025 were obtained using analogue mammography,
76,907 using...
Results
The IC rate per 1000 screens for analogue mammography was 0.52,
for direct digital mammography was 0.72 and for indirect digital mammography was 0.79.
The distribution of the different IC types according to the technique used was 33.3% true interval cancer (TIC),
44.4% minimal signs (MS),
11.1% occult cancer (OC),
0% false negative (FN) and 11.1% unclassifiable for analogue mammography.
55.3% TIC,
17.8% MS,
8.9% OC,
8.9% FN and 8.9% NC for direct digital mammography and finally,
45.6% TIC,
19.5% MS,
10.8% OC,
6.5% FN...
Conclusion
The IC rates as well as the percentage of false negative cases were in all cases within the limits set by European Guidelines.
The distribution of IC according to the different mammogram modalities reveal no statistically significant differences.
References
Kate Gower-Thomas,
Hilary M.P.
Fielder,
Lucy Branston,
Sarah Greening,
Helen Beer,
Cerilan Rogers.
Reviewing Interval Cancers,
Time Well Spent? Clinical Radiology (2002) 57: 384-388.
Frank D.
Gilliland,
Nancy Joste,
Patricia M.
Stauber,
William C.
Hunt,
Robert Rosenberg,
Gillian Redlich,
Charles R.
Key.
Biologic Characteristics of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancers.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
Vol.
92,
No.
9,
May 3,
2000.
Peggy L.
Porter,
Amira Y.
El-Bastawissi,
Margaret T.
Mandelson,
Ming Gang Lin,
Najma Khalid,
Elizabeth A.
Watney,
Laura Cousens,
Donna White, Stephen...