Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom

被引:251
作者
Smith-Bindman, R
Chu, PW
Miglioretti, DL
Sickles, EA
Blanks, R
Ballard-Barbash, R
Bobo, JK
Lee, NC
Wallis, NG
Patnick, J
Kerlikowske, K
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Vet Affairs, Gen Internal Med Sect, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Washington, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[6] Univ London, Inst Canc Res, Canc Screening Evaluat Unit, London WC1E 7HU, England
[7] NCI, Appl Res Program, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[8] Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Atlanta, GA USA
[9] Natl Hlth Serv Breast Screening Program, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[10] Warwickshire Solihull & Coventry Breast Screening, Coventry, W Midlands, England
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2003年 / 290卷 / 16期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.290.16.2129
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context Screening mammography differs between the United States and the United Kingdom; a direct comparison may suggest methods to improve the practice. Objective To compare screening mammography performance between the United States and the United Kingdom among similar-aged women. Design, Setting, and Participants Women aged 50 years or older were identified who underwent 5.5 million mammograms from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1999, within 3 large-scale mammography registries or screening programs: the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC, n=978591) and National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP, n=613388) in the United States; and the National Health Service Breast Screening Program (NHSBSP, n =3.94 million) in the United Kingdom. A total of 27612 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ) within 12 months of screening among the 3 groups. Main Outcome Measures Recall rates (recommendation for further evaluation including diagnostic imaging, ultrasound, clinical examination, or biopsy) and cancer detection rates were calculated for first and subsequent mammograms, and within 5-year age groups. Results Recall rates were approximately twice as high in the United States than in the United Kingdom for all age groups; however, cancer rates were similar. Among women aged 50 to 54 years who underwent a first screening mammogram, 14.4% in the BCSC and 12.5% in the NBCCEDP were recalled for further evaluation vs only 7.6% in the NHSBSP. Cancer detection rates per 1000 mammogram screens were 5.8, 5.9, and 6.3, in the BCSC, NBCCEDP, and NHSBSP, respectively. Recall rates were lower for subsequent examinations in all 3 settings but remained twice as high in the United States. A similar percentage of women underwent biopsy in each setting, but rates of percutaneous biopsy were lower and open surgical biopsy higher in the United States. Open surgical biopsies not resulting in a diagnosis of cancer (negative biopsies) were twice as high in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Based on a 10-year period of screening 1000 women aged 50 to 59 years, 477, 433, and 175 women in the BCSC, NBCCEDP, and NHSBSP, respectively, would be recalled; and for women aged 60 to 69 years, 396, 334, and 1 33 women, respectively. The estimated cancer detection rates per 1000 women aged 50 to 59 years were 24.5, 23.8, and 19.4, respectively, and for women aged 60 to 69 years, 31.5, 26.6, and 27.9, respectively. Conclusions Recall and negative open surgical biopsy rates are twice as high in US settings than in the United Kingdom but cancer detection rates are similar. Efforts to improve US mammographic screening should target lowering the recall rate without reducing the cancer detection rate.
引用
收藏
页码:2129 / 2137
页数:9
相关论文
共 46 条
[31]   The national breast and cervical cancer early detection program: Report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women [J].
May, DS ;
Lee, NC ;
Nadel, MR ;
Henson, RM ;
Miller, DS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1998, 170 (01) :97-104
[32]  
MOSS M, 2002, NY TIMES 0627
[33]  
*NHS BREAST SCREEN, 2000, AUD SCREEN DET BREAS
[34]  
*NHS BREAST SCREEN, 1997, NAT HLTH SERV BREAST, V15
[35]  
Physician Insurers Association of America, 1995, BREAST CANC STUD JUN
[36]  
Salzmann P, 1997, ANN INTERN MED, V127, P955, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00001
[37]   Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines [J].
Shapiro, S ;
Coleman, EA ;
Broeders, M ;
Codd, M ;
de Koning, H ;
Fracheboud, J ;
Moss, S ;
Paci, E ;
Stachenko, S ;
Ballard-Barbash, R .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 27 (05) :735-742
[38]   Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: Specialist and general radiologists [J].
Sickles, EA ;
Wolverton, DE ;
Dee, KE .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 224 (03) :861-869
[39]   MEDICAL AUDIT OF A RAPID-THROUGHPUT MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PRACTICE - METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF 27,114 EXAMINATIONS [J].
SICKLES, EA ;
OMINSKY, SH ;
SOLLITTO, RA ;
GALVIN, HB ;
MONTICCIOLO, DL .
RADIOLOGY, 1990, 175 (02) :323-327
[40]   Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined [J].
Sohlich, RE ;
Sickles, EA ;
Burnside, ES ;
Dee, KE .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 178 (03) :681-686