Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme

  • Ondrej Majek1,
  • Jan Danes2,
  • Miroslava Skovajsova3,
  • Helena Bartonkova4,
  • Lucie Buresova1,
  • Daniel Klimes1,
  • Petr Brabec1,
  • Pavel Kozeny5 and
  • Ladislav Dusek1Email author
BMC Public Health201111:288

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-288

Received: 22 December 2010

Accepted: 10 May 2011

Published: 10 May 2011

Abstract

Background

The Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme (CBCSP) was initiated in September 2002 by establishing a network of accredited centres. The aim of this article is to describe progress in the programme quality over time after the inception of the organised programme.

Methods

The CBCSP is monitored using an information system consisting of three principal components: 1) the national cancer registry, 2) a screening registry collecting data on all screening examinations, further assessments and final diagnoses at accredited programme centres, and 3) administrative databases of healthcare payers. Key performance indicators from the European Guidelines have been adopted for continuous monitoring.

Results

Breast cancer incidence in the Czech Republic has steadily been increasing, however with a growing proportion of less advanced stages. The mortality rate has recently stabilised. The screening registry includes 2,083,285 records on screening episodes between 2002 and 2008. In 2007-2008, 51% of eligible women aged 45-69 were screened. In 2008, the detection rates were 6.1 and 3.7 per 1,000 women in initial and subsequent screening respectively. Corresponding recall rates are 3.9% and 2.2%, however, it is necessary to pay attention to further assessment performed during the screening visits. Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio was 0.1. Of invasive cases detected in screening, 35.6% was less than 10 mm in diameter. Values of early performance indicators, as measured by both crude and standardized estimates, are generally improving and fulfil desirable targets set by European Guidelines.

Conclusions

Mammography screening in the Czech Republic underwent successful transformation from opportunistic prevention to an organised programme. Values of early indicators confirm continuous improvement in different aspects of process quality. Further stimulation of participation through invitation system is necessary to exploit the full potential of screening mammography at the population level.

Background

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignant neoplasm in women worldwide [1]. In the past, its incidence and mortality in Central and Eastern European countries were significantly lower than in Western Europe. Yet recent changes in reproductive behaviour of women accompanied by significant demographic changes led to a sharp increase in breast cancer incidence in Eastern European countries including the Czech Republic [2]. Stabilisation of mortality from breast cancer can only be achieved through high quality screening associated with adequate treatment of detected tumours [3]. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by mammography in preventing breast cancer deaths was demonstrated in randomised controlled trials. Meta-analysis of Swedish trials showed breast cancer mortality reduction of 29% among women aged 50-69 years [4]. Recent meta-analyses stated mortality reduction to be 15% [5], however, greater protective effect seem to be present in women between 60-69 years [6]. Screening programmes were implemented in many countries worldwide [7, 8]. The effect indeed persists in real populations: breast cancer mortality decreased by 16% to 36% in populations invited to screening and women attending at least one screening examination could decrease their risk of death from breast cancer by 24% to 48% [9]. On the other hand, there are also adverse effects associated with breast cancer screening by mammography. Namely these include radiation exposure, pain during mammography, anxiety responses from screening, false-positive and false-negative results, and overdiagnosis [6]. However, there is convincing evidence that, in certain age groups, benefits of mammography screening outweigh its risk. This led to recommendations for screening in United States [10] and Europe [11].

To obtain projected benefits and minimise negative outcomes, the programmes should be implemented with an organised, population-based approach, with quality assurance at all appropriate levels, and in accordance with European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis [11, 12]. The policy of a screening effort should be documented in a law or an official regulation to qualify as a screening programme [8]. IARC Handbooks of cancer prevention [13] state six characteristics of an organised screening programme: a policy specifying target population, screening method and interval; a defined target population; a team responsible for overseeing screening centres; a decision structure and responsibility for healthcare management; a quality assurance system utilizing relevant data; and monitoring of cancer occurrence in the target population. The highest level of programme organisation, population-based screening, requires that all persons eligible for screening are identified and personally invited to attend a screening examination in each round of screening [8].

The objective of this article is to summarize the implementation and results of the Czech breast cancer screening programme (CBCSP) since 2002. The evaluation of CBCSP is based on a multi-source information system including the monitoring of population cancer burden and early performance indicators of the screening programme. Favourable values of screening performance measures are necessary to have a significant effect on cancer mortality in the future [14]. Therefore, we describe the results of transformation from no-programme opportunistic screening to a non-population based yet highly organised programme by comparison of measured indicators to international guideline targets and published results. To our knowledge, this is one of the first reports from a new EU member state. Compared to previous papers [1517], this article adds new results on long-term continuous quality improvement after the programme initiation.

Methods

The Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme

In the late 1990s, mammography was performed at more than 130 facilities and screening examinations were claimed as diagnostic. In 2002 an accreditation programme was launched by a directive of the Czech Ministry of Health with accreditation criteria based on the European Guidelines [11]. The programme is administered by the Breast Cancer Screening Committee at the Ministry of Health. The centres are overseen by the Expert Committee on Breast Imaging (Komise odborníků pro mamární diagnostiku).

The CBCSP is a nationwide organized programme, currently performed at 67 regularly monitored accredited centres. The target population was defined as women aged 45-69 years. Since 2010 there is no upper age limit, therefore all women from 45 years of age can attend a biennial mammography screening covered by health insurance. Women are referred to screening mammography by their general practitioners (GPs) or gynaecologists on the basis of preventive check-ups, as there is no established centralised system of direct invitation yet. Women outside the target population (over 40 years of age) can undergo screening mammography (upon direct payment of entire cost of the screening examination) and are therefore included in aggregated statistics.

Mammography is performed in two-views (craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique), independent double reading with consensus is recommended. Both screen-film and digital mammography systems are present. Screening centres also act as breast assessment units, necessary further assessment of the findings (magnification, spot mammography, breast ultrasound, etc.) is provided during the screening visit at the centre (one-day diagnostics). Recall to the screening centre is usually employed in case of a double reading discrepancy or for invasive examinations, including core-cut biopsy (majority performed within one week after screening). For reporting of screening and additional imaging results, the BI-RADS system [18] is used and for the evaluation of breast density, typology according to Tabar was included [19]. All of the centres provide core-cut biopsy, special methods (MR mammography and vacuum biopsy) are provided at a narrower network of specialized centres.

Screening programme data are annually consolidated from local databases of screening centres, and are subsequently stored in a secured central database - the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Registry (Figure 1). Official results containing a description of the screening process and performance monitoring are published annually. Feedback for screening centres is provided using annual reporting of performance indicators.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Structure of a patient record in the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Registry.

Czech National Cancer Registry

The Czech National Cancer Registry (CNCR) was established in 1976. With verified 100% coverage, it contains information on the cancer diagnosis, treatment and survival of all Czech cancer patients. A comprehensive overview of cancer epidemiology in the Czech Republic is available on-line at http://www.svod.cz[20].

Claims data from healthcare payers

The costs of biennial screening mammography in women from the screening target population are reimbursed by public health insurance in the Czech Republic. Therefore, claims data on mammography are available in data warehouses of healthcare payers provided via centralized exports by the Czech National Reference Centre. These administrative records allow for a description of the utilisation of diagnostic and screening mammography in the Czech female population and to monitor the prevalence of opportunistic screening outside the organised programme.

Data analysis

Population-based data of CNCR was analysed using standard methods [21] to detect trends in incidence and mortality. The performance of the programme was assessed using the standard set of performance indicators introduced in European Guidelines [11]. The coverage of the target population by screening examination was computed as a ratio between the number of examinations in women aged 45-69 years in previous 24 months and the number of women aged 45-69 in the target population at the end of the period.

Performance of a screening test was assessed using breast cancer detection rates and further assessment rates. Further assessment comprises any additional examination performed until 6 months after screening mammography. Screen-detected cancers comprise all diagnosed breast cancer cases until one year after positive screening. Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio was defined as ratio of the number of women undergoing open biopsy with benign result to the number of women undergoing open biopsy with malignant result. All results were stratified according to the individual screening history of the women: initial or subsequent screening. In order to estimate time-related trends in further assessment rates and detection rates irrespective of changes in age structure and in proportion of initially screened women, standardization [22] was performed. All analyses were performed using Stata/IC 10.1 for Windows [23]. Providers of the utilised data consented with their use for epidemiological research. The study was entirely observational; therefore, no approval from the ethical committee was required.

Results

Breast cancer burden in the Czech Republic

The incidence rate of breast cancer has been increasing constantly since the early 1990s (65.5 cases per 100,000 women in 1990 vs. 122.7 in 2007). On the other hand, the mortality rate was stable during the same period (34.2 cases per 100,000 women in 1990 vs. 36.4 in 2007, Figure 2). The peak value of breast cancer incidence can be observed in 2003 after the introduction of an organised screening programme and again in 2007 when the growing programme was reinforced by a pilot project for the invitation of yet-unscreened women (see discussion for description). It is clearly visible particularly in newly introduced women aged 70-74 years (Figure 3). The continuing rise in incidence after 2002 could be attributed to the screening target population, i.e. women aged 45-69 years. The incidence is stable in younger (30-44 years) and older (75+ years) women.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Time trends of breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in the Czech Republic. Source of data: Czech National Cancer Registry.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Time trends in age-specific breast cancer incidence rate. Source of data: Czech National Cancer Registry.

The rise in incidence rate after 1990 is visible in all postmenopausal age groups. The most recent growth is reduced in the 70-74 age group, due to detection of tumours at a younger age in the screening programme (Figure 4). There is an apparent increase in the proportion of stage I breast cancers which started in the early 1990s and continues after 2002 (Figure 5). This is reflected in increase of early breast cancer rates in the 45-69 age groups. During the same period, we can witness slow decrease in advanced cancer rates (stage III+IV, 50.5 cases per 100,000 women in 1990-1994 vs. 38.1 in 2003-2007, Figure 6).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Comparison of age structure of breast cancer patients groups diagnosed in different time periods. Source of data: Czech National Cancer Registry.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

Time trends in distribution of clinical stages in newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in the Czech Republic. Source of data: Czech National Cancer Registry.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6

Time trends of breast cancer incidence rates in women aged 45-69 years, according to clinical stage at diagnosis. Source of data: Czech National Cancer Registry.

Results of the organised screening programme

The Czech Breast Cancer Screening Registry includes 2,083,285 records on screening episodes between 2002 and 2008. The 24-month coverage by screening mammography steadily increased over these years (Table 1). The coverage in the age group of 45-69 year-olds reached 51.2% in 2008. In years 2002-2004, women attended programme screening examination for the first time (initial screening). Since then, the proportion of subsequent screenings has been constantly rising and reached 66% in 2008. The age of women attending screenings is also increasing (Table 2). Recruitment is less effective in higher age categories, the coverage decreases from 58.0% at age 45-49 to 42.3% at age 65-69. The screening programme was not open to elderly women (aged over 70) free of charge before 2010. They were only invited as a part of the pilot project in 2007-2008 and the coverage is therefore only 14.5% of this age group (Table 3).
Table 1

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to year of screening, including all age groups (total).

 

Year (screening mammography)

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Number of women screened

10,055

212,537

265,217

317,194

340,564

469,299

468,419

Estimate of 24 m coverage by examination

(women aged 45-69)

0.6%

13.1%

27.9%

33.8%

38.1%

44.8%

51.2%

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

48

1,053

1,250

1,445

1,570

2,542

2,128

Breast cancer detection rate

4.8

5.0

4.7

4.6

4.6

5.4

4.5

Standardized ratio (reference year 2008)

0.81

0.83

0.80

0.85

0.96

0.97

1.00

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

1,768

46,976

57,925

56,850

53,580

63,415

60,025

Further assessment rate

17.6%

22.1%

21.8%

17.9%

15.7%

13.5%

12.8%

Standardized ratio (reference year 2008)

0.90

1.20

1.21

1.14

1.10

1.01

1.00

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

557

12,095

11,725

11,931

10,429

13,977

12,955

Recall rate

5.5%

5.7%

4.4%

3.8%

3.1%

3.0%

2.8%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

21

504

347

285

194

249

173

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

43

867

1,021

1,259

1,347

2,149

1,794

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.49

0.58

0.34

0.23

0.14

0.12

0.10

   Number of women with detected breast cancer (cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

48

1,031

1,212

1,400

1,522

2,470

2,039

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

17

331

390

440

439

652

525

Advanced cases proportion

35.4%

32.1%

32.2%

31.4%

28.8%

26.4%

25.7%

Invasive cases

41

933

1,097

1,283

1,370

2,211

1,831

Invasive cases proportion

85.4%

90.5%

90.5%

91.6%

90.0%

89.5%

89.8%

Node-negative invasive cases

27

572

700

840

905

1,442

1,218

Proportion among invasive

65.9%

61.3%

63.8%

65.5%

66.1%

65.2%

66.5%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

11

312

360

460

504

770

651

Proportion among invasive

26.8%

33.4%

32.8%

35.9%

36.8%

34.8%

35.6%

Table 2

Time trends in basic characteristics of the population attending the screening programme.

Year screened

NUMBER OF WOMEN SCREENED

Proportion subsequent

 

AGE SCREENED

 
 

Initial

Subsequent

 

5th

percentile

25th

percentile

Median

75th

percentile

95th

percentile

2002

10,055

0

0.0%

45.6

49.2

53.8

59.0

66.5

2003

212,514

23

0.0%

45.7

49.4

53.9

59.3

66.7

2004

258,635

6,582

2.5%

45.4

49.4

54.2

59.7

66.9

2005

220,897

96,297

30.4%

45.5

50.0

54.9

60.3

67.1

2006

170,717

169,847

49.9%

45.5

50.1

55.1

60.5

67.2

2007

232,509

236,790

50.5%

45.3

50.9

56.9

63.2

70.6

2008

159,273

309,146

66.0%

45.3

50.6

56.1

61.6

68.0

Table 3

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to age group, women screened in 2008 (total).

 

Age group

Total

45-69

Total

50-69

 

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

  

Number of women screened

95,883

106,232

105,578

90,394

55,427

4,848

453,514

357,631

Estimate of 24 m coverage by examination

58.0%

55.0%

51.6%

47.5%

42.3%

14.5%

51.2%

49.6%

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

254

374

416

577

409

67

2,030

1,776

Breast cancer detection rate

2.6

3.5

3.9

6.4

7.4

13.8

4.5

5.0

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

20,881

14,923

10,318

7,174

3,959

409

57,255

36,374

Further assessment rate

21.8%

14.0%

9.8%

7.9%

7.1%

8.4%

12.6%

10.2%

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

3,652

2,913

2,421

2,149

1,291

162

12,426

8,774

Recall rate

3.8%

2.7%

2.3%

2.4%

2.3%

3.3%

2.7%

2.5%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

50

40

27

31

21

1

169

119

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

211

315

368

481

334

58

1,709

1,498

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.24

0.13

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.02

0.10

0.08

   Number of women with detected breast cancer (cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

239

352

401

555

399

65

1,946

1,707

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

63

98

104

131

95

27

491

428

Advanced cases proportion

26.4%

27.8%

25.9%

23.6%

23.8%

41.5%

25.2%

25.1%

Invasive cases

216

315

343

508

360

63

1,742

1,526

Invasive cases proportion

90.4%

89.5%

85.5%

91.5%

90.2%

96.9%

89.5%

89.4%

Node-negative invasive cases

131

196

238

342

255

38

1,162

1,031

Proportion among invasive

60.6%

62.2%

69.4%

67.3%

70.8%

60.3%

66.7%

67.6%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

70

110

119

179

146

19

624

554

Proportion among invasive

32.4%

34.9%

34.7%

35.2%

40.6%

30.2%

35.8%

36.3%

The crude breast cancer detection rate has been changing a little during first years of the programme (Table 1). Over years and age subgroups, the detection rate was always higher in initially screened women (Tables 4, 5) than in subsequently screened women (Tables 6, 7). The detection rate increases with age in initial (3.1-15.1 detected cases per 1,000 women screened, Table 5) and subsequent (2.1-11.7 detected cases per 1,000 women screened, Table 7) screenings. Bearing the rapidly changing population structure in mind, it is therefore more informative to study development of age-specific rates in initial and subsequent screenings (Figure 7) or summarize them using a standardized rate ratio (Table 1). Both show evidence for constantly improving detection rates after the organisation of the screening programme.
Table 4

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to year of screening, including all age groups (initial screening).

 

Year (screening mammography)

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Number of women screened

10,055

212,514

258,635

220,897

170,717

232,509

159,273

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

48

1,053

1,220

1,153

935

1,662

974

Breast cancer detection rate

4.8

5.0

4.7

5.2

5.5

7.1

6.1

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

1,768

46,973

56,961

44,919

33,135

39,921

30,239

Further assessment rate

17.6%

22.1%

22.0%

20.3%

19.4%

17.2%

19.0%

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

557

12,095

11,535

9,735

6,496

8,888

6,246

Recall rate

5.5%

5.7%

4.5%

4.4%

3.8%

3.8%

3.9%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

21

504

343

226

135

166

90

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

43

867

992

994

787

1,382

784

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.49

0.58

0.35

0.23

0.17

0.12

0.11

   Number of women with detected breast cancer (cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

48

1,031

1,182

1,116

905

1,610

924

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

17

331

384

367

284

465

277

Advanced cases proportion

35.4%

32.1%

32.5%

32.9%

31.4%

28.9%

30.0%

Invasive cases

41

933

1,072

1,023

823

1,459

850

Invasive cases proportion

85.4%

90.5%

90.7%

91.7%

90.9%

90.6%

92.0%

Node-negative invasive cases

27

572

682

644

525

909

535

Proportion among invasive

65.9%

61.3%

63.6%

63.0%

63.8%

62.3%

62.9%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

11

312

350

348

288

441

275

Proportion among invasive

26.8%

33.4%

32.6%

34.0%

35.0%

30.2%

32.4%

Table 5

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to age group, women screened in 2008 (initial screening).

 

Age group

Total

45-69

Total

50-69

 

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

  

Number of women screened

54,495

26,214

26,694

24,452

16,067

3,047

147,922

93,427

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

169

126

150

245

211

46

901

732

Breast cancer detection rate

3.1

4.8

5.6

10.0

13.1

15.1

6.1

7.8

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

14,188

5,097

3,749

2,998

1,808

306

27,840

13,652

Further assessment rate

26.0%

19.4%

14.0%

12.3%

11.3%

10.0%

18.8%

14.6%

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

2,430

1,007

845

901

626

124

5,809

3,379

Recall rate

4.5%

3.8%

3.2%

3.7%

3.9%

4.1%

3.9%

3.6%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

35

18

8

14

11

1

86

51

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

135

101

132

194

161

38

723

588

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.26

0.18

0.06

0.07

0.07

0.03

0.12

0.09

Number of women with detected breast cancer

(cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

159

115

144

233

205

44

856

697

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

47

34

45

72

55

19

253

206

Advanced cases proportion

29.6%

29.6%

31.3%

30.9%

26.8%

43.2%

29.6%

29.6%

Invasive cases

146

106

129

216

189

42

786

640

Invasive cases proportion

91.8%

92.2%

89.6%

92.7%

92.2%

95.5%

91.8%

91.8%

Node-negative invasive cases

83

68

85

136

124

24

496

413

Proportion among invasive

56.8%

64.2%

65.9%

63.0%

65.6%

57.1%

63.1%

64.5%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

47

32

42

64

73

10

258

211

Proportion among invasive

32.2%

30.2%

32.6%

29.6%

38.6%

23.8%

32.8%

33.0%

Table 6

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to year of screening, including all age groups (subsequent screening).

 

Year (screening mammography)

 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Number of women screened

6,582

96,297

169,847

236,790

309,146

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

30

292

635

880

1,154

Breast cancer detection rate

4.6

3.0

3.7

3.7

3.7

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

964

11,931

20,445

23,494

29,786

Further assessment rate

14.6%

12.4%

12.0%

9.9%

9.6%

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

190

2,196

3,933

5,089

6,709

Recall rate

2.9%

2.3%

2.3%

2.1%

2.2%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

4

59

59

83

83

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

29

265

560

767

1,010

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.14

0.22

0.11

0.11

0.08

   Number of women with detected breast cancer (cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

30

284

617

860

1,115

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

6

73

155

187

248

Advanced cases proportion

20.0%

25.7%

25.1%

21.7%

22.2%

Invasive cases

25

260

547

752

981

Invasive cases proportion

83.3%

91.5%

88.7%

87.4%

88.0%

Node-negative invasive cases

18

196

380

533

683

Proportion among invasive

72.0%

75.4%

69.5%

70.9%

69.6%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

10

112

216

329

376

Proportion among invasive

40.0%

43.1%

39.5%

43.8%

38.3%

Table 7

Performance indicators of the Czech Breast Cancer Screening Programme, according to age group, women screened in 2008 (subsequent screening).

 

Age group

Total

45-69

Total

50-69

 

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

  

Number of women screened

41,388

80,018

78,884

65,942

39,360

1,801

305,592

264,204

   Number of women with detected breast cancer

85

248

266

332

198

21

1,129

1,044

Breast cancer detection rate

2.1

3.1

3.4

5.0

5.0

11.7

3.7

4.0

   Number of women undergoing further assessment

6,693

9,826

6,569

4,176

2,151

103

29,415

22,722

Further assessment rate

16.2%

12.3%

8.3%

6.3%

5.5%

5.7%

9.6%

8.6%

   Number of women recalled for further assessment

1,222

1,906

1,576

1,248

665

38

6,617

5,395

Recall rate

3.0%

2.4%

2.0%

1.9%

1.7%

2.1%

2.2%

2.0%

   Women undergoing open biopsy - benign result

15

22

19

17

10

0

83

68

   Women undergoing open biopsy - malignant result

76

214

236

287

173

20

986

910

Benign to malignant open biopsy ratio

0.20

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.08

0.07

Number of women with detected breast cancer

(cases preceded by neoadjuvant therapy excluded)

80

237

257

322

194

21

1,090

1,010

Advanced cases (TNM II+)

16

64

59

59

40

8

238

222

Advanced cases proportion

20.0%

27.0%

23.0%

18.3%

20.6%

38.1%

21.8%

22.0%

Invasive cases

70

209

214

292

171

21

956

886

Invasive cases proportion

87.5%

88.2%

83.3%

90.7%

88.1%

100.0%

87.7%

87.7%

Node-negative invasive cases

48

128

153

206

131

14

666

618

Proportion among invasive

68.6%

61.2%

71.5%

70.5%

76.6%

66.7%

69.7%

69.8%

Invasive ≤ 10 mm cases

23

78

77

115

73

9

366

343

Proportion among invasive

32.9%

37.3%

36.0%

39.4%

42.7%

42.9%

38.3%

38.7%

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig7_HTML.jpg
Figure 7

Breast cancer detection rate: age-specific comparison of time periods.

The further assessment rate has been decreasing since 2003 to 12.8% in 2008 (Table 1). This indicator is also subject to trends in age structure and the proportion of subsequent examinations. This rate decreases with age in initial (26.0%-10.0%, Table 5) and subsequent (16.2%-5.7%, Table 7) screenings, being larger in initial screening. Improvement (i.e. decrease) in further assessment rates is clear from both age-specific (Figure 8) and standardized indicators (Table 1). Trends in the recall rate are very similar to those in the further assessment rate. Only about 20-30% of women with positive results of screening are being recalled back to the screening centre. The rest of the women undergo further assessment on the day of the screening visit. The benign to malignant open biopsy ratio is also constantly improving (0.49 in 2002 vs. 0.10 in 2008). The ratio is similar in initially and subsequently screened women. The youngest age groups experience a slightly increased ratio (Tables 5, 7).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-288/MediaObjects/12889_2010_Article_3083_Fig8_HTML.jpg
Figure 8

Further assessment rate: age-specific comparison of time periods.

About 30% of detected breast cancer cases are advanced (TNM stage II+, i.e. involvement of lymph nodes and/or distant metastases) in initial screenings, and this proportion decreases to about 20% in subsequent screenings (Tables 4, 6). About 90% of detected cases are invasive in both initial and subsequent screenings. Of these, 60-70% of the findings are without involvement of lymph nodes (this proportion is higher in subsequent screenings). The primary tumour in about 30-40% of invasive cases is less than 10 mm in diameter (this proportion is higher in subsequent screenings).

Discussion

A recent study [9] reviewed current evidence on the effectiveness of mammography screening in real populations. The authors identified reports from eight European countries, where mammography screening lead to an eventual decrease in breast cancer mortality. National programmes included Finland [24], Iceland [25], the Netherlands [26] and the United Kingdom [27]. Regionally organised programmes included Denmark [28], Italy [29], Spain [30] and Sweden [31, 32]. All of these countries implemented organised screening programmes in the 1980s or early 1990s. Organised screening policies in these countries include the specification of covered age groups, screening interval and detection methods [7]. Programmes include quality assurance systems [33] that utilise data on screening process and also have access to cancer registry data [34].

The CBCSP has been implemented to comprise such organisational aspects, as recommended by the IARC working group. We made comprehensive use of three valuable data sources (cancer registry, cancer screening registry, and the data warehouse of healthcare payers) to continuously monitor the success of the programme. The following discussion compares observed values of early performance indicators with published results and European Guidelines targets [11], which are based on the results of randomized trials and successful screening programmes.

Epidemiology

In addition to the performance monitoring, the Czech screening programme is supported with highly representative epidemiology cancer registry covering the whole population since 1977. Breast cancer incidence has been rising steadily since 1980s. However, further increase in mortality has been arrested after 1995, similarly to other member states of the European Union [3]. The stabilized breast cancer mortality in the Czech Republic can be at least partially attributed to the improving stage distribution of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases and mild decrease in rate of advanced tumours. Nevertheless, part of the increase in early tumours rate is attributable to overdiagnosis - screen-detected cancers that would not have surfaced clinically during the woman's lifetime [35]. Estimate of the proportion of overdiagnosed tumours ranges to over 50% [36]; however, most of the estimates vary from 1% to 10% [6]. Very gradual expansion of opportunistic and organised screening does not yet allow us to estimate extent of overdiagnosis precisely using epidemiology data; therefore, we have concentrated on assessment of early performance indicators. As their values of detection rates and DCIS proportion comply with European Guidelines targets quite well (see bellow), we do not assume overdiagnosis to markedly excess values seen in clinical and epidemiological studies abroad.

Coverage

The current Czech system of recruitment through GPs or gynaecologists, reinforced by media campaigns and recall for subsequent screenings by screening centres was able to achieve a modest coverage of 50%. The advantage of this setup is the primary care physician's full knowledge of the patient's medical history and preferences, which enables the proper tailoring of an individual preventive strategy. Nevertheless, participation rates in successful population-based programmes approach the European Guidelines target of 70% (e.g. Spain [37], United Kingdom [38], Denmark [39]), or even exceed them (Finland [40]). However, the invitation may also fail to achieve the stated target (e.g. decentralized invitation in Hungary [16], invitation without appointment in Luxembourg [41]) - it is therefore necessary to properly plan, implement and monitor the invitation process.

Pilot project

That is why in 2007-2008 a pilot project of centralised invitation of non-attending women was undertaken. The project was carried out by the General Health Insurance Company (GHIC). GHIC is the principal provider of health insurance in the Czech Republic, with more than 6.5 million clients (about two thirds of the Czech population). A total number of 598,637 women aged between 45 and 74 years were invited for screening mammography (the invited women had not undergone mammography examination during the last three years). The women invited to the pilot project were screened between July 2007 and February 2008. Overall, 107,264 women (i.e., 18% of those invited) were screened at 60 mammography screening facilities. As regards the target population (45-69 years), 491,294 women were invited and 16.4% of them were screened. Participation rate was higher in older women (24.7%).

Despite the relatively low participation rate in the project itself, the project helped to substantially increase coverage in the target population (from 38.1% in 2006 to 51.2% in 2008), especially in elder women. Furthermore, the pilot project also invited women aged 70-74 and the outcomes of the screening in this group are visible in the epidemiology data. The pilot project confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of mammography in these elderly groups and led to the extension of the age groups targeted by the Czech screening programme in 2010.

Opportunistic activities

Screening activities occurring outside the programme or before its inception are referred to as 'opportunistic' screening. Opportunistic screening may fail to exploit the full potential of mammography to prevent deaths from breast cancer [42]. A possible explanation includes less sensitivity [43] and subsequently less-favourable prognostic features of detected tumours [44]. It is less cost-effective, mainly due to higher cost of diagnostic mammography and overuse of additional imaging in an unorganized setting [45, 46]. Dissemination of organised mammography screening can increase programme coverage [17] and also attract more disadvantaged women [47]. It is therefore advisable to promote the highest level of organisation possible, with close monitoring of performance indicators [14].

Intensified nationwide organisation led to an increase in opportunistic mammography activities in Hungary [17]. Yet Jensen [48] concluded that, in Denmark, women not attending an organised programme did not seek the service elsewhere and proportion of women screened outside the programme was 1-4% in Danish counties. According to monitoring performed by the Czech healthcare payers, the non-programme screening was quite prevalent in the Czech Republic before the onset of the organized programme. In 2002, the proportion of women undergoing non-programme examination was over 15% and approached 25% in some regions. In the following years, the overall proportion has been decreasing below 10%; however, it still remains high in some regions.

Sensitivity of the programme

Important early indirect measures of test and programme sensitivity include detection rate, stage distribution of detected cancers and incidence of interval cancers [11, 14].

The presence of opportunistic screening and gradual recruitment into organised screening make it difficult to estimate incidence rates expected in the target population in the absence of screening (background incidence), which is necessary to interpret detection and interval cancer rates. Anyway, a rough estimate could be acquired by averaging pre-programme breast cancer rates. The resulting ratio of detection rate to background incidence rate in initial screening for women aged 50-69 years is 4.1, which is in accordance with European Guidelines and similar to values observed in European pilot projects [49].

Easily observable measures of stage distribution are defined in European Guidelines. The proportion of advanced tumours and the proportion of small invasive tumours achieved the desirable levels given by European Guidelines. On the other hand, the proportion of node-negative invasive tumours keeps staying below acceptable level. However, modern pathology techniques may lead to increased detection of node metastases of lesser clinical significance [50, 51] and targets might need to be restated in light of the new epidemiological data.

Precise estimation of interval cancer rates has not yet been possible in the Czech screening, due to the non-existing direct individual link between the cancer registry and the cancer screening registry. Prediction of the rate is possible, e.g. using the Markov model [52], however, we don't consider this approach for continuous monitoring of performance indicators.

Safety and efficiency of the programme

A specific feature of the CBCSP is one-day diagnostics. Providing final results of a screening examination to the women during the screening visit definitely prevents a great amount of adverse psychological consequences drawn by the screening programme [53] and provides a sufficient level comfort. Yet, it might be quite demanding for the staff of the screening centres and might increase the further assessment rate, because the women are readily available at the screening centre during the mammogram assessment. Indeed, despite the continuous decrease in time, further assessment remains 2-3 times higher than in Western and Northern European countries [54]. Recall rates are nevertheless similar, as only some of women with further assessment are actually recalled back to the screening centre.

The high positive predictive value of further assessment is provided by the successful adoption of preoperative diagnostics with core biopsy. This part of the screening process is reflected by a benign to malignant open biopsy ratio, one of the key indicators in the European Guidelines. Results in the CBCSP achieved the desirable target in the Guidelines and became fully comparable to long operating population-based screening programmes, e.g. in Finland and Italy [40, 55].

Conclusions

The transformation from opportunistic prevention to an organised programme facilitated continuous improvement in the quality of offered mammography screening examinations. Most performance indicators reach targets set by European Guidelines and observed in successful population-based programmes around Europe. This promises effectiveness, safety and efficiency similar to randomized clinical trials, which justifies the enormous investment into programme initiation and operation. The important task now is to implement addressed invitations to the screenings and to institute a system for monitoring the impact of cancer screening on population epidemiology, including examination of the possible risk of overdiagnosis.

Declarations

Acknowledgements and Funding

The authors want to acknowledge the screening centres, the Institute for Health Informatics and Statistics of the Czech Republic and Czech public health insurance companies, for their excellent cooperation in providing the data necessary for the implementation of the programme's information support.

This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Ministry of Health (project no. 10650-3).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University
(2)
Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague
(3)
Association of Czech Breast Radiologists
(4)
Department of Radiology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute
(5)
National Reference Centre

References

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005, 55: 74-108. 10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dusek L, et al: Czech Cancer Care in Numbers 2008-2009. 2009, Praha: Grada Publishing, a.sGoogle Scholar
  3. Zatonski W, Didkowska J: Closing the gap: cancer in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Eur J Cancer. 2008, 44: 1425-1437. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Ryden S, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, et al: Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 1993, 341: 973-978. 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91067-V.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009, CD001877-Google Scholar
  6. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L: Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 151: 727-737. W237-742View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, Codd M, de Koning H, Fracheboud J, Moss S, Paci E, Stachenko S, Ballard-Barbash R: Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1998, 27: 735-742. 10.1093/ije/27.5.735.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, Ponti A, Malila N, Arbyn M, Segnan N, Castillo-Beltran M, Boniol M, Ferlay J, et al: Cancer Screening in the European Union: Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. 2008, Luxembourg: European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  9. Schopper D, de Wolf C: How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2009, 45: 1916-1923. 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.03.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 151: 716-726. W-236View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, Puthaar E, (Eds): European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. 2006, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the ECGoogle Scholar
  12. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L: European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008, 19: 614-622.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Vainio H, Bianchini F: Breast Cancer Screening. 2002, Lyon: IARCPressGoogle Scholar
  14. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT: Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer. 1989, 59: 954-958. 10.1038/bjc.1989.203.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hertl K, Primic-Zakelj M, Zgajnar J, Kocijancic I: Performance of opportunistic breast cancer screening in Slovenia. Neoplasma. 2006, 53: 237-241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Boncz I, Sebestyen A, Dobrossy L, Pentek Z, Budai A, Kovacs A, Dozsa C, Ember I: The organisation and results of first screening round of the Hungarian nationwide organised breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18: 795-799.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Boncz I, Sebestyen A, Pinter I, Battyany I, Ember I: The effect of an organized, nationwide breast cancer screening programme on non-organized mammography activities. J Med Screen. 2008, 15: 14-17. 10.1258/jms.2008.007070.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. American College of Radiology: Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system. 1998, Reston, VA: American College of RadiologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L: The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol. 1997, 24: 131-136. 10.1016/S0720-048X(96)01138-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Epidemiology of Malignant Tumours in the Czech Republic. [http://www.svod.cz/]
  21. Jensen O, Parkin DM, MacLennan R, Muir C, Skeet R: Cancer Registration: Principles and Methods. 1991, Lyon: International Agency for Research on CancerGoogle Scholar
  22. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ: Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology. 2000, 215: 563-567.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. 2007, College Station, TX: StataCorp LPGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarkeala T, Heinavaara S, Anttila A: Organised mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality: a cohort study from Finland. Int J Cancer. 2008, 122: 614-619. 10.1002/ijc.23070.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabe R, Tryggvadottir L, Sigfusson BF, Olafsdottir GH, Sigurdsson K, Duffy SW: A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiol. 2007, 48: 948-955. 10.1080/02841850701501725.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, Broeders MJ, Boer R, Hendriks JH, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ: Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet. 2003, 361: 1411-1417. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13132-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Blanks RG, Moss SM, McGahan CE, Quinn MJ, Babb PJ: Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. BMJ. 2000, 321: 665-669. 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.665.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Dalgaard P, Jensen MB, Tange UB, Blichert-Toft M, Rank F, Mouridsen H, Lynge E: Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ. 2005, 330: 220-10.1136/bmj.38313.639236.82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Paci E, Coviello E, Miccinesi G, Puliti D, Cortesi L, De Lisi V, Ferretti S, Mangone L, Perlangeli V, Ponti A, et al: Evaluation of service mammography screening impact in Italy. The contribution of hazard analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2008, 44: 858-865. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ascunce EN, Moreno-Iribas C, Barcos Urtiaga A, Ardanaz E, Ederra Sanz M, Castilla J, Egues N: Changes in breast cancer mortality in Navarre (Spain) after introduction of a screening programme. J Med Screen. 2007, 14: 14-20. 10.1258/096914107780154558.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. SOSSEG: Reduction in breast cancer mortality from the organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 45-51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. SOSSEG: Reduction in breast cancer mortality from the organised service screening with mammography: 2. Validation with alternative analytic methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 52-56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Klabunde C, Bouchard F, Taplin S, Scharpantgen A, Ballard-Barbash R: Quality assurance for screening mammography: an international comparison. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001, 55: 204-212. 10.1136/jech.55.3.204.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Klabunde CN, Sancho-Garnier H, Broeders M, Thoresen S, Rodrigues VJ, Ballard-Barbash R: Quality assurance for screening mammography data collection systems in 22 countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001, 17: 528-541.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Day NE: Overdiagnosis and breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2005, 7: 228-229. 10.1186/bcr1321.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC: Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. Bmj. 2009, 339: b2587-10.1136/bmj.b2587.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Ascunce N, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Almazan R, Ibanez J, Ederra M: Cancer screening in Spain. Ann Oncol. 2010, 21 (Suppl 3): iii43-51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bennett RL, Blanks RG, Patnick J, Moss SM: Results from the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme 2000-05. J Med Screen. 2007, 14: 200-204. 10.1258/096914107782912068.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Vejborg I, Olsen AH, Jensen MB, Rank F, Tange UB, Lynge E: Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991-99. J Med Screen. 2002, 9: 115-119. 10.1136/jms.9.3.115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sarkeala T, Anttila A, Forsman H, Luostarinen T, Saarenmaa I, Hakama M: Process indicators from ten centres in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme from 1991 to 2000. Eur J Cancer. 2004, 40: 2116-2125. 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Autier P, Shannoun F, Scharpantgen A, Lux C, Back C, Severi G, Steil S, Hansen-Koenig D: A breast cancer screening programme operating in a liberal health care system: the Luxembourg Mammography Programme, 1992-1997. Int J Cancer. 2002, 97: 828-832. 10.1002/ijc.10161.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Oberaigner W, Buchberger W, Frede T, Knapp R, Marth C, Siebert U: Breast cancer incidence and mortality in Tyrol/Austria after fifteen years of opportunistic mammography screening. BMC Public Health. 10: 86-
  43. Bihrmann K, Jensen A, Olsen AH, Njor S, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, Lynge E: Performance of systematic and non-systematic ('opportunistic') screening mammography: a comparative study from Denmark. J Med Screen. 2008, 15: 23-26. 10.1258/jms.2008.007055.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Bordoni A, Probst-Hensch NM, Mazzucchelli L, Spitale A: Assessment of breast cancer opportunistic screening by clinical-pathological indicators: a population-based study. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101: 1925-1931. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605378.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. de Gelder R, Bulliard JL, de Wolf C, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, Schopper D, de Koning HJ: Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer. 2009, 45: 127-138. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Jemelin C, Arzel B, Fioretta G, Levi F: Effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography screening. Ann Oncol. 2009, 20: 1199-1202. 10.1093/annonc/mdn770.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Chamot E, Charvet AI, Perneger TV: Who gets screened, and where: a comparison of organised and opportunistic mammography screening in Geneva, Switzerland. Eur J Cancer. 2007, 43: 576-584. 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Jensen A, Olsen AH, von Euler-Chelpin M, Helle Njor S, Vejborg I, Lynge E: Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere?. Int J Cancer. 2005, 113: 464-470. 10.1002/ijc.20604.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Broeders MJ, Scharpantgen A, Ascunce N, Gairard B, Olsen AH, Mantellini P, Mota TC, Van Limbergen E, Seradour B, Ponti A, et al: Comparison of early performance indicators for screening projects within the European Breast Cancer Network: 1989-2000. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005, 14: 107-116. 10.1097/00008469-200504000-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sahin AA, Guray M, Hunt KK: Identification and biologic significance of micrometastases in axillary lymph nodes in patients with invasive breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009, 133: 869-878.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Madsen AH, Jensen AR, Christiansen P, Garne JP, Cold S, Ewertz M, Overgaard J: Does the introduction of sentinel node biopsy increase the number of node positive patients with early breast cancer? A population based study form the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Acta Oncol. 2008, 47: 239-247. 10.1080/02841860701727436.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Chen TH, Kuo HS, Yen MF, Lai MS, Tabar L, Duffy SW: Estimation of sojourn time in chronic disease screening without data on interval cases. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 167-172. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00167.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G: Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998, 20: 396-403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Lynge E, Olsen AH, Fracheboud J, Patnick J: Reporting of performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2003, 12: 213-222. 10.1097/00008469-200306000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Giordano L, Giorgi D, Piccini P, Stefanini V, Castagno R, Senore C: Time trends of some indicators of mammography screening programmes in Italy, 1996-2003. Epidemiol Prev. 2006, 30: 17-26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/288/prepub

Copyright

© Majek et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement