Results from 10 years of breast screening in Wales

Cost-Effectiveness of Three Rounds of Mammography Breast Cancer Screening in Iranian Women

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Iranian women as is worldwide. Mammography screening has been introduced as a beneficial method for reducing mortality and morbidity of this disease.

OBJECTIVES

We developed an analytical model to assess the cost effectiveness of an organized mammography screening program in Iran for early detection of the breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is an economic evaluation of mammography screening program among Iranian woman aged 40 - 70 years. A decision tree and Markov model were applied to estimate total quality adjusted life years (QALY) and lifetime costs.

RESULTS

The results revealed that the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of mammography screening in Iranian women in the first round was Int. $ 37,350 per QALY gained. The model showed that the ICER in the second and third rounds of screening program were Int. $ 141,641 and Int. $ 389,148 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results identified that mammography screening program was cost-effective in 53% of the cases, but incremental cost per QALY in the second and third rounds of screening are much higher than the accepted payment threshold of Iranian health system. Thus, evaluation of other screening strategies would be useful to identify more cost-effective program. Future studies with new national data can improve the accuracy of our finding and provide better information for health policy makers for decision making.

Interval cancer rates in the Irish national breast screening programme

OBJECTIVE

To compare interval cancer rates from the Irish breast screening programme, BreastCheck, for the period 2000-2007 with those from other European countries.

METHODS

Data from BreastCheck was linked to National Cancer Registry breast cancer registrations, to calculate numbers of women screened, screen-detected cancers, and interval cancers, by year of screening, in the first and second years after screening, and by initial or subsequent screen. Estimated underlying cancer incidence from the period 1996-1999 inclusive was used to calculate proportionate incidence. We calculated the interval cancer ratio as an alternative measure of the burden of interval cancers.

RESULTS

There were 372,658 screening records for 178,147 women in the period 2000-2007. The overall interval rate was 9.6 per 10,000 screens. In the first year after screening, the interval cancer rate was 5.8 per 10,000 screens and this increased to 13.4 in the second year after screening. The screen detection rate for the period was 53.6 per 10,000 screened for all screens combined. Initial screens produced a higher detection rate at 66.9 per 10,000 screened compared with subsequent screens with a screen-detected rate of 41.4 per 10,000 screens.

CONCLUSION

Interval breast cancer rates for the first years of the programme are within acceptable limits and are comparable with those in other European programmes. Nationwide roll-out together with the adoption of digital mammography may have an impact on interval cancer rates in future years.

Comparison of interval breast cancer rates for two-versus single-view screening mammography: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the implementation of two-view mammography was followed by a reduction in the rates of interval cancers.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We analyzed the data concerning women aged 50-69 who attended the breast cancer screening program between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2006 in Isère, France. We performed Poisson regressions to estimate age-adjusted rate ratios of women being recalled, cancer detection, and interval cancer for two-view compared to single-view mammography.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age, two-view mammography was associated with a higher risk of cancer detection (1.37 [95% CI, 1.16-1.62]) and with a decreased risk of 12-month (0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.92]) and 24-month (0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.88]) interval cancer.

CONCLUSION

Two-view mammography for first and subsequent screens is associated with lower rates of interval breast cancer. This is at the expense of an increased number of women being recalled for further assessment after subsequent screens.

Interval cancers following breast cancer screening in Singaporean women

Our study reports on the interval cancers arising in the subsequent 3 years in women screened as part of the Singapore Breast Cancer Screening Programme that commenced in 1994. Women, the majority of Chinese ethnicity, were either invited or not invited by random allocation to be screened. All women, other than those identified with breast cancer at screening, whether invited or not, were followed for 3 years, and information on all breast cancers arising in this period was obtained through the national registry. In particular, the cancers arising from those women who were deemed free of the disease at screening were noted. The mammographs taken at screening of those women who developed such an interval cancer were rereviewed by 3 radiologists. In the 28,099 women who were screened and deemed free of disease, 59 interval cancers were reported with annual rates of 2.1, 10.6 and 10.8 per 10,000 women-years in the succeeding 3-year periods. In 39,425 women who were invited but declined screening, the rates were 17.0, 15.5 and 11.7, while the corresponding rates from 97,294 women not invited were 12.8, 13.3 and 13.0. Whereas the annual incidence at 1 year in women who have been screened is much lower than those in the 2 groups who were not screened, it is of a similar magnitude by 2 years. This suggests that locally an optimal screening interval may be close to 1 year. The rereview of the mammograms of those 59 women with interval cancers suggested that the maximum possible number of these that might have been detected at screening was 10 (17%).