Interval cancer incidence and episode sensitivity in the Norrbotten Mammography Screening Programme, Sweden

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.

Breast Cancer Screening Program in Lithuania: Interval Cancers and Program Sensitivity After 7 Years of Mammography Screening

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of interval cancers is critical in determining the sensitivity of screening and represents an objective measure of the quality of mammography screening program (MSP).

METHODS

Period analyzed: from 2006 to 2012. The rate of screen-detected, interval cancers and program sensitivity were measured. A comparison of screen-detected and interval cancers was performed.

RESULTS

During the period of the study, 429 473 women were screened and 1297 were found to have cancer. The overall screen-detected cancer rate was 30.2 per 10 000 women screened. Four hundred thirty-one case of interval cancers have occurred during the period of the study. The interval cancer ratio (ICR) was 0.25. Overall sensitivity of MSP amounted to 75.1%. Slightly lower sensitivity was found among the youngest age-group, especially for those with lobular cancers. Interval cancers were bigger in size, more often with metastases in lymph nodes, than screen-detected cancers, but these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall program sensitivity in Lithuania is about 75%, ICR is 0.25, and these parameters are comparable to other European countries.

The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening

An interval breast cancer is a cancer that emerges following a negative mammographic screen. This overview describes the epidemiology, and the radiological and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening. Notwithstanding possible differences in ascertainment of interval breast cancers, there was broad variability in reported interval breast cancer rates (range 7.0 to 49.3 per 10,000 screens) reflecting heterogeneity in underlying breast cancer rates, screening rounds (initial or repeat screens), and the length and phase of the inter-screening interval. The majority of studies (based on biennial screening) reported interval breast cancer rates in the range of 8.4 to 21.1 per 10,000 screens spanning the two-year interval with the larger proportion occurring in the second year. Despite methodological limitations inherent in radiological surveillance (retrospective mammographic review) of interval breast cancers, this form of surveillance consistently reveals that the majority of interval cancers represent either true interval or occult cancers that were not visible on the index mammographic screen; approximately 20–25% of interval breast cancers are classified as having been missed (false-negatives). The biological characteristics of interval breast cancers show that they have relatively worse tumour prognostic characteristics and biomarker profile, and also survival outcomes, than screen-detected breast cancers; however, they have similar characteristics and prognosis as breast cancers occurring in non-screened women. There was limited evidence on the effect on interval breast cancer frequency and outcomes following transition from film to digital mammography screening.

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.

Measuring the burden of interval cancers in long-standing screening mammography programmes

Objectives

Mammography screening programme sensitivity is evaluated by comparing the interval cancer rate (ICR) with the expected breast cancer incidence without screening, ie. the proportional interval cancer rate (PICR). The PICR is usually found by extrapolating pre-screening incidence rates, whereas ICR is calculated from data available in the screening programmes. As there is no consensus regarding estimation of background incidence, we seek to validate the ICR measure against the PICR.

Methods

Screening data from the three mammography screening programmes of Stockholm, Copenhagen, and Funen in the period 1989-2011 provided data to calculate the ICR. The most commonly described methods of extrapolating pre-screening incidence rates to calculate the PICR were illustrated and PICRs were calculated by year and programme using these different methods and compared with the ICRs.

Results

PICRs varied greatly, reaching a difference of 32–34% in Stockholm, 79% in Copenhagen, and 100–106% in Funen between the highest and the lowest value, depending on which method was applied. PICRs exhibited large variations yearly and from programme to programme. ICRs did not vary to the same extent, ranging on average from 0.100 to 0.136 in the first 12-months and between 0.201 and 0.225 in the last 12-months of the two-year period after a negative screen across the three programmes.

Conclusion

The value of the PICR is hugely influenced by which method is applied, whereas the ICR is calculated purely on data available within programmes. We find that the PICR, the establishing indicator for sensitivity, could preferably be replaced by the ICR.

Seventeen-years overview of breast cancer inside and outside screening in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on breast cancer detection in mammography screening programs are warranted to better understand the mechanisms by which screening changes the breast cancer pattern in the population. We aimed to analyze 17 years of breast cancer detection rates inside and outside screening in two Danish regions, emphasizing the influence of organizational differences of screening programs on the outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used data from two long-standing population-based mammography screening programs, Copenhagen and Fyn, in Denmark. Both programs offered biennial screening to women aged 50-69 years. We identified targeted, eligible, invited and participating women. We calculated screening detection and interval cancer rates for participants, and breast cancer incidence in non-screened women (= targeted women excluding participants) by biennial invitation rounds. Tumor characteristics were tabulated for each of the three groups of cancers.

RESULTS

Start of screening resulted in a prevalence peak in participants, followed by a decrease to a fairly stable detection rate in subsequent invitation rounds. A similar pattern was found for breast cancer incidence in non-screened women. In Fyn, non-screened women even had a higher rate than screening participants during the first three invitation rounds. The interval cancer rate was lower in Copenhagen than in Fyn, with an increase over time in Copenhagen, but not in Fyn. Screen-detected cancers showed tumor features related with a better prognosis than tumors detected otherwise, as more than 80% were smaller than 20 mm and estrogen receptor positive.

CONCLUSION

Data from two long-standing population-based screening programs in Denmark illustrated that even if background breast cancer incidence and organization were rather similar, performance indicators of screening could be strongly influenced by inclusion criteria and participation rates. Detection rates should be interpreted with caution as they may be biased by selection into the screening population.

Interval cancers in nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening: comparing two screening intervals after a negative initial screening result

OBJECTIVES

To examine the optimal screening interval among the individuals who received a negative Epstein-Barr virus immunoglobulin A antibodies against viral capsid antigen (VCA-IgA) serum test result and who comprised the majority of the population screened for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS

Screening was performed in Sihui, Guangdong, China, offering a repeated screening for participants with an initial negative test either after 4-5 years in one centre (short interval centre), or 9-10 years in another (long interval centre). The characteristics and incidence rates (IRs) of interval NPCs (defined as cases diagnosed outside the screening protocol while within the screening interval) were compared between these two centres. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) were also calculated using the general Sihui population as the reference.

RESULTS

Seven interval NPCs were detected in the short interval centre (IR: 17.8/10(5) person-years) and 20 in the long interval centre (IR: 20.8/10(5) person-years during the first four years and 43.5/10(5) person-years during the remaining years). The SIR in the short interval centre was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.89); SIR in the long interval centre was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.17-1.02) during the first four years and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.49-1.51) during the remaining years. No aggressive interval NPC was observed in the short interval centre; four were identified in the long interval centre.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of NPC, especially aggressive NPC, was low during the first few years after a negative screening; the incidence increased to the general population level afterwards. A screening interval of 4-5 years may therefore be more suitable than 9-10 years after a negative VCA-IgA test in NPC screening.

Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial)

Interval cancers (ICs), defined as cancers detected between regular screening mammograms, have been shown to be of higher grade, larger size, and associated with lower survival, compared with screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and comprise 17% of cancers from population-based screening programs. We sought to determine the frequency of ICs in a study of locally advanced breast cancers, the I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Screening was defined as having a mammogram with 2 years, and the proportion of ICs at 1 and 2 years was calculated for screened patients. Differences in clinical characteristics for ICs versus SDCs and screened versus non-screened cancers were assessed. For the 219 evaluable women, mean tumor size was 6.8 cm. Overall, 80% of women were over 40 and eligible for screening; however, only 31% were getting screened. Among women screened, 85% were ICs, with 68% diagnosed within 1 year of a previously normal mammogram. ICs were of higher grade (49% vs. 10%) than SDCs. Among non-screened women, 28% (43/152) were younger than the recommended screening age of 40. Of the entire cohort, 12% of cancers were mammographically occult (MO); the frequency of MO cancers did not differ between screened (11%) and non-screened (15%). ICs were common in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL suggesting the potential need for new approaches beyond traditional screening to reduce mortality in women who present with larger palpable cancers.