scholarly journals Predictors of outcome of mammography in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Banks ◽  
G. Reeves ◽  
V. Beral ◽  
D. Bull ◽  
B. Crossley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Family History ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Breast Screening ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
Breast Screening Programme ◽  
History Of ◽  
National Health Service Breast

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the factors influencing the risk of recall for assessment, invasive diagnostic procedures, and early rescreening after screening mammography. METHODS: From June 1996 to March 1998 women attending screening at 10 National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) centres completed a self administered questionnaire and were followed up for their screening outcome. RESULTS: 1969 (3.3%) out of 60 443 women aged 50–64 who had never used hormone replacement therapy (HRT) were recalled for assessment but were not diagnosed with breast cancer (defined here as false positive recall). After adjustment for the variation between centres, false positive recall was decreased significantly among women who were likely to have had a previous NHSBSP mammogram (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.38 to 0.63 for likely versus unlikely), who were postmenopausal (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76 for postmenopausal v premenopausal) and increased significantly for women reporting previous breast surgery (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.89). Although false positive recall decreased significantly with parity and increasing body mass index, these effects were not large and no significant variation was found with age, education, family history of breast cancer, oral contraceptive use, sterilisation, exercise, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Altogether 655 (1.1%) women had an invasive diagnostic procedure; no personal characteristics were predictive of this outcome, 286(0.5%) were referred for early rescreening, and this was increased significantly by nulliparity and a family history of breast cancer. INTERPRETATION: Premenopausal women, those without a previous NHSBSP mammogram, and women with previous breast surgery have an increased risk of false positive recall by the NHSBSP.

scholarly journals Use of Two View Mammography Compared with One View in the Detection of Small Invasive Cancers: Further Results from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
R G Blanks ◽  
S M Moss ◽  
M G Wallis
Keyword(s):  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Breast Screening ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Cancer Detection Rate ◽  
Invasive Cancer ◽  
Breast Screening Programme ◽  
National Health Service Breast

Objective— To examine further the effect of using two view mammography in comparison with one view mammography in the detection of small (<15 mm) invasive cancers for programmes in the National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP). The study is in two parts: First the effect on the small invasive cancer detection rate for programmes that changed from using one view to two views for first (prevalent) screens, and secondly the effect on the small invasive cancer detection rate for programmes that used two views for subsequent (incident) screens compared with programmes that used one view. Setting— Screening programme data from the NHSBSP. Methods— Data were collated from all screening programmes in the United Kingdom on standard “Korner” returns (KC62 forms) for the screening years 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 and 1 April 199S to 31 March 1996. The comparison between one and two view mammography was made using indirectly age standardised invasive cancer detection rates. Results— For prevalent (first) screens, programmes changing from one view mammography in 1994/95 to two views in 1995/96 reported a 45% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25% to 68%) increase in the detection of invasive cancers of <15 mm. In comparison, programmes that were already using two views in 1994/95 showed no change in 1995/96. For incident (subsequent) screens the small number of programmes that have opted to use two views reported 25% (95% CI 1% to 55%) more invasive cancers of <15 mm than programmes using one view in 1995/96, and 42% (95% CI 11% to 81%) more in 1994/95. Conclusions— These results confirm the benefit of using two view mammography in the detection of small invasive cancers, and provide evidence that this effect is seen in subsequent screens as well as the first screen.

scholarly journals Communicating benign biopsy results by telephone in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: a protocol for a cluster randomised crossover trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028679
Author(s):  
Sian Zena Williamson ◽  
Rebecca Johnson ◽  
Harbinder Kaur Sandhu ◽  
Nicholas Parsons ◽  
Jacquie Jenkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Breast Screening ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Breast Screening Programme ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Benign Biopsy

IntroductionOne of the main harms from breast cancer screening is the anxiety caused by false positive results. Various factors may be associated with false-positive anxiety. One modifiable factor may be the method of communication used to deliver results. The aim of this study is to measure the effect on anxiety of receiving benign biopsy results in-person or by telephone.Methods and analysisThis is a multi-centre cluster randomised crossover trial in the English National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) involving repeated survey measures at four time points. Participants will be women of screening age who have a biopsy following a suspicious mammography result, who ultimately receive a benign or normal (B1) result. Centres will trial both telephone and in-person results on a month-by-month basis, being randomised to which communication method will be trialled first. Women will be blinded to the method of communication they will receive. The analysis will compare women who have received telephone results and women who have received in-person results. The primary outcome measure will be anxiety (measured by the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire) after receiving results, while controlling for baseline anxiety. Secondary outcome measures will include anxiety at 3 and 6 months post-results, understanding of results and patient preferences for how results are communicated. Qualitative telephone interviews will also be conducted to further explore women’s reasons for communication preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated after initial separate analysis using the pillar integration process.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Public Health England Breast Screening Programme Research Advisory Committee, (BSPRAC_0013, ODR1718_040) and the National Health Service Health Research Authority (HRA) West Midlands—Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0313). The findings from this study will be disseminated to key stakeholders within the NHSBSP and via academic publications.Trial registration numberISRCTN36997684Trial sponsorThis research is part of a PhD award and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Warwick and Public Health England. The sponsor for this research is Jane Prewett ([email protected]).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document