Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991–99

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Vejborg ◽  
A.H. Olsen ◽  
M-B. Jensen ◽  
F. Rank ◽  
U.B. Tange ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
High Recall ◽  
Early Outcome ◽  
High Recall Rate

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the early outcome of an organised mammography screening programme in an area with little opportunistic screening. SETTING: The municipality of Copenhagen, Denmark, during four invitation rounds 1991–99. METHODS: The following outcome measures were used: rates of participation, recall, false positive, and cancer detection. Benign biopsy, distribution of tumour size, lymph node status, and malignancy grade. RESULTS: A total of 106 933 screens were undertaken, and 824 invasive breast carcinomas or CIS were detected. The detection rate was 11.9 per 1000 participants in the first invitation round, and it continued to be high in subsequent rounds. The percentage of CIS cases was 11%. Coverage declined from 71% in the first round to 62% in the fourth, although 91% of those participating in the previous three rounds attended. The programme operated with a high recall rate. The false positive rate was also high, being 5.6% at first screen, and 1.8% later on. However, 90% of false positives were sorted out already at assessment. The percentage of screen detected invasive breast cancers with a tumour diameter ≤10 mm was 39% compared with 16% of all invasive breast cancers in these age groups in Copenhagen before screening. CONCLUSION: Copenhagen is an area with a high incidence of breast cancer and with relatively little opportunistic screening. The start of a screening programme with a high recall rate in this area resulted in a detection rate above 1%. The Copenhagen programme met or exceeded most of the interim measures recommended in the European Guidelines.

scholarly journals Correction: Association of symptoms and interval breast cancers in the mammography-screening programme: population-based matched cohort study

2019 ◽  
Vol 120 (7) ◽  
pp. 773-774
Author(s):  
Deependra Singh ◽  
Joonas Miettinen ◽  
Stephen Duffy ◽  
Nea Malila ◽  
Janne Pitkäniemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Matched Cohort ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Matched Cohort Study

Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study

2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Feeley ◽  
Donal Kiernan ◽  
Therese Mooney ◽  
Fidelma Flanagan ◽  
Gormlaith Hargaden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cancer Detection Rate ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Predictive Values

AimsMost studies comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) have been radiology-based. The pathological implications of FFDM have received little attention in the literature, especially in the context of screening programmes. The primary objective of this retrospective study is to compare FFDM with SFM in a population-based screening programme with regard to a number of pathological parameters.MethodsDuring the study period, 107 818 women underwent screening mammograms with almost equal numbers obtained with each technique (49.9% with SFM vs 50.1% with FFDM). We compared SFM with FFDM using the following parameters: recall rate, diagnostic core biopsy rate, cancer detection rates, B3 rate, B4 rate, preoperative diagnostic rate for malignancy, positive predictive values and tumour characteristics.ResultsThe recall rate was significantly higher with FFDM (4.21% vs 3.52%, p<0.0001). The overall cancer detection rate of 7.2 per 1000 women screened with FFDM was also significantly higher than the rate of 6.2 per 1000 women screened with SFM (p=0.04). The B3 rate in the SFM group was 1.3 per 1000 women screened versus 2.5 per 1000 women screened in the FFDM group (p<0.001). The recall rate and cancer detection rates (overall, invasive and pure ductal carcinoma in situ) were all significantly higher with FFDM for lesions presenting as microcalcifications.ConclusionsThe higher cancer detection rate with FFDM in this study was due to improved detection of microcalcifications. However, this was achieved at the cost of a higher recall rate and a higher B3 rate, indicating that overtreatment may be problematic with digital mammography.

scholarly journals Predicting first-trimester outcome of embryos with cardiac activity in women with recurrent spontaneous abortion

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 030006052091182
Author(s):  
Huixian Li ◽  
Shuang Qin ◽  
Fanfan Xiao ◽  
Yuhong Li ◽  
Yunhe Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Clinical Indicators ◽  
Early Outcome ◽  
Heart Motion ◽  
Positive Rate

Objective This study was performed to evaluate the capability of routine clinical indicators to predict the early outcome of embryos with cardiac activity in women with recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA). Methods A retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with a history of RSA in a Chinese tertiary hospital was performed using unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression. Results Of 789 pregnant women with RSA, 625 (79.21%) had ongoing pregnancy, whereas 164 (20.79%) developed abortion before 20 full weeks of gestational age even after embryonic heart motion was detected. The final model had an area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.84) with a sensitivity of 74.39%, a specificity of 76.00%, and a false-positive rate of 52.32% at a fixed detection rate of 90%. Conclusions The combination of multiple routine clinical indicators was valuable in predicting the early outcome of embryos with cardiac activity in viable pregnancies with RSA. However, this model might result in a high false-positive rate with a fixed detection rate of 90%; other markers must be investigated to identify first-trimester RSA once positive embryonic heart motion is established.

scholarly journals Comparison of Mammography and Ultrasonography for Early Detection of Breast Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1450-1455
Author(s):  
Samina Mahmood ◽  
M Nawaz Anjum ◽  
Faiza Farooq ◽  
S.Amir Gilani ◽  
Mehreen Fatima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Major Purpose ◽  
High Recall ◽  
Dense Breasts ◽  
High Recall Rate

Aim: This systematic review is specifically aimed to compare mammography and ultrasonography in early detection of breast cancer. For this systematic review, major purpose is to compare both screening methods and also analyze the performance of supplemental ultrasonography for early detection of breast cancer. Methodology: For this systematic review, total 23 studies are included which follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic articles from year 2007 to from year 2017 on PUB Med, online Willey library, and Science Direct site were searched by using keywords related to sonographic and mammography imaging for breast cancer. Results: Out of 23 studies, 12 studies are conducted on women with dense breasts. Twenty studies performed their imaging with hand held ultrasound (HHUS). Out of twenty-three studies, sixteen studies followed BI-RADS procedures. In eleven studies that used joint methods, it was observed that mammography (MAM) has 65% whereas ultrasound (US) has 68% efficiency for early detection of breast cancer. 88% area under a cover (AUCs) among MAM and 98% among US imaging was observed. No major difference was found in sensitivity and specificity of both techniques. Conclusion: Study concludes that Ultrasound is more efficient to diagnose factors suggestive of breast cancer that cannot be detected on mammography. It also has the potential to evaluate cancer among dense breast women but unfortunately in some cases, it may cause a high recall rate. Keywords: Breast, Cancer, Mammography, Ultrasonography, Screening.

scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental US screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM).Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Wed of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for supplemental or primary US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), and proportions of invasive cancers (ProIC) or node-positive cancers (ProNPC) among screening-detected cancers.Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which supplemental US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both MAM and US were used as primary screening methods. Meta-analyses revealed that supplemental US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 94% (95% CIs: 88% to 97%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 2.9/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 3.9/1000), RR of 8.6% (95%CIs: 4.8% to 13.5%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.5% to 5.5%), ProICof 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNPC of 72.6% (95%CIs: 51.9% to 90.0%). Compared with primary MAM screening, primary US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.2% (95%CIs:0.4% to 1.9%), P =0.004] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [20.2% (95%CIs: 7.2% to 33.1%), P = 0.002]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNPC.Conclusions Supplemental US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM, while primary US screening would be considered as comparable to primary MAM screening in certain subgroup of women, but with a higher recall rate and a higher detection rate for invasive cancers.

Chord-Based Indexing Model to Support Complex Query and Load Balancing

2011 ◽  
Vol 474-476 ◽  
pp. 1781-1786
Author(s):  
Xiu Mei Zhao ◽  
Fang Ai Liu ◽  
Song Qin
Keyword(s):  
Load Balancing ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
High Recall ◽  
Complex Query ◽  
New Model ◽  
File Storage ◽  
Fuzzy Matching ◽  
High Recall Rate ◽  
Indexing Model

This paper presents a new model (SMF-Chord) which is expanded from Chord. SMF-Chord uses double-fingerprint, double-mapping and dynamic forwarding mechanism to support multi-attribute multi-keyword fuzzy-matching query, and also has a load balancing mechanism which includes three parts: similar-close transposition, forward balancing and hot-set cache. The experiment results show SMF-Chord has high recall rate with low storage redundancy, and it can effectively balance load when node mapping load, file storage load, or query load is unbalanced.

scholarly journals Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Shengfeng Wang ◽  
Liwen Zhang ◽  
Chao Sheng ◽  
Fengju Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Global Profile ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background To provide a global profile of supplemental ultrasonography (US) screening after mammography (MAM) screening or primary US screening for breast cancers.Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Wed of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for supplemental or primary US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), and proportions of invasive cancers (ProIC) or node-positive cancers (ProNPC) among screening-detected cancers.Results Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 supplemental US screening studies and 11 joint screening studies in which both MAM and US were used as primary screening methods. Meta-analyses revealed that supplemental US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82% to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 94% (95% CIs: 88% to 97%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 2.9/1000 (95%CIs: 1.8/1000 to 3.9/1000), RR of 8.6% (95%CIs: 4.8% to 13.5%), BR of 3.9% (95%CIs: 2.5% to 5.5%), ProICof 73.9% (95%CIs: 49.0% to 93.7%), and ProNPC of 72.6% (95%CIs: 51.9% to 90.0%). Compared with primary MAM screening, primary US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.2% (95%CIs:0.4% to 1.9%), P =0.004] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [20.2% (95%CIs: 7.2% to 33.1%), P = 0.002]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNPC.Conclusions Supplemental US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM, while primary US screening performances are comparable to those of primary MAM screening, but with a higher recall rate and a higher detection rate for invasive cancers.

Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 550-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sune Bangsbøll Andersen ◽  
Ilse Vejborg ◽  
My von Euler-Chelpin
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Positive Test ◽  
False Positive Test
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document