Clinical Image Quality and Sensitivity in an Organized Mammography Screening Program.

PURPOSE: The study sought to examine the association between clinical image quality of mammograms and screening sensitivity. METHODS: Four radiologists evaluated the clinical image quality of 374 invasive screen-detected cancers and 356 invasive interval breast cancers for which quality evaluation of screening mammograms could be assessed from cancers diagnosed among participants in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program in 2007. Quality evaluation was based on the Canadian Association of Radiologists accreditation criteria, which are similar to those of the American College of Radiology. The association between clinical quality and screening sensitivity was assessed by logistic regression. Adjusted sensitivity and adjusted sensitivity ratios were obtained through marginal standardization. No institutional review board approval was required. RESULTS: A proportion of 28% (206 of 730) of screening mammograms had lower overall quality for the majority of assessments. Positioning was the quality attribute that was the most frequently deficient. The 2-year screening sensitivity reached 68%. Sensitivity of screening was not statistically associated with the overall quality (ratio of 2-year sensitivity = 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.15) or with any quality attributes (positioning, exposure, compression, sharpness, artifacts, contrast). Results were similar for the 1-year sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Although not all mammograms in the Quebec screening program met the optimum quality required by the Canadian Association of Radiologists or American College of Radiology accreditation, the screening mammograms produced in this population-based organized screening program reached a high enough level of quality so that the remaining variation in quality is too little to impair screening sensitivity.

Detection Rate, Recall Rate, and Positive Predictive Value of Digital Compared to Screen-Film Mammography in the Quebec Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Program.

PURPOSE: The study sought to compare performance indicators of computed radiography (CR) using different plate readers, digital direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM) in a population-based screening program. METHODS: This analysis involved women 50-69 years of age who participated in the breast screening program of Quebec (Canada) and who had screening mammogram between January 1, 2007, and September 30, 2012. The detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value of CR (n = 672,125 mammograms) and DR (n = 60,023) were compared to SFM (n = 782,894) using mixed-effect logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. No institutional review board approval was required. RESULTS: CR was not associated with change in cancer detection rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.03), but with a small increase in recall rate (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) compared to SFM. The association of CR with recall rate varies with the CR plate reader manufacturer (P < .0001). DR was not associated with change in detection rate (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89-1.25), but with an increase in the recall rate (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.19-1.30) compared to SFM. CONCLUSIONS: In our screening program, digital mammograms gave detection rates equivalent to those of SFM, but with an increase of recall rate, particularly for DR. If this situation persists, the adoption of DR may increase the adverse effects of screening with little or no benefit for women.

Contribution and performance of mobile units in an organized mammography screening program.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to evaluate the contribution of mobile mammography units to participation rate and to compare their performance to fixed screening centres within the organized mammography screening program of Quebec, Canada. METHODS: The study is based on all screening mammograms carried out in women aged 50-69 who participated in the Québec program from 2002 to 2010. Performance was measured by screening sensitivity, false-positive rate (1-specificity), positive likelihood ratio as well as abnormal call rate, detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value, and tumour characteristics. Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation were used to take into account the multi-level structure of the data. All models were adjusted for characteristics related to women. RESULTS: During the 2002-2010 period, 2,292,592 screening mammograms were performed, of which 42,279 (1.8%) were in mobile units. In regions serviced exclusively by mobile units, the participation rate reached an average of 63.4% during the 2006-2010 period compared to 54.7% for the entire study population. Estimated sensitivity was similar to that of fixed sites (rate ratio = 0.98 [0.84-1.15]) while the false-positive rate was lower (rate ratio = 0.76 [0.57-1.02]) although this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In this program, mobile mammography units allowed regions lacking a fixed centre to attain participation rates slightly higher than those in the rest of Quebec, without loss of sensitivity and with some gain in the false-positive rate.

Geographic access to mammography screening centre and participation of women in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the impact of distance between women's residences and designated screening centres (DSC) on participation in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Programme, whether this impact varied according to the rural-urban classification and the proportion of participants who used the DSC nearest to their home. METHODS: Travel distance between the residence of 833 856 women and the nearest DSC (n=85) was estimated. Data were obtained from administrative and screening programme databases. The analysis made use of a log-binomial regression model adjusting for age and material and social deprivation. The proportions of participants who used the DSC nearest to their residence were measured. RESULTS: Compared to women living <2.5 km from a DSC, absolute decreases of 6.3% and 9.8% in participation rate were observed for distances of 50.0 to <75.0 km (rate ratios (RR)=0.88, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.89) and ≥75.0 km (RR=0.81, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.83), respectively. The lowest participation (42%) was observed in Montreal Island. The distance at which participation started to decrease materially varied according to rural-urban classification. Participation rates decreased at distances of ≥25.0 km in the Montreal suburbs and midsize cities, at ≥12.5 km in small cities and at ≥50.0 km in rural areas (interaction p<0.0001). The proportion of participants who had their mammography at the nearest DSC decreased with increasing distance. CONCLUSIONS: Distance affects participation and this effect varies according to rural-urban classification. The lower participation in Montreal Island, where all women lived <12.5 km from a DSC, argues for a major impact of other characteristics or other dimensions of accessibility.

Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: In the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program (Programme quebecois de depistage du cancer du sein [PQDCS]), radiologists' and facilities' volumes of screening mammography vary considerably. We examined the relation of screening-mammography volume to rates of breast cancer detection and false-positive readings in the PQDCS. METHODS: The study population included 307,314 asymptomatic women aged 50-69 years screened during 1998-2000. Breast cancer detection rates were analyzed by comparing all women with screening-detected breast cancer (n = 1709) and a 10% random sample of those without (n = 30,560). False-positive rates were analyzed by comparing the 3159 women with false-positive readings and the 27,401 others in the 10% random sample. Characteristics of participants, radiologists and facilities were obtained from the PQDCS information system. Data were analyzed by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: The rate of breast cancer detection appeared to be unrelated to the radiologist's screening-mammography volume but increased with the facility's screening-mammography volume. The breast cancer detection rate ratio for facilities performing 4000 or more screenings per year, compared with those performing fewer than 2000, was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.52). In contrast, the frequency of false-positive readings was unrelated to the facility's screening volume but was inversely related to the radiologist's screening volume: the rate ratio for readers of 1500 or more screenings per year compared with those reading fewer than 250 was 0.53 (95% CI 0.35-0.79). INTERPRETATION: Radiologists' and facilities' caseloads showed independent and complementary associations with performance of screening mammography in the PQDCS. Radiologists who worked in larger facilities and read more screening mammograms had higher breast cancer detection rates while maintaining lower false-positive rates.