Methodological issues in international comparison of interval breast cancers.

International comparisons of interval cancers (IC) are important to better understand the relationship between programmes' performance and screening practices. In this respect, differences in (i) definition, (ii) identification and (iii) quantification of IC have received little attention. To examine these 3 comparability issues and activities involving IC, an assessment was conducted among member countries of the International Breast Cancer Screening Network, and the impact of accuracy of identification and quantification practices was estimated using 1996-98 data from the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. Information was obtained from 19 screening programmes in 18 countries, 16 of which acknowledged the coexistence of opportunistic screening. IC data were collected to evaluate performance of the screening programme (100% of programmes) and the radiologists (89%); 53% of programmes had a designated review process for IC. Most programmes (84%) agreed with the European Guidelines definition of IC, but a case situation exercise evidenced substantial discrepancy in classification of cancers that occurred after a positive screen. Completeness of identification of IC appears to contribute most to international variation, and cannot be easily controlled for in methodologically rigorous comparisons. Statistically significant differences of about 4% were measured between quantification methods for IC. An operational definition of IC is proposed to enhance international comparability. Valid comparisons of IC are possible with careful attention to the definition but true differences in IC frequency across screening programmes should exceed 10% to be possibly indicative of real differences between programmes.

[Quality assurance in organized screening of breast cancer]. / L'assurance de qualité en dépistage organise du cancer du sein.

Quality assurance is an essential process which should be applied for any organised breast cancer screening program since mammography it the only test available for an early diagnosis. It should also assess the quality of diagnostic and treatment processes in order to ascertain that the quality of the screening program would not be altered by the procedures which take place after the screening. Quality assurance must be applied to each component of the screening process: equipment, radiographers (technicians) as well as radiologists. It is a multidisciplinary approach following a well defined protocol, which should be supervised by a coordination unit, the Breast Cancer Screening Foundation in Canton of Vaud. Performances of the Vaud program show clearly at what extend multiple reading method improves the quality of screening. It seems that there is no inconvenient to involve radiologists who wish to participate without any selection to the reading process provided that there is in place a team of 2nd and 3rd readers who benefit of an appropriate training and experience.