Survival after breast cancer according to participation in organised or opportunistic screening and deprivation.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have investigated the survival of women by comparing those who participated in organised screening with those who did not. However, among those who do not participate in organised screening, some women undergo opportunistic screening, but these women remain difficult to identify, particularly in France. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify opportunistic screening, and then to study survival after breast cancer separately according to participation in organised, opportunistic or no screening, and taking into account sociodemographic inequalities. METHODS: The study population was identified from 3 French cancer registries, whose data was crossed with the screening coordination centers and the National Health Data System to identify the different type of screening. The European Deprivation Index was used to define the level of deprivation. We estimated net survival using the Pohar-Perme method. RESULTS: The 5-year net survival probabilities were higher for women who attended organised screening (97.0 %) than for women with opportunistic screening (94.1 %) or non-attenders (78.1 %). According to the level of deprivation, a significant difference was observed between the groups of women screened by organised and opportunistic screening, compared to the non-attenders. CONCLUSION: The identification of opportunistic screening is an important element in identifying women who do not screening. It enables to us to see that women who do not attend any screening have a much higher loss-of-opportunity in terms of survival than those who participate in organised or opportunistic screening, and even more so in the most deprived areas.

Deprivation and mass screening: Survival of women diagnosed with breast cancer in France from 2008 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have investigated the role of socio-demographic inequalities in the association between screening and survival. However, in France, no study has been conducted to describe the socio-demographic characteristics and survival of women with breast cancer based on their participation to mass screening. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of socio-demographic inequalities on the association between participation in mass screening program and survival of women with breast cancer. METHODS: Data for 2,244 women aged 50-74 years diagnosed with breast cancer over the period 2008-2010 were obtained from the cancer registry and the screening structure of Gironde. We used the aggregated European Deprivation Index (EDI) to define the deprivation level of women. Net survival rates were estimated with the Pohar-Perme method, with and without correcting for lead-time bias. RESULTS: Survival rates were lower for non-attenders than for screen-detected women (83.8% vs 97.3%, p < 0.0001), even after correcting for lead-time bias. Among the most deprived women, the survival rate was significantly different between non-attenders and screen-detected women (78.1% vs 95.6%, p = 0.0002), suggesting an important effect of mass screening in this group. CONCLUSION: The introduction of incentive actions in deprived areas could play a key role in the adherence of women to mass screening and in improving their survival in case of a breast cancer diagnosis.

[Breast cancer diagnosis among women aged 75 and over: study on information delivered by organized breast cancer screening agencies to women reaching the limit age]. / Diagnostic du cancer du sein après 74 ans: information donnée par les structures de gestion du dépistage organisé à la sortie de la tranche d'âge concernée.

Breast cancer among older women is a major and increasing public health issue. No clear recommendation has been established in France after 74 years, the age limit for state-organised screening program. A survey was performed among all regional agencies in charge of the breast screening to analyse which information is delivered to women reaching the age of 75 years. A postal survey sent to 91 French organised cancer screening agencies. Among the 89 agencies that answered, only 22 deliver a systematic written information. Twelve suggest that mammographic screening should be continued, and five mention clinical examination. Twenty agencies dispatch the screening to general practitioners or gynaecologists. Two information letters insist on the ongoing risk of breast cancer. Most of the written information is given with the last mammography report. No impact study has ever been performed. In our study, only 25% of the screening agencies give systematic information to women. The modalities and the substance of this information are heterogeneous. A better information seems to be a key-point for earlier clinical breast cancer diagnosis among older women, for whom there is little direct evidence of the benefit of systematic mammographic screening.