Early performance measures following regular versus irregular screening attendance in the population-based screening program for breast cancer in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: Irregular attendance in breast cancer screening has been associated with higher breast cancer mortality compared to regular attendance. Early performance measures of a screening program following regular versus irregular screening attendance have been less studied. We aimed to investigate early performance measures following regular versus irregular screening attendance. METHODS: We used information from 3,302,396 screening examinations from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Examinations were classified as regular or irregular. Regular was defined as an examination 2 years ± 6 months after the prior examination, and irregular examination >2 years and 6 months after prior examination. Performance measures included recall, biopsy, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive values, and histopathological tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Recall rate was 2.4% (72,429/3,070,068) for regular and 3.5% (8217/232,328) for irregular examinations. The biopsy rate was 1.0% (29,197/3,070,068) for regular and 1.7% (3825/232,328) for irregular examinations, while the rate of screen-detected cancers 0.51% (15,664/3,070,068) versus 0.86% (2003/232,328), respectively. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.49-1.56) for recall, 1.73 (95% CI: 1.68-1.80) for biopsy, and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.60-1.76) for screen-detected cancer after irregular examinations compared to regular examinations. The proportion of lymph node-positive tumors was 20.1% (2553/12,719) for regular and 25.6% (426/1662) for irregular examinations. CONCLUSION: Irregular attendance was linked to higher rates of recall, needle biopsies, and cancer detection. Cancers detected after irregular examinations had less favorable histopathological tumor characteristics compared to cancers detected after regular examinations. Women should be encouraged to attend screening when invited to avoid delays in diagnosis.

Participation and cancer detection after reminders versus ordinary invitations in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare attendance, recall and cancer detection as well as histopathological tumor characteristics among women attending BreastScreen Norway after a reminder versus an ordinary invitation. SETTING: This study was conducted on data from a population-based screening program inviting women aged 50-69 to biennial two-view mammography. METHODS: We used de-identified data from 883,020 women invited to BreastScreen Norway, 2004-2020, to analyze invitations, participation, recalls, biopsies, cancer detection, and histopathological tumor characteristics. All results were stratified by reminders and ordinary invitations. Early screening outcomes after reminders versus ordinary invitations were compared using bivariate tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Reminders increased overall participation rate by 5.0%. The recall rate was 4.3% for reminded women and 3.3% for the ordinary invited. For reminded women, the rate of screen-detected cancer was 7.3 per 1000 screening examinations compared to 5.8 per 1000 for ordinary attenders. The interval cancer rates were 1.9 and 1.7 per 1000 for reminded and ordinary invited women, respectively. Median tumor diameter was 14 mm (interquartile range (IQR): 10-16) for screen-detected cancers (SDC) among reminded women and 13 mm (IQR: 10-16) for ordinary invited. A higher percentage of histological grade III cancers was observed among the reminded: 25.2% versus 21.7% for the ordinary invited. We also found a higher proportion of lymph node positive cases in those reminded: 23.6% versus 20.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Postponing screening examinations affects early screening outcomes, including cancer detection and histopathological tumor characteristics. Women should be encouraged to attend screening at regularly intervals to avoid delays in diagnosis.

Self-reported symptoms among participants in a population-based screening program.

BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have explored the association between self-reported symptoms and the risk of breast cancer among participants of population based screening programs. METHODS: We performed descriptive statistics on recall, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive value and histopathological tumour characteristics by symptom group (asymptomatic, lump, and skin or nipple changes) as reported from 785,642 women aged 50-69 when they attended BreastScreen Norway 1996-2016. Uni- and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between symptom group and screen-detected or interval cancer. Results were presented as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A lump or skin/nipple change was reported in 6.2% of the 3,307,697 examinations. The rate of screen-detected cancers per 1000 examinations was 45.2 among women with a self-reported lump and 5.1 among asymptomatic women. Adjusted odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was 10.1 (95% CI: 9.3-11.1) and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) for interval cancer among women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women. Tumour diameter, histologic grade and lymph node involvement of screen-detected and interval cancer were less prognostically favourable for women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women. CONCLUSION: Despite targeting asymptomatic women, 6.2% of the screening examinations in BreastScreen Norway was performed among women who reported a lump or skin/nipple change when they attended screening. The odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was higher for women with versus without symptoms. Standardized follow-up guidelines might be beneficial for screening programs in order to take care of women reporting signs or symptoms of breast cancer when they attend screening.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Purpose To compare the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) with that of digital mammography (DM) in a population-based mammographic screening program. Materials and Methods In this prospective cohort study, data from 37 185 women screened with DBT and SM and from 61 742 women screened with DM as part of a population-based screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included. Early performance measures, including recall rate due to abnormal mammographic findings, rate of screen-detected breast cancer, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of needle biopsy, histopathologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node involvement, hormonal status, Ki-67 level, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were compared in women who underwent DBT and SM screening and in those who underwent DM screening by using χ2 tests, two-sample unpaired t tests, and tests of proportions. Results Recall rates were 3.4% for DBT and SM screening and 3.3% for DM screening (P = .563). DBT and SM screening showed a significantly higher rate of screen-detected cancer compared with DM screening (9.4 vs 6.1 cancers per 1000 patients screened, respectively; P < .001). The rate of detection of tumors 10 mm or smaller was 3.2 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM and 1.8 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001), and the rate of grade 1 tumors was 3.3 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM versus 1.4 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001). On the basis of immunohistochemical analyses, rates of lymph node involvement and tumor subtypes did not differ between women who underwent DBT and SM screening and those who underwent DM screening. Conclusion DBT and SM screening increased the detection rate of histologically favorable tumors compared with that attained with DM screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Mobile X-ray service for nursing homes. / Mobil røntgentjeneste ved sykehjem.

BACKGROUND: Transport to a radiology department can be a strain on nursing home patients, leading to less use of diagnostic imaging. The purpose of this study was to examine the use and benefit of a mobile X-ray service that enables imaging at nursing homes. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In connection with 300 of a total of 326 referrals to a mobile X-ray service in Vestfold County in the period March to September 2015, 66 doctors at 33 nursing homes completed a questionnaire on the options patients would have had in the absence of the mobile service. A hundred of these referrals were followed up one to two weeks later with a further questionnaire on the implications of the X-ray scan for diagnosis, treatment and nursing. Eighty-seven questionnaires were completed. RESULTS: In 219 cases (73 %), the patients would have been sent to a hospital radiology department if the mobile X-ray service had not been available. In 60 cases (20 %) the patients would not have had an X-ray examination. In the follow-up, doctors answered that the X-rays had yielded new diagnostic information in 81 cases (95 %), that 71 (83 %) of the X-ray results had had implications for further treatment and that 29 (34 %) had helped patients avoid hospitalisation. In 77 cases (89 %), the X-rays enabled important information to be given to patients and their families. CONCLUSION: A mobile X-ray service makes it possible to avoid transports that place a strain on patients and to provide necessary diagnoses for patients who would not otherwise have been examined.

Breast cancer stromal elastosis is associated with mammography screening detection, low Ki67 expression and favourable prognosis in a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Mammography screen-detected breast cancers have a better prognosis than predicted from established prognostic markers. A search for additional features that are characteristic for these tumours and their prognosis is needed to reduce overtreatment, a recognized challenge in breast cancer patient management today. Here, we have investigated the occurrence and importance of tumour elastosis. METHODS: We performed a population based retrospective study of breast cancers detected in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Vestfold County during 2004-2009. In total, 197 invasive screen-detected cancers and 75 interval cancers in patients aged 50-69 years were compared with regard to standard clinico-pathological parameters and tumour shape, as well as ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 expression. In particular, the presence of elastotic material in tumours was graded on a 4-tiered scale (score 0-3). RESULTS: Screen-detected cancers had a significantly higher content of stromal elastosis than interval cancers (p < 0.001). High content of elastosis (score 3) correlated strongly with stellate tumour shape, low histological grade, and ER+/HER2- status. Further, high elastosis score was significantly associated with lower Ki67 expression. In survival analyses, cases with high elastosis demonstrated increased recurrence free (p = 0.03) and disease-specific survival (p = 0.11) compared to cases with low elastosis. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between the presence of tumour elastosis, stellate tumour shape and mammography detection of breast cancers. To our knowledge, this is the first time elastosis has been studied in relation to breast cancer detection method. Presence of elastosis is associated with low tumour cell proliferation (Ki67) and a good prognosis. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_230.

Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-- results from a retrospective review.

PURPOSE: To compare the percentages and mammographic features of cancers missed at full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in women who participated in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program in 2002-2008. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Social Science Data Services approval was obtained; the requirement for informed consent was waived. Cases were all the interval and screening-detected cancers from 35 127 FFDM and 52 444 SFM examinations in two Norwegian counties. Prior and diagnostic FFDM examinations of 49 interval and 86 screening-detected breast cancers were reviewed by four breast radiologists and compared with a review of SFM examinations of 81 interval and 123 screening-detected cancers. Cancers were classified as missed or true, mammographic features were described, percentages were compared by using the χ(2) or Fisher exact test, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The percentages of interval and screening-detected cancers missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly. (interval cancers missed: 33% [16 of 49] at FFDM vs 30% [24 of 81] at SFM [P = .868]; screening-detected cancers missed: 20% [17 of 86] at FFDM vs 21% [26 of 123] at SFM [P = .946]). Asymmetry was present in 27% (95% CI: 13.3%, 45.5%) of prior mammograms of cancers missed at FFDM and 10% (95% CI: 3.3%, 21.8%) of those missed at SFM (P = .070). Calcifications were observed in 18% (95% CI: 7.0%, 35.5%) of the cancers missed at FFDM and 34% (95% CI: 21.2%, 48.8%) of those missed at SFM (P = .185). Average mammographic tumor size of missed cancers manifesting as masses was 10.4 mm at FFDM and 13.6 mm at SFM (P = .036). CONCLUSION: The use of FFDM has not reduced the challenge of missed cancers. Cancers missed at FFDM tend to have different mammographic features than those missed at SFM.

Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To increase radiologic knowledge, the distribution of mammographic features on prior screening mammograms of missed interval and screen-detected cancers was compared to the distribution on diagnostic mammograms of screen-detected cancers. The same variables were compared on mammograms of discordant and concordant screen-detected cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed in Møre og Romsdal County, Norway, as a part of the quality assurance of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Women were screened using analog techniques and diagnosed from 2002 to 2008. Prior and diagnostic mammograms of 81 interval and 123 screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 50 to 71 years were retrospectively reviewed and classified as either missed or true by four experienced breast radiologists. Mammographic features were classified according to a modified Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. RESULTS: Thirty percent (24 of 81) of the interval cancers and 21% (26 of 123) of the screen-detected cancers were classified as missed. Calcifications, alone or in association with mass or asymmetry, tended to be more common on prior mammograms of missed cancers compared to diagnostic mammograms of screen-detected cancers (34% [17 of 50] vs 21% [26 of 123], P = .114), whereas an opposite trend was seen for mass (54% [27 of 50] vs 68% [84 of 123], P = .109). Similar results were seen when comparing discordant and concordant cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Calcifications represent a challenge in the interpretation of screening mammograms. For educational purposes, the importance of reviewing both interval and screen-detected cancers is obvious. Knowledge gained from systematic reviews might reduce the number of missed cancers on mammographic screening. Performing reviews according to established guidelines would make it possible to compare results across screening programs.

Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.

The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50-69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.