Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators
- PMID: 15900044
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji131
Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators
Abstract
Background: The recall rate (i.e., the rate at which mammographically screened women are recalled for additional assessment) in the Dutch breast screening program (0.89% in 2000 for subsequent examinations) is the lowest worldwide, with possible consequences including higher rates of late-detected (i.e., "missed") interval and screen-detected cancers. To estimate the effect of changes in recall rate on earlier detection of cancers, we carried out a blinded review of interval and screen-detected cancers in the Dutch screening program.
Methods: A total of 495 sets of screen-negative mammograms (prediagnostic mammogram and the immediate previous mammogram) were collected from women participating in the biennial Dutch screening program. Of these, 250 were from control subjects, and 245 were from women who were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer (123 interval and 122 screen-detected cancers). These mammograms were read by 15 radiologists who specialize in screening mammography and were blinded to outcome. Mean detection sensitivities for different false-positive rates were calculated using a linear mixed model. These results were used to calculate the effect of recall rate adjustment on earlier detection of cancers and numbers of false-positives.
Results: Increasing the recall rate to 2.0% would increase the detection rate from 4.20 per thousand to 4.52 per thousand due to the earlier detection of interval cancers. Moreover, 0.54 per thousand of the screen-detected cancers would be detected 2 years earlier (late screen-detected cancers). At recall rates of 3.0% and 4.0% the detection rate would increase to 4.58 per thousand and 4.63 per thousand, respectively, and 0.64 per thousand and 0.72 per thousand, respectively, of the screen-detected cancers would be detected 2 years earlier. For each 1.0% incremental increase in recall rate above 5.0%, the detection rate would increase by approximately 0.03 per thousand, with positive predictive values decreasing to below 10%.
Conclusion: Breast cancer can be detected earlier by lowering the threshold for recall, especially for recall rates of 1%-4%. With further recall rate increases, cancer detection levels off with a disproportionate increase of false-positive rates.
Similar articles
-
Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.Breast. 2015 Oct;24(5):601-7. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.06.004. Breast. 2015. PMID: 26117723
-
Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.Eur J Cancer. 2015 Feb;51(3):391-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008. Epub 2015 Jan 5. Eur J Cancer. 2015. PMID: 25573788
-
Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.Radiology. 2009 May;251(2):347-58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235. Radiology. 2009. PMID: 19401569 Review.
-
Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm050. Epub 2007 Jul 24. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007. PMID: 17652282
-
Screening and diagnostic mammograms: why the gold standard does not shine more brightly.Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;50(5 Pt 1):199-206. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005. PMID: 16468469 Review.
Cited by
-
Capture the high-efficiency non-fullerene ternary organic solar cells formula by machine-learning-assisted energy-level alignment optimization.Patterns (N Y). 2021 Aug 18;2(9):100333. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100333. eCollection 2021 Sep 10. Patterns (N Y). 2021. PMID: 34553173 Free PMC article.
-
Breast Cancer Screening Program in Lithuania: Interval Cancers and Program Sensitivity After 7 Years of Mammography Screening.Cancer Control. 2019 Jan-Dec;26(1):1073274819874122. doi: 10.1177/1073274819874122. Cancer Control. 2019. PMID: 31502471 Free PMC article.
-
Radiologists’ Performance at Reduced Recall Rates in Mammography: A Laboratory Study.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Feb 26;20(2):537-543. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.2.537. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019. PMID: 30803217 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.Br J Cancer. 2018 Aug;119(4):503-507. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6. Epub 2018 Jul 24. Br J Cancer. 2018. PMID: 30038325 Free PMC article.
-
Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):47-54. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171539. Epub 2018 Apr 3. Radiology. 2018. PMID: 29613846 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical