Comparing Interval Breast Cancer Rates in Norway and North Carolina: Results and Challenges

Author:

Hofvind Solveig1,Yankaskas Bonnie C2,Bulliard Jean-Luc3,Klabunde Carrie N4,Fracheboud Jacques5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Screening Based-research, The Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway

2. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, USA

3. Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland

4. Health Services and Economics Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892–7344, USA

5. Department of Public Health, NETB, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective To compare interval breast cancer rates (ICR) between a biennial organized screening programme in Norway and annual opportunistic screening in North Carolina (NC) for different conceptualizations of interval cancer. Setting Two regions with different screening practices and performance. Methods 620,145 subsequent screens (1996–2002) performed in women aged 50–69 and 1280 interval cancers were analysed. Various definitions and quantification methods for interval cancers were compared. Results ICR for one year follow-up were lower in Norway compared with NC both when the rate was based on all screens (0.54 versus 1.29 per 1000 screens), negative final assessments (0.54 versus 1.29 per 1000 screens), and negative screening assessments (0.53 versus 1.28 per 1000 screens). The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ was significantly lower in Norway than in NC for cases diagnosed in both the first and second year after screening. The distributions of histopathological tumour size and lymph node involvement in invasive cases did not differ between the two regions for interval cancers diagnosed during the first year after screening. In contrast, in the second year after screening, tumour characteristics remained stable in Norway but became prognostically more favorable in NC. Conclusion Even when applying a common set of definitions of interval cancer, the ICR was lower in Norway than in NC. Different definitions of interval cancer did not influence the ICR within Norway or NC. Organization of screening and screening performance might be major contributors to the differences in ICR between Norway and NC.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3