© 2005 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Effect of Recall Rate on Earlier Screen Detection of Breast Cancers Based on the Dutch Performance Indicators
Affiliations of authors: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (JDMO, ALMV); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (NK); National Expert and Training Center for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (JHCLH, RH, ALMV); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (JF, JHG, HJdK); National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening, The Netherlands (JF, JHG, JHCLH, RH, HJdK, ALMV)
Correspondence to: J. Otten, MSc, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, (252 EPIB), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands (e-mail: j.otten{at}epib.umcn.nl).
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
to 4.52 due to the earlier detection of interval cancers. Moreover, 0.54 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 and 4.63, respectively, and 0.64 and 0.72, 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, 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.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Karssemeijer, A. M. Bluekens, D. Beijerinck, J. J. Deurenberg, M. Beekman, R. Visser, R. van Engen, A. Bartels-Kortland, and M. J. Broeders Breast Cancer Screening Results 5 Years after Introduction of Digital Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program Radiology, November 1, 2009; 253(2): 353 - 358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. M. Hambly, M. M. McNicholas, N. Phelan, G. C. Hargaden, A. O'Doherty, and F. L. Flanagan Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2009; 193(4): 1010 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Lemmers, M. Broeders, A. Verbeek, G. d. Heeten, R. Holland, and G. F Borm League tables of breast cancer screening units: worst-case and best-case scenario ratings helped in exposing real differences between performance ratings J Med Screen, June 1, 2009; 16(2): 67 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Shaw, F. L. Flanagan, H. M. Fenlon, and M. M. McNicholas Consensus Review of Discordant Findings Maximizes Cancer Detection Rate in Double-Reader Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program Experience Radiology, February 1, 2009; 250(2): 354 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Bucchi, A. Ravaioli, F. Foca, A. Colamartini, F. Falcini, C. Naldoni, and the Emilia-Romagna Breast Screening Programme Incidence of interval breast cancers after 650,000 negative mammographies in 13 Italian health districts J Med Screen, March 1, 2008; 15(1): 30 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. E. M. Duijm, J. H. Groenewoud, J. Fracheboud, and H. J. de Koning Additional Double Reading of Screening Mammograms by Radiologic Technologists: Impact on Screening Performance Parameters J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1162 - 1170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Schell, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. F. Qaqish, W. E. Barlow, R. D. Rosenberg, and R. Smith-Bindman Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 681 - 689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N Karssemeijer, J D M Otten, H Rijken, and R Holland Computer aided detection of masses in mammograms as decision support Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_2): S123 - S126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Ganott, J. H. Sumkin, J. L. King, A. H. Klym, V. J. Catullo, C. S. Cohen, and D. Gur Screening Mammography: Do Women Prefer a Higher Recall Rate Given the Possibility of Earlier Detection of Cancer? Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 793 - 800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|