Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway
- PMID: 18664650
- PMCID: PMC2720695
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn224
Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway
Abstract
Background: Most screening mammography in the United States differs from that in countries with formal screening programs by having a shorter screening interval and interpretation by a single reader vs independent double reading. We examined how these differences affect early detection of breast cancer by comparing performance measures and histopathologic outcomes in women undergoing opportunistic screening in Vermont and organized screening in Norway.
Methods: We evaluated recall, screen detection, and interval cancer rates and prognostic tumor characteristics for women aged 50-69 years who underwent screening mammography in Vermont (n = 45 050) and in Norway (n = 194 430) from 1997 through 2003. Rates were directly adjusted for age by weighting the rates within 5-year age intervals to reflect the age distribution in the combined data and were compared using two-sided Z tests.
Results: The age-adjusted recall rate was 9.8% in Vermont and 2.7% in Norway (P < .001). The age-adjusted screen detection rate per 1000 woman-years after 2 years of follow-up was 2.77 in Vermont and 2.57 in Norway (P = .12), whereas the interval cancer rate per 1000 woman-years was 1.24 and 0.86, respectively (P < .001). Larger proportions of invasive interval cancers in Vermont than in Norway were 15 mm or smaller (55.9% vs 38.2%, P < .001) and had no lymph node involvement (67.5% vs 57%, P = .01). The prognostic characteristics of all invasive cancers (screen-detected and interval cancer) were similar in Vermont and Norway.
Conclusion: Screening mammography detected cancer at about the same rate and at the same prognostic stage in Norway and Vermont, with a statistically significantly lower recall rate in Norway. The interval cancer rate was higher in Vermont than in Norway, but tumors that were diagnosed in the Vermont women tended to be at an earlier stage than those diagnosed in the Norwegian women.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Changes in breast cancer risk distribution among Vermont women using screening mammography.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Jun 23;106(8):dju157. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju157. Print 2014 Aug. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. PMID: 24957223 Free PMC article.
-
Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1226-32. doi: 10.1259/bjr/15168178. Epub 2012 Sep 19. Br J Radiol. 2012. PMID: 22993383 Free PMC article.
-
Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1105-1113. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2. Epub 2016 Jun 23. Lancet Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27345635
-
Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):377-84. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.2207. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007. PMID: 17242245
-
Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic characteristics for breast cancers in populations with digital vs film mammography indicate the transition may have increased both early detection and overdiagnosis.J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Jul;171:111339. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111339. Epub 2024 Apr 2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024. PMID: 38570078
Cited by
-
Comparison of the ductal carcinoma in situ between White Americans and Chinese Americans.Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Jan 22;100(3):e24136. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024136. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021. PMID: 33546026 Free PMC article.
-
Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.Acad Radiol. 2011 Mar;18(3):369-76. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.10.011. Epub 2010 Dec 30. Acad Radiol. 2011. PMID: 21193335 Free PMC article.
-
Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.Acad Radiol. 2010 Oct;17(10):1217-26. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.05.007. Acad Radiol. 2010. PMID: 20832024 Free PMC article.
-
The Future Is Prosperous.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Mar 1;112(3):219-220. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz139. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020. PMID: 31292643 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Modern mammography screening and breast cancer mortality: population study.BMJ. 2014 Jun 17;348:g3701. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3701. BMJ. 2014. PMID: 24951459 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Houn F, Brown ML. Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology. 1994;190(1):209–215. - PubMed
-
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5 pt 1):344–346. - PubMed
-
- Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek P, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Using the European Guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(7):447–455. - PubMed
-
- Perry N, Broeders M, deWolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. [Printed in Belgium]. European Communities: 2006. http://bookshop.eu.int ISBN: 92-79-01258-4. Accessed January 15, 2008. - PubMed
-
- Ballard-Barbash R, Klabunde C, Paci E, et al. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1999;8(5):417–426. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical