Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:19:00.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Quality assurance in breast cancer screening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Michael J. Michell
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter is concerned with what could be called “epidemiological” quality assurance (QA). In this aspect of QA we are mostly concerned with estimating the achievement of organized screening programs in relation to breast cancer mortality reduction and factors related to sensitivity and specificity. We are not directly interested in QA related to other factors, such as those of interest to the physicist or breast surgeon, except where they may impact on the test sensitivity and specificity. To begin with it is useful to discuss some of the fundamental measures used in assessing screening performance and why these are often difficult to measure in practice. This then leads to a discussion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and how they can be used to measure screening efficiency in organized national screening programs, and how improvements in performance can be made to such programs.

Fundamental measures of screening performance

The objective of breast cancer screening is to reduce deaths from breast cancer by detecting and treating the disease at an earlier stage than that at which the disease would have presented clinically. Following the screening test (mammography) women whose mammograms show possible signs of malignancy are referred (or “recalled”) for further diagnostic tests and those whose mammograms appear normal are returned to routine recall. Two important measures of screening performance are the sensitivity and specificity of the screening test. The test sensitivity is the proportion of women with breast cancer correctly referred for further assessment by the screening test.

Type
Chapter
Information
Breast Cancer , pp. 13 - 28
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chamberlain, J and Moss, S, eds. Evaluation of Cancer Screening. Cambridge: Springer–Verlag, 1996.CrossRef
Day, NE. Estimating the sensitivity of a screening test. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1985; 39: 364–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, RL, Blanks, RG. Should a standard be defined for the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of recall in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme?Breast J 2007; 16: 55–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, A, Blanks, R. Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ?Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 1086–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, NJ, Murphy, P, Major, P, et al. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. Br Med J 1995; 311: 1189–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,The Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group. The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR Randomised Trial. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 1458–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S, Thomas, I, Evans, A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 949–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabar, L, Fagerberg, G, Duffy, SW, et al. Update of the Swedish Two-County Program of Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30: 187–210.Google ScholarPubMed
Day, NE, Williams, DRR, Khaw, KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989; 59: 954–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanks, RG, Day, NE, Moss, SM. Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen 1996; 3: 79–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,The Information Centre. Breast Screening Programme, England: 2005–6. Leeds: The Information Centre, 2007.
Moss, S, Blanks, R. Calculating appropriate target cancer detection rates and expected interval cancer rates for the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme. Interval Cancer Working Group. J Epidemiol Commy Health 1998; 52: 111–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Department of Health. The Health of the Nation. Key Area Handbook Cancers. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, A, dos Santos Silva, I. Atlas of Cancer Incidence in England and Wales 1968–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Blanks, RG, Moss, SM. Monitoring the performance of the breast screening programmes: allowing for geographical variation in breast cancer incidence. J Med Screen 1996; 3: 82–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossouw, JE, Anderson, GL, Prentice, RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 321–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Waller, M, Moss, S, Watson, J, et al. The effect of mammographic screening and hormone replacement therapy use on breast cancer incidence in England and Wales. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16: 2257–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Given-Wilson, RM, Blanks, RG. Incident screening cancers detected with a second mammographic view: pathological and radiological features. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 724–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanks, RG, Wallis, MG, Moss, SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screeni 1998; 5: 195–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, KC, Wallis, MG, Blanks, RG, et al. Influence of number of views and mammographic film density on the detection of invasive cancers: results from the NHS Breast Screening Programme. Br JRadiol 1997; 70: 482–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Olsen, AH, Njor, SH, Vejborg, I, et al. Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 2005; 330: 220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fielder, HM, Warwick, J, Brook, D, et al. A case-control study to estimate the impact on breast cancer death of the breast screening programme in Wales. J Med Screen 2004; 11: 194–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allgood, PC, Warwick, J, Warren, RM, et al. A case-control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 206–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, JA, Patnick, J, Blanks, RG. Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening. BMJ 2008; 336: 480–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Clayton, D, Hills, H. Statistical Models in Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×