BackgroundThe sensitivity of a mammography program is normally evaluated by comparing the interval cancer rate to the expected breast cancer incidence without screening, i.e. the proportional interval cancer rate (PICR). The expected breast cancer incidence in absence of screening is, however, difficult to estimate when a program has been running for some time. As an alternative to the PICR we propose the interval cancer ratio . We validated this simple measure by comparing it with the traditionally used PICR.MethodWe undertook a systematic review and included studies: 1) covering a service screening program, 2) women aged 50-69 years, 3) observed data, 4) interval cancers, women screened, or interval cancer rate, screen detected cases, or screen detection rate, and 5) estimated breast cancer incidence rate of background population. This resulted in 5 papers describing 12 mammography screening programs.ResultsCovering initial screens only, the ICR varied from 0.10 to 0.28 while the PICR varied from 0.22 to 0.51. For subsequent screens only, the ICR varied from 0.22 to 0.37 and the PICR from 0.28 to 0.51. There was a strong positive correlation between the ICR and the PICR for initial screens (r = 0.81), but less so for subsequent screens (r = 0.65).ConclusionThis alternate measure seems to capture the burden of interval cancers just as well as the traditional PICR, without need for the increasingly difficult estimation of background incidence, making it a more accessible tool when evaluating mammography screening program performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-782) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Inspired by the model by Walter and Day for risk of cervical cancer following negative screens, one might hypothesize that women in a mammography screening programme with a certain number of negative screens had a lower remaining breast cancer risk than that of women in general. We studied whether number of negative screens was a predictor for a low remaining breast cancer risk in women participating in the mammography screening programmes in Stockholm, Copenhagen and Funen. Data were collected from the mammography screening programmes in Stockholm, Sweden (1989-2012), Copenhagen, Denmark (1991-2009) and Funen, Denmark (1993-2009), and linked to the respective cancer registries. We calculated cumulative hazard rates for breast cancer in women in cohorts defined by age at entry and number of negative screens for the maximum follow-up period in each screening centre. For all centres and cohorts, the cumulative hazard were parallel for all number of negative screens, from after the time, when the women were scheduled to be invited for the next screen. This means that the remaining breast cancer risk is similar no matter how many negative screens a woman have had. Number of negative screens was not a predictor of a low remaining breast cancer risk in women participating in the mammography screening programmes in Stockholm, Sweden, Copenhagen and Funen, Denmark. The history of previous negative screens is therefore not suitable for personalisation of mammography screening.

The value of the PICR is hugely influenced by which method is applied, whereas the ICR is calculated purely on data available within programmes. We find that the PICR, the establishing indicator for sensitivity, could preferably be replaced by the ICR.