Process indicators from ten centres in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme from 1991 to 2000

Process indicators from ten centres in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme from 1991 to 2000
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.017
复制
发表时间:
2004-09-01
影响因子:
8.4
通讯作者:
Hakama, M
Hakama, M
中科院分区:
医学1区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Sarkeala, T;Anttila, A;Hakama, M

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本研究的目的是通过评估来自10个筛查中心的过程指标,使用第一次和随后的筛查数据,评估芬兰乳腺X线摄影计划的质量。我们将这些特定于筛查的指标与欧洲标准和具有类似筛查方案的国家的结果进行了比较。1991-2000年,芬兰的10个中心邀请了大约100万名妇女。妇女主要是50-64岁。该年龄组的平均依从性在首次筛查时为90%,在后续筛查时为93%。相应的召回率分别为4.6%和2.3%。平均乳腺癌检出率分别为0.44%和0.36%。首次和后续筛查时乳腺X线摄影的阳性预测值(PPV)分别为10%(范围7-20%)和16%(范围12-31%),相应的良性与恶性(B:M)活检比值分别为1:1(范围0.5-1.8:1)和0.4:1(范围0.3-0.8:1)。乳房X线摄影的PPV在研究期间显著增加,并且平均过程指标在很大程度上满足欧洲共同体的标准。然而,PPV的变化很大,正如其他欧洲乳腺X线摄影项目所见,表明诊断标准和潜在不良反应存在有意义的差异。(C)2004爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of the Finnish mammography programme by assessing process indicators from 10 screening centres using data from the first and subsequent screens. We compared these screen-specific indicators with European standards and results from countries with similar screening protocols. Ten Finnish centres invited approximately 1000000 women from 1991-2000. Women were mainly 50-64 years old. Mean compliance amongst this age group was 90% at the first and 93% at subsequent screens. The corresponding recall rates were 4.6% and 2.3%, respectively. The average breast cancer detection rates were 0.44% and 0.36%, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of mammography at the first and subsequent screens were 10% (range 7-20%) and 16% (range 12-31%), and the corresponding benign to malignant (B:M) biopsy ratios were 1:1 (range 0.5-1.8:1) and 0.4:1 (range 0.3-0.8:1). The PPV of mammography increased significantly during the study period, and the average process indicators fulfilled the criteria of the European community for the most part. However, the variation in PPVs was wide, as has been seen for other European mammography programmes, indicating meaningful differences in diagnostic criteria and potential adverse effects. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.