Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2

Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country

Pages
157–163
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The comparisonof breast cancer patients in the two programs revealed that BMSP patients had earlier stages, higher breast-conserving surgery rates, smaller tumor size, more frequent negative axillarynodal status, lower histologic grade, and higher ductal carcinoma in situ rates than NBCRD patients (p = 0.001, for all).CONCLUSIONThese results indicate the feasibility of successful population-based screening in middle-incomecountries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSEWe aimed to show the effects of long-term screening on clinical, pathologic, and survival outcomes in patients with screen-detected breast cancer and compare these findings with breastcancer patients registered in the National Breast Cancer Registry Data (NBCRD).METHODSWomen aged 40–69 years, living in Bahcesehir county, Istanbul, Turkey, were screened every2 years using bilateral mammography.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Bahcesehir National Breast Cancer Registry Data(BMSP) data were collected during a 10-year screening period (five rounds of screening).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The comparisonof breast cancer patients in the two programs revealed that BMSP patients had earlier stages, higher breast-conserving surgery rates, smaller tumor size, more frequent negative axillarynodal status, lower histologic grade, and higher ductal carcinoma in situ rates than NBCRD patients (p = 0.001, for all).CONCLUSIONThese results indicate the feasibility of successful population-based screening in middle-incomecountries.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSEWe aimed to show the effects of long-term screening on clinical, pathologic, and survival outcomes in patients with screen-detected breast cancer and compare these findings with breastcancer patients registered in the National Breast Cancer Registry Data (NBCRD).METHODSWomen aged 40–69 years, living in Bahcesehir county, Istanbul, Turkey, were screened every2 years using bilateral mammography. The Bahcesehir National Breast Cancer Registry Data(BMSP) data were collected during a 10-year screening period (five rounds of screening). BMSPdata were compared with the NBCRD regarding age, cancer stage, types of surgery, tumor size,lymph node status, molecular subtypes, and survival rates.RESULTSDuring the 10-year screening period, 8758 women were screened with 22621 mammograms.Breast cancer was detected in 130 patients; 51 (39.2%) were aged 40–49 years. The comparisonof breast cancer patients in the two programs revealed that BMSP patients had earlier stages, higher breast-conserving surgery rates, smaller tumor size, more frequent negative axillarynodal status, lower histologic grade, and higher ductal carcinoma in situ rates than NBCRD patients (p = 0.001, for all).CONCLUSIONThese results indicate the feasibility of successful population-based screening in middle-incomecountries.

🔖

Cite This Article

GURDAL, S. O., OZAYDİN, A. N., ARİBAL, E., OZCİNAR, B., CABİOĞLU, N., SAHİN, C., OZMEN, V. (2021). Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2, 157–163. https://ajindex.com/articles/349952

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Steward BW, Wild CP. World Health Organization. World Cancer Report Page Cancer Report. Cited September 2019. Available from: http:// publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/ World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report-2014
  2. Turkey National Cancer Programme. Repub of Turkey, MoH, Department of Cancer Control:2009-2015. 2009. Cited September 2019. Available from:
  3. Özmen V. Breast cancer in the world and Turkey. Eur J Breast Health 2008; 4:7–12
  4. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69:7–34. [Crossref] 5. Kohler BA, Sherman RL, Howlader N, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, Featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv048. [Crossref] 6. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Cancer 2015; 137:165–172. [Crossref] 7. Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen TH, et al. The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening. Cancer 2019; 125:515–523. [Crossref] 8. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 2015; 314:1615–1634. [Crossref] 9. Özmen V, Özmen T, Doğru V. Breast cancer in Turkey; an analysis of 20.000 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Breast Health 2019; 15:141– 146. [Crossref] 10. Kayhan A, Gurdal SO, Ozaydin N, et al. Successful first round results of a Turkish breast cancer screening program with mammography in Bahcesehir, Istanbul. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15:1693–1697. [Crossref] 11. Reston VA. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). In: American College of Radiology (ACR), 4th ed. 2003: 234
  5. Perry N1, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 2008;19:614–622. [Crossref] 13. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Fagerberg G, et al. Breast screening, prognostic factors and survival-results from the Swedish two county study. Br J Cancer 1991; 64:1133–1138. [Crossref] 14. Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian