Table 1.
Published data on investigation of microcalcifications in population screening programmes
| Comparative screening data | Germany (Wiegel 201010) | United States (Glynn 201111) | Netherlends (Bluekens 201212) | Australia (Farshid 201413) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screening interval | Biennial | Not stated? Annual |
Biennial |
Biennial | ||
| Modality | Digital | Analogue | Digital (Years 1 and 2) | Analogue | Digital | Not stated |
| Number screeneda | 24,067 | 32,600 | 19,282 | 1,045,978 | 152,515 | 1494,809 |
| Recall rate (%) | 7.5 | 6.0 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 4.6 |
| Cancer detection rate (%) | 1.0 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.6 | 0.52 |
| Assessment data for calcificationsb | ||||||
| Recall for calcifications | 1.7% | 0.79% | 1.82% | 0.20% | 0.67% | 0.42% had biopsy for calc |
| DCIS from calcifications | 0.20% | 0.04% | 0.09% | |||
| % of women diagnosed with malignancy from calcifications | 0.32% | 0.12% | 0.20% | 0.15% | ||
| PPV of biopsy of calcification | 36% | 41.1% | 22.6% | 35.8% | ||
DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; PPV, positive-predictive value.
a
Proportion of initial and subsequent attenders may differ between cohorts.
b
Rates are estimated from numbers of lesions/cancers and number of women screened.