scholarly journals Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ondrej Majek ◽  
Jan Danes ◽  
Miroslava Skovajsova ◽  
Helena Bartonkova ◽  
Lucie Buresova ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Pakdaman ◽  
Sareh Shakerian

Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the high prevalence of breast cancer mortality in the least developed countries is due to the diagnosis at late phases. Accordingly, cost-effective breast cancer screening plans are the most effective methods to control this cancer and increase women’s survival. Methods: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the breast cancer screening program based on the guidelines of the Iran Ministry of Health on 14,493 eligible women in rural areas of Rudsar city in 2018-19. We calculated performance indicators such as target coverage, identification of the at-risk population, early diagnosis, referral index, and other statistical using SPSS 22 software. Results: Out of 14493 rural women aged 30-59 referred to health homes, 6992 women underwent breast cancer screening. Coverage of the program in the The target population coverage was estimated at 48%. Most high-risk cases were 46 years and older, and the lowest rate was in women of <35 years. We found Thethat results showed that 0.4% of the cases patients (n=27) were identified as the high-risk, and all (100%) referred to group according to the national guidelines with referral to a specialist for further evaluation. of 100%. All patients cases identified as high-risk groups atin the first phase of screening were found with BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) 4 and 5 based on biopsy specimens. Conclusion: The low target population coverage and the cases with advanced breast cancer indicated the need for more attention and consideration in implementing programs and policies for preventable cancer by all organizations. In this regard, there is a need for relevant interventions and follow-up by health authorities.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (15) ◽  
pp. 6285-6288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira El Fakir ◽  
Adil Najdi ◽  
Youssef Chami Khazraji ◽  
Maria Bennani ◽  
Latifa Belakhel ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e028766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Yuan ◽  
Khanh Vu ◽  
Ye Shen ◽  
James Dickinson ◽  
Marcy Winget

ObjectivesRegular breast cancer screening is a widely used cancer prevention strategy. Important quality indicators of screening include cancer detection rate, false positive rate, benign biopsy rate and post-screen invasive cancer rate. We compared quality indicators of community radiology clinics to those of ‘Screen Test’, which feature centralised batch reading and quality control processes. Both types of providers operated under a single provincial Breast Cancer Screening Programme.SettingCommunity radiology clinics are operated by independent fee-for-service radiologists serving large and small communities throughout the Canadian province of Alberta. Launched by the provincial cancer agency, the Screen Test operates two physical clinics serving metropolises and mobile units serving remote regions. Eligible women may self-refer to any provider for screening mammography.ParticipantsWomen aged 50 to 69 years who had at least one screening mammogram between July 2006 and June 2010 in Alberta were included. Women with missing health region information or prior breast cancer diagnosis were excluded.ResultsA total of 389 788 screening mammograms were analysed, of which 12.7% were performed by Screen Test. Compared with Screen Test during 2006 to 2008, community radiology clinics had a lower cancer detection rate (3.6 vs 4.6 per 1000 screens, risk ratio (RR): 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98) and a much higher false positive rate (9.4% vs 3.4%, RR: 2.72, 95% CI: 2.55 to 2.90). Most other performance indicators were also better in Screen Test overall and across all health regions. These performance indicators were similar during 2008 to 2010, showing no improvement with time.ConclusionsScreen Test has a quality assurance process in place and performed significantly better. This provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a quality assurance process and may explain some of the large differences in breast cancer screening indicators between provinces and countries with formal programmes and those without.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document