METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
METHODS: We built two models, for ER+ (ModelER+) and ER- tumors (ModelER-), respectively, in 281,330 women (51% postmenopausal at recruitment) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (the agreement between predicted and observed tumor risks) were assessed both internally and externally in 82,319 postmenopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative study. We performed decision curve analysis to compare ModelER+ and the Gail model (ModelGail) regarding their applicability in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
RESULTS: Parity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy and body height were only associated with ER+ tumors. Menopausal status, age at menarche and at menopause, hormone replacement therapy, postmenopausal body mass index, and alcohol intake were homogeneously associated with ER+ and ER- tumors. Internal validation yielded a C-statistic of 0.64 for ModelER+ and 0.59 for ModelER-. External validation reduced the C-statistic of ModelER+ (0.59) and ModelGail (0.57). In external evaluation of calibration, ModelER+ outperformed the ModelGail: the former led to a 9% overestimation of the risk of ER+ tumors, while the latter yielded a 22% underestimation of the overall BC risk. Compared with the treat-all strategy, ModelER+ produced equal or higher net benefits irrespective of the benefit-to-harm ratio of chemoprevention, while ModelGail did not produce higher net benefits unless the benefit-to-harm ratio was below 50. The clinical applicability, i.e. the area defined by the net benefit curve and the treat-all and treat-none strategies, was 12.7 × 10- 6 for ModelER+ and 3.0 × 10- 6 for ModelGail.
CONCLUSIONS: Modeling heterogeneous epidemiological risk factors might yield little improvement in BC risk prediction. Nevertheless, a model specifically predictive of ER+ tumor risk could be more applicable than an omnibus model in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 women in Shah Alam, Selangor; Malaysia. The questionnaire contained 27 questions and was comprised of two sections; socio-demographic characteristics and practices, knowledge and barriers of mammography. All the data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0.
RESULTS: Of the 200 Malaysian women who participated in this study, the majority were under the age of 50 years (65.5%), Malay (86%), and married (94.5%). Regarding any family history of cancer in general, the majority of the participants had none (78%). However, some did report a close relative with breast cancer (16.5%). While the majority of them knew about mammography (68%), 15% had had a mammogram once in their life and only 2% had the procedure every two or three years. Univariate analysis showed that age, family history of cancer, family history of breast cancer, regular supplement intake, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammogram were significantly associated with mammogram practice among the general population (p=0.007, p=0.043, P=0.015, p=0.01, p=0.001, p<0.001; respectively). Multivariate analysis using multiple linear regression test showed that age, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammography testing were statistically associated with the practice of mammography among the general population in Malaysia (p=0.035, p=0.015 and p<0.001; respectively). Lack of time, lack of knowledge, not knowing where to go for the test and a fear of the test result were the most important barriers (42.5%, 32%, 21%, 20%; respectively).
CONCLUSION: The practice of mammogram screening is low among Malaysian women.