The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR Randomised Trial
Introduction
In 1988, population screening for breast cancer was introduced nationally in the UK for women aged 50–64 years in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). The interval between screens was chosen to be 3 years. There are no other trials comparing screening intervals.
The United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) trial of Breast Screening Frequency was established to investigate whether more frequent screening is advantageous. The trial randomised women to invitation to annual mammographic screening or to the routine NHSBSP first incident screen at 3 years following invitation to a prevalent screen.
A trial comparing two different mammographic screening regimes has to overcome two essential obstacles. First, because both arms are receiving some form of screening, breast cancer deaths will be rare overall. Secondly, such deaths occur over the long term. Thus, a trial with breast cancer death as the end-point would need very large numbers of subjects and very long follow-up. Thus, although the ideal endpoint of such a trial would be mortality from breast cancer, this would involve waiting for at least a further 10 years after the closure of the trial and randomising approximately 200 000 women in order to have adequate power [1].
This trial was therefore, designed to use prognostic features of the tumours diagnosed to predict subsequent mortality from breast cancer [1]. The predicted mortality would be a valid outcome provided that the treatment under trial influenced the true mortality largely via its effect on the prognostic features (which is the case in a trial of diagnostic method) [2], and the prediction of the true mortality was accurate [3]. We therefore designed the trial using as an end-point the predicted deaths from the tumour size, node status and histological grade of the tumours diagnosed. These were combined into the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) [4], which has been shown to predict breast cancer survival in various tumour series, including one of approximately 10 000 cancers 5, 6. The tumour size, node status and grade have also been shown to predict the mortality reduction from screening in various randomised trials of screening [7]. The result based on predicted deaths is available earlier than that based on observed, and has greater statistical power, due to being based on a larger number of events [1].
This paper reports the main endpoint, the predicted survival in the two groups. A later publication will carry full details of the analysis by centre, of attendance and non-attendance at the prevalent screen, of subsequent attendance rates following the prevalence screen, recall rates and numbers of diagnostic operations. There will be further reports from the radiological subgroup on the analysis of ‘missed’ cancers, particularly at the prevalence screen, on the number of views at each visit and other matters, and from the pathology review group comparing features of the tumours detected in the two groups. A study of tumour biology and growth rates and an economic evaluation will also follow.
Section snippets
Patients and methods
Five screening units (Cardiff, Epping, Gateshead, Newcastle and Nottingham) participated in the trial, between 1989 and 1996. The primary end-point of the trial was the expected deaths from all invasive tumours diagnosed from immediately after the prevalence screen up to and including the final trial screen 3 years later. The primary aim of the trial was to establish, for women who had attended a prevalent screen and for whom breast cancer had not been diagnosed, the relative benefits of
Results
In the study group, among those women who had attended the prevalence screen, overall attendance rates at the first, second and third annual screens were 78, 78 and 81%, respectively. In the Control group, attendance at the 3-year screen was 85% among those who had attended the prevalence screen.
A total of 643 cancers was diagnosed during the period of the trial. Of these, 535 (443 invasive) were diagnosed in women who attended the prevalent screen, a rate of 2.35 per thousand per annum. In the
Discussion
In this trial, annual screening conferred an increase over 3-yearly screening of 13% in invasive cancers detected and of 60% in screen-detected cancers, with an increased total cancer detection rate and a reduction in the size of the tumours, both of which were of borderline statistical significance. Despite these, there was no statistically significant further reduction of predicted mortality from breast cancer for annual as opposed to triennial screening. The small amelioration in prognostic
Acknowledgements
The Medical Research Council, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Department of Health funded this project. We thank the staff of the five screening centres, the surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, radiographers, technical and clerical staff involved in the diagnosis, histopathology and treatment of the cancer cases, and the former project managers at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Biostatistics Unit. We also thank the women who participated in the
References (13)
The design and clinical use of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in breast cancer
The Breast
(1996)- et al.
Trial design based on surrogate end points-application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies
J. R. Stat. Soc. A
(1996) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trialsdefinition and operational criteria
Stat. Med.
(1989)- et al.
On the use of surrogate end points in randomized trials
J. R. Stat. Soc. A
(2000) - et al.
Confirmation of a prognostic index in primary breast cancer
Br. J. Cancer
(1987) - et al.
The Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG)
Breast Cancer Res. Treat.
(1994)
Cited by (87)
Does the Combination of Phone, Email and Text-Based Reminders Improve No-show Rates for Patients in Breast Imaging?
2023, Current Problems in Diagnostic RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Screening mammography is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce breast cancer-related deaths. However, the benefit of screening is heavily dependent on patient compliance to routine exams.5 Up to two thirds of screening-detected cancers are localized (DCIS or T1N0 tumors), whereas clinically detected cancers are more likely to be locally aggressive and are usually node positive.20
Mammography screening among the elderly: A research challenge
2015, American Journal of MedicineCitation Excerpt :In contrast, the present results pertain to 48 months of screening coverage for both annual and biennial screening. The latter study29 compared annual with triennial screening. In a comment to that study, Andersson30 expressed concerns about the possibility of beta error and suggested that greater clarity might have been achieved had more baseline data been available.
Mammography screening in Nigeria - A critical comparison to other countries
2015, RadiographyCitation Excerpt :The reason for the three years screening interval might be to minimise the cumulative radiation dose women are exposed to during screening, and therefore the possibility of developing radiation induced cancer.20 The Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group21 gave evidence that the effectiveness of a screening program is not about the frequency of screening but the effectiveness of the process to detect breast cancer when it is present. The screening program in Nigeria has recently been encouraging asymptomatic women to screen biennially.
Breast cancer screening in Austria: Key figures, age limits, screening intervals and evidence
2015, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im GesundheitswesenThe role of imaging in breast diagnosis including screening and excision of impalpable lesions
2013, Breast Surgery, Fifth Edition
- 1
The group members are listed at end of paper.