Advertisement

Performance measures among non-immigrants and immigrants attending BreastScreen Norway: a population-based screening programme

  • Sameer Bhargava
  • Lars Andreas Akslen
  • Ida Rashida Khan Bukholm
  • Solveig HofvindEmail author
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

To explore performance measures among non-immigrants and immigrants attending BreastScreen Norway.

Methods

We analysed data from 2,951,375 screening examinations among non-immigrants and 153,026 among immigrants from 1996 to 2015. Immigrants were categorised into high- and low-incidence countries according to the incidence of breast cancer in their birth country. Performance measures, including attendance and recall rates, rates of screen-detected cancer (SDC) and interval breast cancer (IBC), positive predictive value (PPV) and histopathological tumour characteristics, were analysed. We used Fisher’s exact model and t tests for descriptive statistics, and Poisson regression, adjusting for age and screening history, comparing results for non-immigrants versus immigrants.

Results

Attendance rates were 78% for non-immigrants and 56% for immigrants (p < 0.001). Rates of prevalent screens were 24% for non-immigrants and 32% for immigrants (p < 0.001). Immigrants from low-incidence countries were younger at diagnosis than non-immigrants (57 years versus 60 years, p < 0.001). Recall rates were 3.1% for non-immigrants and 3.8% for immigrants (p < 0.001), while PPVs were 17% and 14% (p < 0.001), respectively. IBCs in immigrants from low-incidence countries were more often triple negative (RRadj 1.81, 95% CI 1.11–2.94) than those in non-immigrants. Both SDC and IBC in immigrants from low-incidence countries tended more often to be histological grade 3 than those in non-immigrants.

Conclusion

Immigrants had lower attendance rates, higher recall rates and lower PPV than non-immigrants. The optimal age range and screening interval for immigrant women from low-incidence countries need to be further investigated.

Key Points

Immigrants from countries with a low incidence of breast cancer had their breast cancer diagnosed at a younger age than non-immigrants.

Interval breast cancers detected in immigrants from countries with a low incidence of breast cancers were more often triple negative than those in non-immigrants.

The optimal age range and screening interval for immigrant women from low-incidence countries and non-immigrants might differ.

Keywords

Mammography Early detection of cancer Breast cancer Mass screening Health care utilisation 

Abbreviations

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

ER

Oestrogen receptor

FFDM

Full-field digital mammography

IBC

Interval breast cancer

ICNST

Invasive carcinoma of no special type

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

ILC

Invasive lobular carcinoma

PR

Progesterone receptor

SDC

Screen-detected cancer

SFM

Screen-film mammography

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society and the Norwegian ExtraFoundation for Health and Rehabilitation for their support. We would also like to thank Kaitlyn Tsuruda for the language editing.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society and received funding from the Norwegian ExtraFoundation for Health and Rehabilitation (2016/FO76429) (https://www.extrastiftelsen.no/logo/; English description towards the end).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Solveig Hofvind.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board (the Regional Ethical Committee approved the use of the data for the study).

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained. This study has been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in South-eastern Norway, REC South East (2013/795).

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

This cohort is used in several studies from the Cancer Registry of Norway. However, this paper represents an original study which has not been performed previously.

Methodology

• prospective

• Cohort study (historic cohort)

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6009_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 43 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
  2. 2.
    Hjerkind KV, Qureshi SA, Møller B et al (2017) Ethnic differences in the incidence of cancer in Norway. Int J Cancer 140:1770–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thogersen H, Møller B, Robsahm TE, Aaserud S, Babigumira R, Larsen IK (2017) Comparison of cancer stage distribution in the immigrant and host populations of Norway, 1990-2014. Int J Cancer 141:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preat F, Simon P, Noel JC (2014) Differences in breast carcinoma immunohistochemical subtypes between immigrant Arab and European women. Diagn Pathol 9:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newman LA (2017) Breast cancer disparities: socioeconomic factors versus biology. Ann Surg Oncol 24:2869–2875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2002) IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Volume 7. Breast cancer screening. IARC. Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (2016) Recommendations on breast cancer screening. Available via http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations/details/3. Accessed 9 Apr 2018
  10. 10.
    Bhargava S, Moen K, Qureshi SA, Hofvind S (2018) Mammographic screening attendance among immigrant and minority women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185118758132
  11. 11.
    Hofvind S (Ed.) (2017) Cancer in Norway 2016. Special issue: the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program, 1996-2016: celebrating 20 years of organised mammographic screening. Cancer Registry of Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhargava S, Tsuruda K, Moen K, Bukholm I, Hofvind S (2017) Lower attendance rates in immigrant versus non-immigrant women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. J Med Screen.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141317733771
  13. 13.
    Statistics Norway (2016) Fakta om innvandring. Available via https://www.ssb.no/innvandring-og-innvandrere/faktaside/innvandring. Accessed 9 Apr 2018
  14. 14.
    Cancer Registry of Norway (2015) Breast Cancer Screening Programme—results from process indicators, 2006-2013/14. Cancer Registry of Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cancer Registry of Norway (2017) Informasjonsmateriell. Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo. Available via https://www.kreftregisteret.no/screening/Mammografiprogrammet/informasjonsmateriell/. Accessed 23 July 2018
  16. 16.
    Ministry of Health and Care Services (2001) Forskrift om innsamling og behandling av helseopplysninger i Kreftregisteret (Kreftregisterforskriften). Ministry of Health and Care Services, Oslo. Available via https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2001-12-21-1477. Accessed 9 Apr 2018
  17. 17.
    Ministry of Health and Care Services (2014) Lov om helseregistre og behandling av helseopplysninger (Helseregisterloven). Ministry of Health and Care Services, Oslo. Available via https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2014-06-20-43. Accessed 9 Apr 2018
  18. 18.
    Larsen IK, Småstuen M, Johannesen TB et al (2009) Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 45:1218–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peto J (2001) Cancer epidemiology in the last century and the next decade. Nature 411:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS et al (2013) Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24:2206–2223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR (2016) Features of triple-negative breast cancer: analysis of 38,813 cases from the national cancer database. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e4614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fallahpour S, Navaneelan T, De P, Borgo A (2017) Breast cancer survival by molecular subtype: a population-based analysis of cancer registry data. CMAJ Open 5:E734–E739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mousavi SM, Hemminki K (2015) Cancer incidence, trends, and survival among immigrants to Sweden: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer Prev 24(Suppl 1):S1–S63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stapleton SM, Oseni TO, Bababekov YJ, Hung YC, Chang DC (2018) Race/ethnicity and age distribution of breast cancer diagnosis in the United States. JAMA Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0035
  27. 27.
    Moshina N, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Waade GG, Ursin G, Hofvind S (2018) Comparison of subjective and fully automated methods for measuring mammographic density. Acta Radiol 59:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Cancer Registry of NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for PathologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Department of PathologyHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  5. 5.Norwegian System of Compensation to PatientsOsloNorway
  6. 6.Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Social SciencesNorwegian University of Life SciencesOsloNorway
  7. 7.Department of Life Sciences and Health, Faculty of Health SciencesOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations