Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

  • Solveig Hofvind
  • Berta Geller
  • Pamela M. Vacek
  • Steinar Thoresen
  • Per Skaane
Original Paper


This is an evaluation of selected process indicators achieved during the first 10 years of performance of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). The indicators are compared with the recommended levels given in the European Guidelines. The program invites all female residents aged 50–69 years old to two-view mammography biennially. The attendance rate was 76.2%. The recall rates due to positive mammography were 4.6% and 2.6%, and the detection rates were 6.4 and 4.9 per 1,000 screens, in prevalent and subsequent screens, respectively. Mean tumor size was 14.7 mm for screening detected and 21.2 mm for interval cancers. Axillary lymph node metastases were present in 25.4% and 43.8%, respectively. Detection mode (screening detected or interval cancer) was shown to be an independent predictor for axillary lymph node metastases and high-grade (Grade 3) tumors. The NBCSP meets the recommendations given in the European Guidelines for most of the process indicators evaluated in this study. Based on the results, we anticipate a future mortality reduction from breast cancer in women invited to the NBCSP.


Breast cancer screening Interval cancer Mammography Surrogate measures 


  1. 1.
    Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:793–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:909–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vainio H, Bianchini F (editors). IARC handbook of cancer prevention. vol 7: breast cancer screening. IARCPress: Lyon, France; 2002,
  4. 4.
    Gøtzche P, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography (review).vol 4. The Cochrane Library, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swedish Organized Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:45–51.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, Broeders MJ, Boer R, Hendriks JH, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003;361:1411–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perry N, Broeders M, deWolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. European Communities: Printed in Belgium; 2006. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarkeala T, Anttila A, Saarenmaa I, Hakama M. Validity of process indicators of screening for breast cancer to predict mortality reduction. J Med Screen 2005;12:33–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tingulstad S, Halvorsen T, Norstein J, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE. Completeness and accuracy of registration of ovarian cancer in the cancer registry of Norway. Int J Cancer 2002;98:907–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Oslo. Regulations on the collections and processing of the personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations). The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs: Oslo, Norway; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofvind S. Breast cancer screening—prevalence of disease in women who only attend after an invitation reminder. J Med Screen 2007;14:21–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ottestad PM. IT solutions in a centrally organized mammography screening in Norway. Med Informatics Europe 1996;34:54–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norsk Bryst Cancer Gruppe. Breast cancer-diagnostics and treatment. Brystkreft- Diagnostikk og behandling: In Norwegian. 2007. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thurfjell E. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results. Acta Radiol Suppl 1995;395:1–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12:50–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rimer BK, Bluman LG. The psychosocial consequences of mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:131–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:543–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, Renner G, Wang H, Fracheboud J, et al. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 2004;11:187–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thurfjell E. Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading. Acta Radiol 1994;35:345–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Botha JL, Bray F, Sankila R, Parkin DM. Breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in 16 European countries. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1718–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weedon-Fekjaer H, Vatten LJ, Aalen OO, Lindqvist B, Tretli S. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results. J Med Screen 2005;12:172–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maelen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2004;328:921–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J 2006;12:338–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, Wang H, Thoresen S, Eriksen L, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2005;237:437–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hofvind S, Bjurstam N, Sørum R, Bjorndal H, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Number and characteristics of breast cancer diagnosed in four periods in the screening interval of a biennial population based screening program. J Med Screen 2006;13:192–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bordas P, Jonsson H, Nyström L, Lenner P. Survival from invasive breast cancer among interval cancers in the mammography screening programmes of northern Sweden. The Breast 2007;16: 47–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solveig Hofvind
    • 1
    • 2
  • Berta Geller
    • 2
  • Pamela M. Vacek
    • 2
  • Steinar Thoresen
    • 1
  • Per Skaane
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Screening-based ResearchThe Cancer Registry of NorwayMontebello, OsloNorway
  2. 2.Office of Health Promotion ResearchUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Ullevaal University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations