Early rescreen/recall in the UK National Health Service breast screening programme: Epidemiological data

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 146-155

  Ong, G J ^a   Austoker, J ^a   Michell, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anxiety; Audit; Breast cancer; Early recall; Follow up

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SCREENING TEST; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0031712744     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jms.5.3.146     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Patnick J, ed. NHS breast screening programme: review 1996. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1996.
2. Forrest APM. Breast cancer screening: report to the health minister of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. London: HMSO, 1986.
3. House of Commons Health Committee. Summary of conclusions and recommendations of the House of Commons Health Committee. Third report breast cancer services. Vol 1. Session 1994-1995. London: HMSO, 1995.
4. Pritchard JAV. Guidelines on the establishment of a quality assurance system for the radiological aspects of mammography used for breast screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1989.
5. Government statistical services. Department of Health statistical bulletin. 1996/9. London: Department of Health, 1996, 1-15.
6. Patnick J, ed. NHS breast screening programme: review 1994. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1995.
7. Moss SM, Michel M, Patnick P, et al. Results from the NHS breast screening programme 1990-1993. J Med Screen 1995;2:186-90.
8. Norusis MJ. SPSS for window's base system user's guide release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS, 1993.
9. Radiology Big 18 Regional Representatives. UK NHSBSP Results (draft). Women screened 1992-93. East Sussex: SETRHA Breast Screening QA Reference Centre, 1993.
10. Chamberlain J, Moss SM, Kirkpatrick AE, et al. National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2 [published erratum appears in BMJ 1993;307:543] [see comments]. BMJ 1993;307:353-6.
11. Blanks RG, Day NE, Moss SM. Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate. J Med Screen 1996;3:79-81.
12. Blanks RG, Moss SM. Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: allowing for geographical variation in breast cancer incidence. J Med Screen 1996;3:82-4.
13. SE Thames Quality Assurance Reference Centre. Draft figures: Breast screening results for women screened 1/4/92 to 31/3/93. East Sussex: SETRHA Breast Screening QA Reference Centre, 1993.
14. Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J. Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. J Med Screen 1997;4:158-68.
15. Working group for the college of radiographers. A radiographer quality control manual for mammography. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1993, No 21.
16. Dawson JS, Wilson AR. Short-term recall for "probably benign" mammographic lesions detected in a three yearly screening programme. Clin Radiol 1994;49:391-5.
17. National co-ordination group for surgeons working in breast cancer screening. Quality assurance guidelines for surgeons in breast cancer screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1996, No 20.
18. NHSBSP radiographers quality assurance co-ordination committee. Quality assurance guidelines for radiographers. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1994, No 30.
19. Field S, Michell MJ, Wallis MG, et al. What should be done about interval breast cancers? Two view mammography and possibly a shorter screening interval. BMJ 1995;310: 203-4.
20. Blanks RG, Moss SM, Wallis MG. A comparison of two view and one view mammography in the detection of small invasive cancers: results from the National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1996;3:200-3.
21. Hermansen C, Skovgaard Poulsen H, Jenson J, et al. Diagnostic reliability of combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle puncture ("Triple-test") in breast tumors. Cancer 1987;60:1866-71.
22. Cytology sub-group of the national co-ordinating committee for breast screening. Guidelines for cytology procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1993, No 22.
23. Wells CA. Quality assurance in breast cancer screening cytology: a review of the literature and a report on the UK national cytology scheme. Eur J Cancer 1995;31:273-80.
24. Warren R. Team learning and breast cancer screening. Lancet 1991;338:514-17.
25. Burnett SJD, Ng YY, Perry NM, et al. Benign biopsies in the prevalent round of breast screening: a review of 137 cases. Clin Radiol 1995;50:254-8.
26. Barrows GH, Anderson TJ, Lamb JL, et al. Fine needle aspiration of breast cancer - relationship of clinical factors to cytology results in 689 primary malignancies. Cancer 1986;58:1493-8.
27. Zuk JA, Maudsley G, Zakhour HD. Rapid reporting on fine needle aspiration of breast lumps in outpatients. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:906-11.
28. Brown LA, Coghill SB, Powis SAJ. Audit of diagnostic accuracy of FNA cytology specimens taken by the histopathologist in a symptomatic breast clinic. Cytopathology 1991;2:1-7.
29. Ciatto S, Cariaggi P, Bulgaresi P, et al. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: review of 9533 consecutive cases. The Breast 1993;2:87-90.
30. Brown J, Rodway A, Chamberlain J, et al. The effect of fine needle aspiration cytology on the number of diagnostic biopsies and time to diagnosis in a breast screening programme. The Breast 1994;3:103-8.
31. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989;171: 645-6.
32. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, et al. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178:155-8.
33. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-8.
34. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR 1990;155:1195-201.
35. Homer MJ. Non-palpable mammographic abnormalities: timing the follow-up studies. AJR 1981;136:923-6.
36. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian national breast screening study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years [published erratum appears in Can Med Assoc J 1993;148:718] [see comments]. Can Med Assoc J 1992;147:1477-88.
37. Green B, Dowley A, Turnbull LS, et al. Impact of fine-needle aspiration cytology, ultrasonography, and mammography on open rate in patients with benign breast disease. Br J Surg 1995;82:1509-11.
38. de Silva D, Gilbert F, Needham G, et al. Identification of women at high genetic risk of breast cancer through the National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP). J Med Genet 1995;32:862-6.
39. Houlston RS, McCarter E, Parbhoo S, et al. Family history and risk of breast cancer [see comments]. J Med Genet 1992;29:154-7.
40. NHS breast screening radiologists quality assurance committee. Quality assurance guidelines for radiologists. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications, 1997, No 15.
41. The Breast Surgeons Group of the British Association of Surgical Oncology. Guidelines for surgeons in the management of symptomatic breast disease in the United Kingdom. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:1-13.
42. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups 5 months after their last breast screening appointment. J Publ Health Med (in press).