Time filter

Source Type

Isidoro B.,Carlos III Institute of Health | Isidoro B.,Puerta Of Hierro Majadahonda University Teaching Hospital | Lope V.,Carlos III Institute of Health | Lope V.,Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health | And 11 more authors.
BMC Public Health | Year: 2011

Background: Measurement of obesity using self-reported anthropometric data usually involves underestimation of weight and/or overestimation of height. The dual aim of this study was, first, to ascertain and assess the validity of new cut-off points, for both overweight and obesity, using self-reported Body Mass Index furnished by women participants in breast cancer screening programmes, and second, to estimate and validate a predictive model that allows recalculate individual BMI based on self-reported data. Methods. The study covered 2927 women enrolled at 7 breast cancer screening centres. At each centre, women were randomly selected in 2 samples, in a ratio of 2:1. The larger sample (n = 1951) was used to compare the values of measured and self-reported weight and height, to ascertain new overweight and obesity cut-off points with self-reported data, using ROC curves, and to estimate a predictive model of real BMI using a regression model. The second sample (n = 976) was used to validate the proposed cut-off points and the predictive model. Results: Whereas reported prevalence of obesity was 19.8%, measured prevalence was 28.2%. The sensitivity and specificity of this classification would be maximised if the new cut-off points were 24.30 kg/m2 for overweight and 28.39 kg/m2 for obesity. The probability of classifying women correctly in their real weight categories on the basis of these points was 82.5% in the validation sample. Sensitivity and specificity for determining obesity using the new cut-off point in the validation sample were 90.0% and 92.3% respectively. The predictive model for real BMI included the self-reported BMI, age and educational level (university studies vs lower levels of education). This model succeeded in correctly classifying 90.5% of women according to BMI categories, but its performance was similar to that obtained with the new cut-off points. Conclusions: Quantification of self-reported obesity entails a considerable underestimation of this problem, thereby questioning its validity. The new cut-off points established in this study and the predictive equation both allow for more accurate estimation of these prevalences. © 2011 Isidoro et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Roman R.,Institute Municipal Dinvestigacio Medica Parc Of Salut Mar | Roman R.,Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health | Sala M.,Institute Municipal Dinvestigacio Medica Parc Of Salut Mar | Sala M.,Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health | And 13 more authors.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Year: 2011

False-positive results may influence adherence to mammography screening. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening is closely related to adequate adherence among the target population. The objective of this study was to evaluate how false-positives and women's characteristics affect the likelihood of reattendance at routine breast cancer screening in a sequence of routine screening invitations. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,371,218 women aged 45-69 years, eligible for the next routine screening, who underwent 4,545,346 screening mammograms from 1990 to 2006. We estimated the likelihood of attendance at seven sequential screening mammograms. Multilevel discrete time hazard models were used to estimate the effect of false-positive results on reattendance, and the odds ratios (OR) of non-attendance for the women's personal characteristics studied. The overall reattendance rate at the second screening was 81.7% while at the seventh screening was 95.6%. At the second screening invitation reattendance among women with and without a false-positive mammogram was 79.3 vs. 85.3%, respectively. At the fourth and seventh screenings, these percentages were 86.3 vs. 89.9% and 94.6 vs. 96.0%, respectively. The study variables associated with a higher risk of failing to participate in subsequent screenings were oldest age (OR = 8.48; 95% CI: 8.31-8.65), not attending their first screening invitation (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.11-1.14), and previous invasive procedures (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.10). The risk of non-attendance was lower in women with a familial history of breast cancer (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and those using hormone replacement therapy (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.97). In conclusion, reattendance was lower in women with false-positive mammograms than in those with negative results, although this difference decreased with the number of completed screening participations, suggesting that abnormal results in earlier screenings more strongly influence behavior. These findings may be useful in providing women with accurate information and in improving the effectiveness of screening programs. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011. Source

Ascunce N.,CIBER ISCIII | Ederra M.,CIBER ISCIII | Delfrade J.,CIBER ISCIII | Baroja A.,Fundacion Rioja Salud | And 4 more authors.
European Radiology | Year: 2012

Objectives: Breast cancer screening is offered to 100% of the target population in Spain and intermediate mammograms (IMs) are sometimes indicated. This study was aimed at analysing the frequency of IMs, the factors determining their recommendation, and their impact on the risk of false-positive results and the detection rate. Methods: Data from 3,471,307 mammograms from Spanish breast cancer screening programmes were included. Results: 3.36% of the mammograms were IMs. The factors associated with the use of IMs were age, initial screening, previous invasive tests, a familial history of breast cancer and use of hormone replacement therapy. In screening episodes with an IM, the probability of a false-positive result was 13.74% (95% CI: 13.43-14.05), almost double that in episodes without IMs (6.02%, 95% CI 5.99-6.05). In young women with previous invasive procedures, a familial history of breast cancer or hormone replacement therapy use who were undergoing their initial screen, this probability was lower when IMs were performed. IMs always increased the detection rate. Conclusions: The factors prompting IMs should be characterised so that radiologists can systematise their recommendations according to the presence of the factors maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse effects of this procedure. Key Points : • Intermediate mammograms in breast screening offer potential benefits but also disadvantages. • Intermediate mammograms increase the false-positive rate except in specific groups. • Intermediate mammograms reduce the false-positive rate in younger women and initial screens. • Intermediate mammograms also reduce false-positive results in women with personal risk factors • Intermediate mammograms increase cancer detection mainly in women without risk factors. © 2011 European Society of Radiology. Source

Bare M.,Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening | Bare M.,Autonomous University of Barcelona | Bare M.,A+ Network | Tora N.,Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening | And 15 more authors.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Year: 2015

In the context of a population-based screening program, we aimed to evaluate the major mammographic features and clinicopathological characteristics of breast tumors at diagnosis and the associations between them, focusing on tumors with the worst prognosis. We analyzed cancers diagnosed in a cohort of 645,764 women aged 45–69 years participating in seven population-based screening programs in Spain, between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 and followed up until June 2009. We included all interval cancers and a sample of screen-detected cancers, whether invasive or in situ. We compared tumor-related information and breast density for different phenotypes (Triple-negative (TN), HER2+, Luminal B and Luminal A) in screen-detected and interval cancers. We used Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test to compare major mammographic features of invasive versus in situ tumors, of screen-detected versus interval cancers, and of different types of interval cancers. We included 2582 tumors (1570 screen-detected and 1012 interval cancers). There were significant differences in the distribution of most clinicopathological variables between screen-detected and interval cancers. Invasive TN interval tumors were more common than other phenotypes in breasts with low mammographic density; three-quarters of these tumors presented as masses without associated calcifications. HER2+ tumors were more common in denser breasts and were associated with calcifications and multifocality. Architectural distortion was more common in Luminal A and Luminal B tumors. Certain radiologic findings are associated with pre-invasive lesions; these differ among invasive tumor phenotypes. We corroborate that TN and HER2+ cancers have distinctive appearances also in the context of population-based screening programs. This information can be useful for establishing protocols for diagnostic strategies in screening units. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Source

Alberdi R.Z.,Galician Breast Cancer Screening Programme | Llanes A.B.F.,Galician Breast Cancer Screening Programme | Ortega R.A.,Galician Breast Cancer Screening Programme | Exposito R.R.,CIBER ISCIII | And 6 more authors.
European Radiology | Year: 2011

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in population-based breast cancer screening programmes. Methods: We evaluated 1,440,384 single-read screening mammograms, corresponding to 471,112 women aged 45-69 years participating in four Spanish programmes between 1990 and 2006. The mammograms were interpreted by 72 radiologists. Results: The overall percentage of false-positive results was 5.85% and that for false-positives resulting in an invasive procedure was 0.38%. Both the risk of false-positives overall and of false-positives leading to an invasive procedure significantly decreased (p<0.001) with greater reading volume in the previous year: OR 0.77 and OR 0.78, respectively, for a reading volume 500-1,999 mammograms and OR 0.59 and OR 0.60 for a reading volume of >14,999 mammograms with respect to the reference category (<500). The risk of both categories of false-positives was also significantly reduced (p<0.001) as radiologists' years of experience increased: OR 0.96 and OR 0.84, respectively, for 1 year's experience and OR 0.72 and OR 0.73, respectively, for more than 4 years' experience with regard to the category of <1 year's experience. Conclusion: Radiologist experience is a determining factor in the risk of a false-positive result in breast cancer screening. © 2011 European Society of Radiology. Source

Discover hidden collaborations