Table 1 Summary characteristics of the five screening services and their datasets included in the study
Screening service | All services | Service 1 | Service 2 | Service 3 | Service 4 | Service 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arbitration style during study | Mix of practices | Discordant only | Arbitrate all recalls | Discordant only | Discordant only | Arbitrate all recalls |
Blinded or unblinded reader 1 or 2 | Mix of practices | Unblinded | Unblinded | Unblinded | Blinded | Unblinded |
Total women, n | 125,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 |
Included, n (%) | 115,973 (92.8%) | 23,023 (92.1%) | 22,630 (90.5%) | 23,400 (93.6%) | 23,590 (94.4%) | 23,330 (93.3%) |
Of those included | ||||||
Normal, n (%) | 113,972 (98.3%) | 22,674 (98.5%) | 22,248 (98.3%) | 23,004 (98.3%) | 23,135 (98.1%) | 22,911 (98.2%) |
All cancers, n (%) | 2,001 (1.7%) | 349 (1.5%) | 382 (1.7%) | 396 (1.7%) | 455 (1.9%) | 419 (1.8%) |
Screen detected, n (%) | 876 (0.8%) | 169 (0.7%) | 191 (0.8%) | 178 (0.8%) | 186 (0.8%) | 152 (0.7%) |
Interval cancers, n (%) | 336 (0.3%) | 68 (0.3%) | 68 (0.3%) | 64 (0.3%) | 65 (0.3%) | 71 (0.3%) |
Next screen detected, n (%) | 789 (0.7%) | 112 (0.5%) | 123 (0.5%) | 154 (0.7%) | 204 (0.9%) | 196 (0.8%) |
Screening recall rate (%, 95% CI) | 4.0 (3.9, 4.1) | 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) | 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) | 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) | 3.2 (3.0, 3.4) | 3.3 (3.1, 3.5) |
Arbitration rate (%) ** | N/A | 3.9% | 12.1% | 2.7% | 3.4% | 5.6% |
Direct to clinic (%) ** | N/A | 3.2% | N/A | 3.1% | 2.3% | N/A |
CDR per 1,000 women (95% CI) | 8.03 (7.51, 8.54) | 8.84 (7.62, 10.06) | 7.60 (6.48, 8.72) | 8.12 (6.97, 9.27) | 8.48 (7.31, 9.65) | 7.12 (6.04, 8.19) |
Age * | 59 (50–70) | 58 (50–70) | 58 (50–70) | 60 (50–70) | 59 (50–70) | 59 (50–70) |
Equipment manufacturer | Hologic: 71%, Siemens: 22%, GE: 7% | Hologic: 100% | Hologic: 88%, Siemens: 10%, GE: 1% | Siemens: 100% | Hologic: 100% | Hologic: 68%, GE: 32% |
