Mammographic screening in Sami speaking municipalities and a control group. Are early outcome measures influenced by ethnicity?

Figures & data

Fig. 1.  The figure shows the map of northern Norway and the Sami and non-Sami speaking municipalities.

Fig. 2.  The figure shows the annual ratio (attending/invited) in the 2 study groups compared to the total figures of northern Norway (set as 1.0).

Table I. Number of invitations and attendance rate in the screening program in the Sami and non-Sami group (2001–2010)

Municipality	Invited	Attended	%	Ratio^a
Sami group	10,122	7,923	78.3	0.97
Non-Sami group	10,358	7,762	74.9	0.93
Total	20,480	15,685	76.6	0.95

^aWhen calculating ratio, northern Norway was set to 1.0.

Table II. Attendance, recall and invasive screen detected cancer rates and positive predictive values (PPV) in the Sami and control group, 2001–2010

	Sami group
	50–59 years n=5,545		60–69 years n=4,577		Total n=10,122
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Attending	4,309	77.7	3,614	79.0	7,923	78.3
Recall (total)	116	2.7	74	2.0	190	2.4
Positive mammography	91	2.1	57	1.6	148	1.9
Technical reasons	11	0.3	5	0.1	16	0.2
Self defined lump	14	0.3	12	0.3	26	0.3
Cancer detection
Invasive screen-detected	16	0.3	10	0.3	26	0.3
PPV-1^†	17.6		17.5		17.6
	Non-Sami population
	n=5,804		n=4,554		n=10,358
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Attending	4,425	76.2*	3,338	74.9*	7,762	74.9*
Recall (total)	168	3.8	86	2.2	254	3.3
Positive mammography	133	3.0	73	1.8	206	2.7^*
Technical reasons	13	0.3	10	0.3	24	0.3
Self defined lump	21	0.5	3	0.1	24	0.3
Cancer detection
Invasive screen-detected	20	0.5	18	0.3	38	0.5
PPV-1^†	15.0		24.7		18.4

The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) database was used.

*Chi square p-value<0.05 between Sami and Non-Sami populations.

^†Positive predictive value-1: invasive breast cancers detected among women recalled due to mammographic findings.