UKCCCR MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF ONE AND 2 VIEW MAMMOGRAPHY IN BREAST-CANCER SCREENING

Objective-To compare one view (oblique) and two view (oblique and cran iocaudal) mammography in breast cancer screening. Design-Randomised co ntrolled trial. Setting-Nine breast screening centres in England. Subj ects-40 163 women aged 50-64 attending their first breast screening ex amination. Interventions-Women were randomised to have one view mammog raphy, two view mammography, or two view mammography in which one view was read by one reader and both views were read by another. Main outc ome measures-Prevalence of cancer detected, recall rates, cost per can cer detected, and marginal cost per extra cancer detected. Results-Two view mammography detected 24% more women with breast cancer (95% conf idence interval 16% to 31%) than one view mammography. Prevalence of d etected cancer was 6.84 with two view mammography and 5.52 per 1000 wo men with one view. The proportion of women recalled for assessment was 15% lower (95% confidence interval 6% to 23%) with two view (6.97%) t han with one view (8.16%) mammography. The cost of two view screening was higher (pound 26.46 compared with pound 22.00 per examination) but the average cost per cancer detected was similar (pound 5330 compared with pound 5310) and the marginal cost per extra cancer detected with two views was similar to the average cost (pound 5400). Conclusion-Tw o view mammography is medically more effective than one view; it detec ts more cancers and reduces recall rates; it is also similarly cost ef fective financially.