Zeghal D
Mahjoub S
Zakraoui M. A
Zouari F


Objective: To report the anatomoclinical comparison of BC issued from the large scale mammography program in Ariana state of Tunisia to those of the cases “classically” diagnosed in patients consulting for breast symptoms.
Methods: This retrospective study was done between April 2004 and June 2007. We have included 58 women issued from the large scale mammographic program of the state of Ariana in Tunisia (Group 1) and 100 symptomatic women who came to our out patient clinic (Group 2). We have compared epidemiological characters (age, delay of diagnosis...), tumoral size, histological size and type, grade, hormonal receptors and therapeutic protocols.
Results: In the large scale mammographic program, BC are insitu carcinomas in 11.1% and invasive carcinomas in 88.9% of the cases. The mean age was 48 years old in the group 1 versus 46 years in group 2. In the first group, the mean clinical and histological tumoral size was 20mm and 22 mm versus 45mm and 36 mm for the group 2. The invasive canalar carcinoma was the most frequent histological type in both groups.
The lymph nodes were negative in 58.1 % of the cases in group 1 versus 34% in group 2. 80% of the patients in group 2 had mastectomy versus 42.8% in the first one.
The mortality was 10 % in the screened women versus 6.8% in the other group2.
Conclusion: The results of large scale mammographic BC program were favourable for the management of breast cancer in terms of clinical and histological tumoral size, number of positive nodes, number of mastectomies and the survival rates.


Cancer, Breast, screening, mammography, size, Histological, survival



  1. Boussen H, Bouzaiene H, Ben Hassouna J, Gamoudi A, Benna F, Rahal K. Inflammatory breast cancer in Tunisia: reassessment of incidence and clinicopathological features. Semin Oncol. 2008; 35: 17-24.
  2. Demissie K, Mills OF, Rhoads GG. Empirical comparaison of the results of randomized controlled trials and case control studies in evaluating the effectiveness of screeningmammography. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 81-91.
  3. Goetzsche Pc., Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355: 129-34.
  4. Olsen O., Goetzsche Pc., Cochrane review in screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 58: 1340-2.
  5. Cochin S, Chauleur C, Trombert B et al. Prise en charge des carcinomes mammaires infiltrants entre 1985 et 2005 au CHU de Saint-Etienne: apport du dépistage par mammographie. Etude rétrospective de 473 patientes. Gyn Obst Fert 2008; 38: 151-8.
  6. Molinié F, Billon,_Decour S et al. Incidence et facteurs pronostiques des cancers du sein découvert au cours et en dehors du programme de dépistage organisé en Loire-Atlantique (1991-2002). Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2008; 56: 41-9.
  7. Sant M, Allemani C, Capocaccia R, Hakulinen T. The Eurocare working group. Stage at diagnosis is a key explanation of differences in breast cancer survival across Europe. Int J Cancer 2003; 106: 416-22.