Madam, - I read with disappointment your coverage of the BreastCheck 2002 annual report (The Irish Times, November 5th).
In particular, the final paragraph says Breastcheck "spent more on travel and subsistence than on actual screening".This conclusion was drawn by deducing that the purchase of x-ray films is the only "actual screening" expense that BreastCheck incurs. However, screening includes a wide range of expenses as published in our annual report. Obvious costs include salaries, power, equipment, repairs/maintenance, insurance and administration.
I would also like to make it clear that "travel and subsistence" refers to the cost of radiographers travelling to and from mobile screening units - and staying overnight if necessary. Without this, bringing a specialised health service out to the community would not be possible.
A key message of the annual report was that the uptake of breast screening in 2002 was 76 per cent, which is well above the recommended international standard of 70 per cent. We made it clear we were pleased with this result.
However, your headline referred to "concern over low breast screen uptake". In the report nobody is quoted to this effect - and there are no facts or figures given to support it.
While a 100 per cent uptake is BreastCheck's ideal, it is recognised in breast screening that over 70 per cent is a high rate. This standard is set by the European Reference Centre for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening, and not by BreastCheck.
I believe this was a negative and unfair report in which the glass was described as a quarter empty rather than three-quarters full. - Yours, etc.,
TONY O'BRIEN, BreastCheck, Capel Street, Dublin 1.