Literature DB >> 10371567

14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.

F E Alexander1, T J Anderson, H K Brown, A P Forrest, W Hepburn, A E Kirkpatrick, B B Muir, R J Prescott, A Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening recruited women aged 45-64 years from 1978 to 1981 (cohort 1), and those aged 45-49 years during 1982-85 (cohorts 2 and 3). Results based on 14 years of follow-up and 270,000 woman-years of observation are reported.
METHODS: Breast-cancer mortality rates in the intervention group (28,628 women offered screening) were compared with those in the control group (26,026) with adjustment for socioeconomic status (SES) of general medical practices. Rate ratios were derived by means of logistic regression for the total trial population and for women first offered screening while younger than 50 years. Analyses were by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: Initial unadjusted results showed a difference of just 13% in breast-cancer mortality rates between the intervention and control groups (156 deaths [5.18 per 10,000] vs 167 [6.04 per 10,000]; rate ratio 0.87 [95% CI 0.70-1.06]), but the results were influenced by differences in SES by trial group. After adjustment for SES, the rate ratio was 0.79 (95% CI 0.60-1.02). When deaths after diagnosis more than 3 years after the end of the study were censored the rate ratio became 0.71 (0.53-0.95). There was no evidence of heterogeneity by age at entry and no evidence that younger entrants had smaller or delayed benefit (rate ratio 0.70 [0.41-1.20]). No breast-cancer mortality benefit was observed for women whose breast cancers were diagnosed when they were younger than 50 years. Other-cause mortality rates did not differ by trial group when adjusted for SES.
INTERPRETATION: Our findings confirm results from randomised trials in Sweden and the USA that screening for breast cancer lowers breast-cancer mortality. Similar results are reported by the UK geographical comparison, UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer. The results for younger women suggest benefit from introduction of screening before 50 years of age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10371567     DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)07413-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  66 in total

Review 1.  Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer?

Authors:  D J Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-10

Review 2.  The menopause and its treatment in perspective.

Authors:  F Al-Azzawi
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Predictors of mammography use among Canadian women aged 50-69: findings from the 1996/97 National Population Health Survey.

Authors:  C J Maxwell; C M Bancej; J Snider
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-06       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Locoregional treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  D Dodwell; K Horgan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-11-08

Review 6.  Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals.

Authors:  Suezann Puffer; David Torgerson; Judith Watson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-10-04

Review 7.  Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application.

Authors:  Aziz Sheikh; Liam Smeeth; Richard Ashcroft
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  The influence of breast self-examination on subsequent mammography participation.

Authors:  Susan E Jelinski; Colleen J Maxwell; Jay Onysko; Christina M Bancej
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Chiral porphyrazine near-IR optical imaging agent exhibiting preferential tumor accumulation.

Authors:  Evan R Trivedi; Allison S Harney; Mary B Olive; Izabela Podgorski; Kamiar Moin; Bonnie F Sloane; Anthony G M Barrett; Thomas J Meade; Brian M Hoffman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.