Literature DB >> 11335897

Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality.

L Tabár1, B Vitak, H H Chen, M F Yen, S W Duffy, R A Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of mammographic screening in the reduction of breast carcinoma mortality has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. However, the evaluation of organized screening outside of research settings (so-called "service screening") faces unique methodologic and conceptual challenges. The current study describes the evaluation of organized mammography screening in a clinical setting and demonstrates the benefit obtained from service screening in two Swedish counties.
METHODS: In the group of subjects ages 20--69 years, there were 6807 women diagnosed with breast carcinoma over a 29-year period in 2 counties in Sweden and 1863 breast carcinoma deaths. All patients were classified from patient charts based on their screening status (i.e., whether they had been invited to undergo screening and whether they actually had undergone screening). The number of women who lived in the 2 counties during the 29-year study period was provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics. Breast carcinoma-specific mortality was compared across three time periods: 1) 1968--1977, when no screening was taking place because mammography had not been introduced; 2) 1978--1987, the approximate period of the Two-County randomized controlled trial of screening in women ages 40--74 years; and 3) 1988--1996, when all women in the 2 counties ages 40--69 years were invited to undergo screening (service screening). When comparing breast carcinoma mortality in screened women with that in women diagnosed before screening was introduced, a correction for self-selection bias was incorporated to prevent overestimation of the benefit of screening.
RESULTS: The mortality from incident breast carcinoma diagnosed in women ages 40-69 years who actually were screened during the service screening period (1988--1996) declined significantly by 63% (relative risk [RR] = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30--0.46) compared with breast carcinoma mortality during the time period when no screening was available (1968--1977). The mortality decline was 50% (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41--0.60) when breast carcinoma mortality among all women who were invited to undergo screening (nonattendees included) was compared with breast cancer mortality during the time period when no screening was available (1968--1977). The reduction in mortality observed during the service screening period, adjusted for selection bias, was 48% (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43--0.63). No significant change in breast carcinoma mortality was observed over the three time periods in women who did not undergo screening. This group included women ages 20--39 years because these individuals were never invited to undergo screening, and women ages 40--69 years who did not undergo screening (not invited during the randomized trial or invited during the second and third time periods but declined).
CONCLUSIONS: Regular mammographic screening resulted in a 63% reduction in breast carcinoma death among women who actually underwent screening. The policy of invitation to organized screening with mammography appears to have reduced breast carcinoma mortality by 50% in these 2 counties. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11335897     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1724::aid-cncr1190>3.0.co;2-v

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  85 in total

1.  Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Authors:  Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.

Authors:  Silvia Obenauer; Klaus-Peter Hermann; Katharina Marten; Susanne Luftner-Nagel; Dorit von Heyden; Per Skaane; Eckhardt Grabbe
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  Women need better information about routine mammography.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards; Michael Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-12

4.  Racial/ethnic differences in the self-reported use of screening mammography.

Authors:  Alma R Jones; Lee S Caplan; Mary Kidd Davis
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2003-10

5.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Declining mammography screening in a state Medicaid Fee-for-Service program: 1999-2008.

Authors:  Abhijeet Bhanegaonkar; S Suresh Madhavan; Rahul Khanna; Scot C Remick
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Computer-aided diagnosis of breast DCE-MRI images using bilateral asymmetry of contrast enhancement between two breasts.

Authors:  Qian Yang; Lihua Li; Juan Zhang; Guoliang Shao; Chengjie Zhang; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors:  D R Fischer; P Baltzer; A Malich; S Wurdinger; M G Freesmeyer; C Marx; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.