Literature DB >> 11918907

Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Lennarth Nyström1, Ingvar Andersson, Nils Bjurstam, Jan Frisell, Bo Nordenskjöld, Lars Erik Rutqvist.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been much debate about the value of screening mammography. Here we update the overview of the Swedish randomised controlled trials on mammography screening up to and including 1996. The Kopparberg part of the Two-County trial was not available for the overview, but the continuation of the Malmö trial (MMST II) has been added. The article also contains basic data from the trials that have not been presented before. Methods The trials (n=247010, invited group 129750, control group 117260) have been followed up by record linkage to the Swedish Cancer and Cause of Death Registers. The relative risks (RR) for breast cancer death and mortality were calculated for the invited and the control groups. The trial-specific as well as the age-specific effects were analysed. RRs were calculated by the density method, with total person-time experience of the cohort by time interval of follow-up as a basis for estimating mortality rates. We calculated weighted RRs and 95% CI with the Mantel-Haenszel procedure.
FINDINGS: The median trial time-the time from randomisation until the first round was completed for the control group or if the control group was not invited, until end of follow-up-was 6.5 years (range 3.0-18.1). The median follow-up time, the time from randomisation, to the end of follow-up, was 15.8 years (5.8-20.2). There were 511 breast cancer deaths in 1864770 women-years in the invited groups and 584 breast cancer deaths in 1688440 women-years in the control groups, a significant 21% reduction in breast cancer mortality (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89). The reduction was greatest in the age group 60-69 years at entry (33%). Looking at 5-year age groups, there were statistically significant effects in the age groups 55-59, 60-64, and 65-69 years (RR=0.76, 0.68, and 0.69, respectively). There was a small effect in women 50-54 years at randomisation (RR=0.95). The benefit in terms of cumulative breast cancer mortality started to emerge at about 4 years after randomisation and continued to increase to about 10 years. Thereafter the benefit in absolute terms was maintained throughout the period of observation. The age-adjusted relative risk for the total mortality was 0.98 (0.96-1.00).
INTERPRETATION: The advantageous effect of breast screening on breast cancer mortality persists after long-term follow-up. The recent criticism against the Swedish randomised controlled trials is misleading and scientifically unfounded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11918907     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08020-0

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


  253 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Association between persistence with mammography screening and stage at diagnosis among elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Usha Sambamoorthi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Ji Youn Kim; Jung Hyun Youn; Myung Hyun Kim; Hye Ryoung Koo; Soo Jin Kim; Yu-Mee Sohn; Hee Jung Moon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Locoregional treatment for breast cancer.

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

5.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; James Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Gabriela Lewin; Richard Birtwhistle; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Nicole Hodgson; Donna Ciliska; Mary Gauld; Yan Yun Liu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array.

Authors:  Xin Qian; Andrew Tucker; Emily Gidcumb; Jing Shan; Guang Yang; Xiomara Calderon-Colon; Shabana Sultana; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Derrek Spronk; Frank Sprenger; Yiheng Zhang; Don Kennedy; Tom Farbizio; Zhenxue Jing
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Using lifetime risk estimates to recommend magnetic resonance imaging screening for breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Rinaa S Punglia; Michael J Hassett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Diagnosing breast masses in digital mammography using feature selection and ensemble methods.

Authors:  Shu-Ting Luo; Bor-Wen Cheng
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 4.460

9.  Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: the importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care.

Authors:  Mita Sanghavi Goel; Christina C Wee; Ellen P McCarthy; Roger B Davis; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Russell S Phillips
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.