Literature DB >> 12110490

The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR Randomised Trial. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research.

.   

Abstract

The optimal frequency of breast cancer screening has been a subject of debate since the inception of the UK National Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). This paper reports on the only randomised trial directly comparing different screening intervals. 99389 women aged 50-62 years who had been invited to a prevalent screen were randomly allocated after the scheduled prevalent screen date to the study arm (invited to three further annual screens), or to the control arm (invited to the standard single screen 3 years later). 37530 women in the study arm and 38492 in the control arm had attended the prevalent screen. The endpoint was predicted breast cancer deaths. The prediction was based on both the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) and a similar method derived from survival data from a series of tumours in the Swedish Two-County screening trial (2CS). Both indices were based on the size, lymph node status and histological grade of the invasive tumours diagnosed in the two arms of the trial. The pathology of the cases diagnosed was subject to review by two pathologists using standard criteria. The tumours diagnosed in the study arm were significantly smaller than those diagnosed in the control arm (P=0.05). The relative risk of death from breast cancer for the annual compared with the 3-yearly group was 0.95 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.83-1.07, P=0.4) using the NPI and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77-1.03, P=0.09) using the 2CS. Shortening of the screening interval in this age group is predicted to have a relatively small effect on breast cancer mortality. Improvements to the screening programme would be targeted more productively on areas other than the screening interval, such as improving the screening quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12110490     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00397-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  22 in total

1.  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

2.  The relation between projected breast cancer risk, perceived cancer risk, and mammography use. Results from the National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  C P Gross; G Filardo; H S Singh; A N Freedman; M H Farrell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Design of cancer screening trials/randomized trials for evaluation of cancer screening.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  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

Review 5.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 6.  Applying the 2011 Canadian guidelines for breast cancer screening in practice.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Ruth Heisey; June C Carroll
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Approaches to improving breast screening uptake: evidence and experience from Tower Hamlets.

Authors:  K W Eilbert; K Carroll; J Peach; S Khatoon; I Basnett; N McCulloch
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Evaluation of extension of breast screening to women aged 65-70 in England using screening performance measures.

Authors:  R L Bennett; R G Blanks; S M Moss
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.