Literature DB >> 12204020

Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Linda L Humphrey1, Mark Helfand, Benjamin K S Chan, Steven H Woolf.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To synthesize new data on breast cancer screening for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry; and reference lists of reviews, editorials, and original studies. STUDY SELECTION: Eight randomized, controlled trials of mammography and 2 trials evaluating breast self-examination were included. One hundred fifty-four publications of the results of these trials, as well as selected articles about the test characteristics and harms associated with screening, were examined. DATA EXTRACTION: Predefined criteria were used to assess the quality of each study. Meta-analyses using a Bayesian random-effects model were conducted to provide summary relative risk estimates and credible intervals (CrIs) for the effectiveness of screening with mammography in reducing death from breast cancer. DATA SYNTHESIS: For studies of fair quality or better, the summary relative risk was 0.84 (95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.91) and the number needed to screen to prevent one death from breast cancer after approximately 14 years of observation was 1224 (CrI, 665 to 2564). Among women younger than 50 years of age, the summary relative risk associated with mammography was 0.85 (CrI, 0.73 to 0.99) and the number needed to screen to prevent one death from breast cancer after 14 years of observation was 1792 (CrI, 764 to 10 540). For clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, evidence from randomized trials is inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: In the randomized, controlled trials, mammography reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women 40 to 74 years of age. Greater absolute risk reduction was seen among older women. Because these results incorporate several rounds of screening, the actual number of mammograms needed to prevent one death from breast cancer is higher. In addition, each screening has associated risks and costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12204020     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  270 in total

1.  Screening for domestic violence. Cultural shift is needed.

Authors:  Jo Nurse
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-14

2.  Mammography screening among women aged 40-49 years shows no benefit.

Authors:  John Hoey
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Janie M Lee; Chung Y Kong; Pamela M McMahon; Michael E Gilmore; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Women need better information about routine mammography.

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

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.  Public education and targeted outreach to underserved women through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Whitney Levano; Jacqueline W Miller; Banning Leonard; Linda Bellick; Barbara E Crane; Stephenie K Kennedy; Natalie M Haslage; Whitney Hammond; Felicia S Tharpe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Stephen M Downs; Linda S Kinsinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Screening for cancer: valuable or not?

Authors:  Frank L Meyskens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Earlier detection of breast cancer with ultrasound molecular imaging in a transgenic mouse model.

Authors:  Sunitha V Bachawal; Kristin C Jensen; Amelie M Lutz; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Francois Tranquart; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.