Literature DB >> 12209737

The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties.

Stephen W Duffy1, Laszlo Tabár, Hsiu-Hsi Chen, Marit Holmqvist, Ming-Fang Yen, Shahim Abdsalah, Birgitta Epstein, Ewa Frodis, Eva Ljungberg, Christina Hedborg-Melander, Ann Sundbom, Maria Tholin, Mika Wiege, Anders Akerlund, Hui-Min Wu, Tao-Shin Tung, Yueh-Hsia Chiu, Chen-Pu Chiu, Chih-Chung Huang, Robert A Smith, Måns Rosén, Magnus Stenbeck, Lars Holmberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of organized mammographic service screening programs is a major challenge in public health. In particular, there is a need to evaluate the effect of the screening program on the mortality of breast carcinoma, uncontaminated in the screening epoch by mortality from 1) cases diagnosed in the prescreening period and 2) cases diagnosed among unscreened women (i.e., nonattenders) after the initiation of organized screening.
METHODS: In the current study, the authors ascertained breast carcinoma deaths in the prescreening and screening epochs in 7 Swedish counties from tumors diagnosed in these epochs and in the age group 40-69 years in 6 counties and 50-69 years in 1 county. Data regarding deaths were obtained from the Uppsala Regional Oncologic Center in conjunction with the National Cause of Death Register. The total number of women in the eligible age range living in each county was obtained from the annual population data of Statistics Sweden. Detailed screening data were provided by the screening centers in the seven counties, including the number of invited, the number attended, and whether each individual breast carcinoma case was exposed (screen-detected and interval cases combined) or unexposed (not-invited or nonattenders) to mammographic screening. There were 2044 breast carcinoma deaths from 14,092 incident tumors diagnosed in the prescreening and screening epochs, and the total number of person-years was 7.5 million. Data were analyzed using Poisson regression with corrections for self-selection bias and lead-time bias when appropriate.
RESULTS: The mortality reduction for breast carcinoma in all 7 counties combined for women actually exposed to screening compared with the prescreening period was 44% (relative risk [RR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.50-0.62). When all incident tumors were considered, both those exposed and those unexposed to screening combined, counties with > 10 years of screening were found to demonstrate a significant 32% mortality reduction (RR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.77) and counties with < or = 10 years of screening showed a significant 18% reduction in breast carcinoma mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) for the screening epoch compared with the prescreening epoch. Within the screening epoch, after adjustment for self-selection bias, a 39% mortality reduction (RR = 0.61; 95%CI, 0.55-0.68) was observed in association with invitation to screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Organized service screening in 7 Swedish counties, covering approximately 33% of the population of Sweden, resulted in a 40-45% reduction in breast carcinoma mortality among women actually screened. The policy of offering screening is associated with a mortality reduction in breast carcinoma of 30% in the invited population, exposed and unexposed combined. The results of the current study indicate that the majority of the breast carcinoma mortality reduction is indeed due to the screening. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12209737     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10765

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


  59 in total

Review 1.  Chemoprevention for pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Robert A Wolff
Journal:  Int J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2003

2.  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

3.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study.

Authors:  Sophia Zackrisson; Ingvar Andersson; Lars Janzon; Jonas Manjer; Jens Peter Garne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-03

5.  Breast cancer guidelines.

Authors:  Gregory Doyle
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Authors:  Wasfi I Suleiman; Sarah J Lewis; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Michael G Evanoff; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-05-07

Review 7.  State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Cosimo Di Maggio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  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

9.  Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue.

Authors:  A Fileni; N Magnavita; L Pescarini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Breast cancer incidence and mortality in Tyrol/Austria after fifteen years of opportunistic mammography screening.

Authors:  Willi Oberaigner; Wolfgang Buchberger; Thomas Frede; Rudolf Knapp; Christian Marth; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.