Literature DB >> 12881376

The Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening: cluster randomisation and end point evaluation.

S W Duffy1, L Tabar, B Vitak, M F Yen, J Warwick, R A Smith, H H Chen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Swedish Two-County Trial has been criticised on the grounds of the cluster randomisation and alleged bias in classification of cause of death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Two-County Trial, 77 080 women were randomised to regular invitation to screening (active study population, ASP) and 55 985 to no invitation (passive study population, PSP), in 45 geographical clusters. After approximately 7 years, the PSP was invited to screening and the trial closed. We analysed data using hierarchical statistical models to take account of cluster randomisation, and performed a conservative analysis assuming a systematic difference between ASP and PSP in baseline breast cancer mortality in one of the counties. We also analysed deaths from causes other than breast cancer and from all causes among breast cancer cases diagnosed in the ASP and PSP.
RESULTS: Taking account of the cluster randomisation there was a significant 30% reduction in breast cancer mortality in the ASP. Conservatively, assuming a systematic difference between ASP and PSP clusters in baseline breast cancer mortality, there was a significant 27% reduction in mortality in the ASP. Ignoring classification of cause of death, there was a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality in breast cancer cases in the ASP.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer mortality is a valid end point and mammographic screening does indeed reduce mortality from breast cancer. The criticisms of the Swedish Two-County Trial are unfounded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12881376     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  7 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Detection of incidental breast tumors by noncontrast spiral computed tomography of the chest.

Authors:  Hiroko Shojaku; Hikaru Seto; Hisakazu Iwai; Shinji Kitazawa; Wataru Fukushima; Katsuhiko Saito
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2008-08-03

Review 3.  A meta-analysis of mammographic screening with and without clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Chisato Hamashima; Koji Ohta; Yoshio Kasahara; Takafumi Katayama; Tomio Nakayama; Satoshi Honjo; Koji Ohnuki
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 6.716

4.  Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999-2011.

Authors:  Stephen Morrell; Richard Taylor; David Roder; Bridget Robson; Marli Gregory; Kirsty Craig
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04

6.  Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening: An historical review.

Authors:  Laszlo Tabar; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Chen-Yang Hsu; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Kerri Beckmann; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Interpretation of breast cancer screening guideline for Chinese women.

Authors:  Yubei Huang; Zhongsheng Tong; Kexin Chen; Ying Wang; Peifang Liu; Lin Gu; Juntian Liu; Jinpu Yu; Fengju Song; Wenhua Zhao; Yehui Shi; Hui Li; Huaiyuan Xiao; Xishan Hao
Journal:  Cancer Biol Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.248

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.