Literature DB >> 12888370

Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening.

M-F Yen1, L Tabár, B Vitak, R A Smith, H-H Chen, S W Duffy.   

Abstract

The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS(0)) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS(1)) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12888370     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00260-0

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


  36 in total

1.  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

2.  Estimating the frequency of indolent breast cancer in screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Wenli Dong; Roman Gulati; Marc D Ryser; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-02

Review 5.  Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Chris Stinton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Rethinking: Ideal Screening Age for Breast Cancer in Developing Countries.

Authors:  Maha Abdel Hadi; Hefzi Al Ratrout; Hamid Al Wadaani
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2015-07-01

7.  Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xiaoxue Li; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; Xuelin Huang; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Rinaa S Punglia; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the natural history of in situ mammary neoplasia in transgenic mice: a pilot study.

Authors:  Sanaz A Jansen; Suzanne D Conzen; Xiaobing Fan; Erica J Markiewicz; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Breast screening has increased the number of mastectomies.

Authors:  J Michael Dixon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.