Literature DB >> 15006110

Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern?

E Paci1, J Warwick, P Falini, S W Duffy.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the degree of overdiagnosis of breast cancer in a mammographic screening programme.
SETTING: A mammography service screening programme in Florence, Italy.
METHODS: We studied the incidence of breast cancer in Florence between 1990 and 1999, following the introduction of screening in 1990. Incidence of breast cancer in this period was compared with incidence between 1985 and 1989, before the introduction of screening. It was necessary to estimate the number of cancers that would have arisen in the absence of screening, but after the end of followup (31 December 1999), so that these were not misclassified as overdiagnosed tumours. Around 60,000 women aged 50-69 were invited for screening during the period of study.
RESULTS: There were 2780 breast cancers diagnosed during the period of study (2626 were invasive). There was no significant evidence of overdiagnosis of invasive cancers. When invasive and in situ cancers were considered together, around 5% of cases were overdiagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a small amount of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in mammography screening; however, this should not deter women from being screened. Training and practice in mammographic screening should emphasise detection of small, invasive lesions. Research into the natural history and treatment of the disease should aim at minimising overtreatment of those in situ lesions that are less likely to progress to invasive disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15006110     DOI: 10.1177/096914130301100106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  27 in total

1.  Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Nehmat Houssami; Bruce Armstrong; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-25

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  Most breast cancer screening trials have a flawed design.

Authors:  Nishant Gurnani; Anurag Srivastava
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 0.656

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

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

Review 6.  Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.

Authors:  Paul Brocklehurst; Omar Kujan; Lucy A O'Malley; Graham Ogden; Simon Shepherd; Anne-Marie Glenny
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-11-19

7.  Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Kirsten Howard; Les Irwig; Glenn Salkeld; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-08

8.  The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening.

Authors:  N Pashayan; S W Duffy; S Chowdhury; T Dent; H Burton; D E Neal; D F Easton; R Eeles; P Pharoah
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.