Literature DB >> 15333269

Modelling the impact of detecting and treating ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme.

Jenny McCann1, Peter Treasure, Stephen Duffy.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Screening has substantially increased the detection of carcinoma in situ of the breast (CIS). Opinions vary as to whether this constitutes over-diagnosis or an opportunity to interrupt breast cancer's natural history. In England, incidence of invasive cancer and CIS increased in women of screening age (50-64 years), leading to a subsequent deficit in invasive incidence in women aged 65-69 years immediately beyond the invited age range. We aimed to model underlying incidence of invasive cancer and CIS expected in the absence of screening, and to quantify the likely relative contributions of their early detection to the observed reduction in invasive cancer in women of postscreening age.
SETTING: UK NHS breast screening programme in England.
METHODS: Poisson regression modelling was used to establish the underlying incidence of invasive and in situ cancers in the absence of screening. We then estimated age- and year-specific excess detection rates attributable to screening. Applying these to population figures we estimated conservatively the relative contributions of early diagnosis of CIS and invasive cancer at 50-64 years of age to the subsequent deficit in invasive cancer in women beyond invitation age (65-69 years), for screening early in the programme and at steady state.
RESULTS: Our model estimated a 1.6% annual increase in incidence, giving an estimated deficit of 4.22 invasive cancers per 10,000 women aged 65-69 years in 1996. Carcinoma in situ contributed 13-17% to the deficit, assuming a mean six year lead time and 75-100% progression to invasive cancer. At steady state, with current screening performance and with lead times of 3-4 years (invasive cancer) and 6-9 years (CIS), invasive incidence might be reduced by 5-6 cancers per 10,000 women aged 65-69 years in 2010 (15-20% of underlying incidence), CIS contributing 20-40%. DISCUSSION: The longer lead time associated with CIS attenuates the impact its early detection has on subsequent invasive incidence. At steady state screening, its detection contributes significantly to the deficit in invasive incidence. Our results suggest that, cancer for cancer, there may be just as much benefit in detecting and treating a case of CIS as there is in treating a case of invasive cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15333269     DOI: 10.1258/0969141041732201

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


  8 in total

1.  Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network.

Authors:  Elsebeth Lynge; Antonio Ponti; Ted James; Ondřej Májek; My von Euler-Chelpin; Ahti Anttila; Patricia Fitzpatrick; Alfonso Frigerio; Masaaki Kawai; Astrid Scharpantgen; Mireille Broeders; Solveig Hofvind; Carmen Vidal; Maria Ederra; Dolores Salas; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Mariano Tomatis; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen Taplin
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  [Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Rianne de Gelder; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jacques Fracheboud; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

4.  Estimate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography after adjustment for lead time. A service screening study in Italy.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci; Guido Miccinesi; Donella Puliti; Paola Baldazzi; Vincenzo De Lisi; Fabio Falcini; Claudia Cirilli; Stefano Ferretti; Lucia Mangone; Alba Carola Finarelli; Stefano Rosso; Nereo Segnan; Fabrizio Stracci; Adele Traina; Rosario Tumino; Manuel Zorzi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis and overtreatment in service screening.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci; Stephen Duffy
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola Agbaje; Laszlo Tabar; Bedrich Vitak; Nils Bjurstam; Lena Björneld; Jonathan P Myles; Jane Warwick
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Amanda Dibden; Dimitrios Michalopoulos; Judith Offman; Dharmishta Parmar; Jacquie Jenkins; Beverley Collins; Tony Robson; Suzanne Scorfield; Kathryn Green; Clare Hall; Xiao-Hui Liao; Michael Ryan; Fiona Johnson; Guy Stevens; Olive Kearins; Sarah Sellars; Julietta Patnick
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-12-05       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Pitfalls in accurate estimation of overdiagnosis: implications for screening policy and compliance.

Authors:  Stephen A Feig
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.466

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.