Literature DB >> 15755755

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

Alexandra Barratt1, Kirsten Howard, Les Irwig, Glenn Salkeld, Nehmat Houssami.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide easy to use estimates of the benefits and harms of biennial screening mammography for women aged 40, 50, 60, and 70 years.
DESIGN: Markov process model, with data from BreastScreen Australia, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Age specific outcomes expressed per 1000 women over 10 years.
RESULTS: For every 1000 women screened over 10 years, 167-251 (depending on age) receive an abnormal result; 56-64 of these women undergo at least one biopsy, 9-26 have an invasive cancer detected by screening, and 3-6 have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by screening. More breast cancers (both invasive and DCIS) are diagnosed among screened than unscreened women. For example, among 1000 women aged 50 who have five biennial screens, 33 breast cancers are diagnosed: 28 invasive cancers (18 detected at screening and 10 interval cancers) and five DCIS (all detected at screening). By comparison, among 1000 women aged 50 who decline screening, 20 cancers are diagnosed over 10 years. There are about 0.5, 2, 3, and 2 fewer deaths from breast cancer over 10 years per 1000 women aged 40, 50, 60, and 70, respectively, who choose to be screened compared with women who decline screening at times determined by relevant policy.
CONCLUSION: Benefits and harms of screening mammography are relatively finely balanced. Quantitative estimates such as these can be used to support individual informed choices about screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15755755      PMCID: PMC556337          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  14 in total

1.  Meta-analysis adjusting for compliance: the example of screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  P P Glasziou
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal Trevena; Heather M Davey; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

3.  Long term follow-up of women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery: the effect of age.

Authors:  K J Van Zee; L Liberman; B Samli; K N Tran; B McCormick; J A Petrek; P P Rosen; P I Borgen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks.

Authors:  H G Welch; P C Albertsen; R F Nease; T A Bubolz; J H Wasson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-03-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Estimating risk of breast cancer from population incidence affected by widespread mammographic screening.

Authors:  R Taylor; J Boyages
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.136

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

Authors:  E Paci; J Warwick; P Falini; S W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Per-Henrik Zahl; Bjørn Heine Strand; Jan Maehlen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-10

9.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Floyd J Fowler; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Effect of breast cancer screening after age 65.

Authors:  H H Chen; L Tabar; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  35 in total

1.  Making decisions about mammography.

Authors:  Paul Taylor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-23

2.  Model of outcomes of screening mammography: women's decisions about screening depend on many factors.

Authors:  Sue M Lockwood; Nicola Bruce; Rosetta Manaszewicz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-08-06

3.  Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Information needs to support informed choices.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten J Jørgensen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-08-06

4.  Model of outcomes of screening mammography: spontaneous regression of breast cancer may not be uncommon.

Authors:  Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Maehlen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-08-06

5.  Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: more debate and better information still needed.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-25

Review 6.  Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Kirsten McCaffery; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-13

7.  Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

10.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.