Literature DB >> 17054145

Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

P C Gøtzsche1, M Nielsen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed (June 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN
RESULTS: Seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. We excluded a biased trial from analysis. Two trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.09) at 13 years; four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, RR 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83) (P = 0.02 for difference between the two estimates). RR for all six trials combined was 0.80 (0.73 to 0.88). The two trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, RR 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, RR 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04) after 13 years. We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups, RR 1.31 (1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Screening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. Based on all trials, the reduction is 20%, but as the effect is lower in the highest quality trials, a more reasonable estimate is a 15% relative risk reduction. Based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with an estimated 30% increase, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17054145     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  79 in total

1.  Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering.

Authors:  Ray Moynihan; Iona Heath; David Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-13

2.  Participation in mammography screening.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-13

3.  Cardiovascular risk models.

Authors:  Luc Bonneux
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-06

Review 4.  Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Germaine Wong; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.237

5.  Mammography in developing countries: the risks associated with globalizing the experiences of the Western world.

Authors:  Alan A Arslan; Silvia C Formenti
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2008-12-02

6.  Sense about mammography.

Authors:  Mike Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 7.  Management of breast cancer--part I.

Authors:  Nicholas C Turner; Alison L Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-07-04

8.  2008 update of the guideline: early detection of breast cancer in Germany.

Authors:  Ute-Susann Albert; Helmut Altland; Volker Duda; Jutta Engel; Max Geraedts; Syvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Dieter Hölzel; Eva Kalbheim; Michael Koller; Klaus König; Rolf Kreienberg; Thorsten Kühn; Annette Lebeau; Irmgard Nass-Griegoleit; Werner Schlake; Rita Schmutzler; Ingrid Schreer; Hilde Schulte; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Uwe Wagner; Ina Kopp
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Repeat mammography screening among unmarried women with and without a disability.

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; Michelle L Rogers; Xiaozhong Wen; Victoria Wilcox; Kate McCarthy-Barnett; Jeanne Panarace; Carol Manning; Susan Allen; William Rakowski
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2009-09-23

Review 10.  Recent advances in the surgical care of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Alessandra Mascaro; Massimo Farina; Raffaella Gigli; Carlo E Vitelli; Lucio Fortunato
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 2.754

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.