Literature DB >> 17161727

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

Sue M Moss1, Howard Cuckle, Andy Evans, Louise Johns, Michael Waller, Lynda Bobrow.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of screening by mammography has been shown in randomised controlled trials in women aged 50 years and older, but is less clear in younger women. A meta-analysis of all previous trials showed a 15% mortality reduction in invited women aged 40-49 years at study entry, but this finding could be due in part to screening of women after age 50 years. The Age trial was designed to study the effect on mortality of inviting women for annual mammography from age 40 years.
METHODS: 160,921 women aged 39-41 years were randomly assigned in the ratio 1:2 to an intervention group of annual mammography to age 48 years or to a control group of usual medical care. The trial was undertaken in 23 NHS breast-screening units in England, Wales, and Scotland. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle and compared mortality rates in the two groups at 10 years' follow-up. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151.
FINDINGS: At a mean follow-up of 10.7 years there was a reduction in breast-cancer mortality in the intervention group, in relative and absolute terms, which did not reach statistical significance (relative risk 0.83 [95% CI 0.66-1.04], p=0.11; absolute risk reduction 0.40 per 1000 women invited to screening [95% CI -0.07 to 0.87]). Mortality reduction adjusted for non-compliance in women actually screened was estimated as 24% (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.01).
INTERPRETATION: Although the reduction in breast-cancer mortality observed in this trial is not significant, it is consistent with results of other trials of mammography alone in this age-group. Future decisions on screening policy should be informed by further follow-up from this trial and should take account of possible costs and harms as well as benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17161727     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69834-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  108 in total

1.  Medical reversal: why we must raise the bar before adopting new technologies.

Authors:  Vinay Prasad; Adam Cifu
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2011-12

2.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; James Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Gabriela Lewin; Richard Birtwhistle; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Nicole Hodgson; Donna Ciliska; Mary Gauld; Yan Yun Liu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array.

Authors:  Xin Qian; Andrew Tucker; Emily Gidcumb; Jing Shan; Guang Yang; Xiomara Calderon-Colon; Shabana Sultana; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Derrek Spronk; Frank Sprenger; Yiheng Zhang; Don Kennedy; Tom Farbizio; Zhenxue Jing
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  An examination of sexual orientation group patterns in mammographic and colorectal screening in a cohort of U.S. women.

Authors:  S Bryn Austin; Mathew J Pazaris; Lauren P Nichols; Deborah Bowen; Esther K Wei; Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Breast cancer: Doubtful health benefit of screening from 40 years of age.

Authors:  Philippe Autier
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  CJS debate: Is mammography useful in average-risk screening for breast cancer?

Authors:  Muriel Brackstone; Steven Latosinsky; Elizabeth Saettler; Ralph George
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Aberrant expression of microRNAs in serum may identify individuals with pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Mao-Song Lin; Wei-Chang Chen; Jun-Xing Huang; Heng-Jun Gao; Hai-Hui Sheng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-12-15

9.  Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Elizabeth S Burnside; Cong Xu; Yisheng Li; Oguzhan Alagoz; Sandra J Lee; Natasha K Stout; Juhee Song; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sylvia K Plevritis; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.