Literature DB >> 1732926

Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

L Tabàr1, G Fagerberg, S W Duffy, N E Day, A Gad, O Gröntoft.   

Abstract

The results of the Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer are presented, updated to December 31, 1990, which is an average of 10.8 years follow-up per person. The main result of the trial in terms of breast cancer mortality remained the same: compared with the control group, the group invited to screening had a relative breast cancer mortality of 0.70 (P = 0.0002) with 95% confidence interval (0.58, 0.85). Analysis of survival showed that relative to the control group, the cancers detected at prevalence screen, incidence screens, and in the interval between screens had a good prognosis, whereas cancers detected in those who had refused screening had a very poor prognosis. When adjusted for tumor size, lymph node status, and tumor grade (differentiation), the better survival associated with incidence screen and interval detection was largely accounted for, indicating that the benefit of incidence screening is largely achieved through the effect of screening on the three prognostic variables, notably size of the tumor. Results indicate that to achieve a substantial mortality reduction, 50% of screen-detected invasive cancers should be less than 15 mm in diameter, at least 30% of screen-detected grade 3 tumors should be less than 15 mm, and at least 70% of screen-detected tumors should not have lymph node metastases. The percentage of grade 3 tumors of a given size should be the same in screen-detected cancers as in clinically detected, and breast cancer prevalence at first screen should be at least three times the expected incidence rate in the absence of screening. This should be achieved without the recall rate for further examination exceeding 9%, and procedures including further imaging techniques and fine needle aspiration or core biopsy should be used before resorting to surgical biopsy. These aims can be achieved in specialist screening centers if particular attention is paid to resources for screening and diagnostic evaluation, specialist training of clinical and technologic screening staff, and ongoing monitoring of mammographic quality, recall rates, and the attributes of the tumors detected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1732926

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  101 in total

Review 1.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Health insurance and mammography: would a Medicare buy-in take us to universal screening?

Authors:  Donald H Taylor; Lynn Van Scoyoc; Sarah Tropman Hawley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a clinician's perspective.

Authors:  A A Starreveld
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Systematic review of the breast cancer screening trials is error-ridden.

Authors:  László Tabar; Nicholas Day; Robert Smith; Tony H H Chen; Amy M F Yen; Stephen Duffy
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Screening mammography: Authors' response to Nyström and Tabar and colleagues.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol; Michel Smans; Richard Sullivan; Peter Boyle
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen, The Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975-92.

Authors:  J D Otten; J A van Dijck; P G Peer; H Straatman; A L Verbeek; M Mravunac; J H Hendriks; R Holland
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  [Bavarian mammography screening program].

Authors:  F Willgeroth; M Baumann; D Blaser; A Crispin; S Froschauer; J de Waal; S Heywang-Köbrunner; D Hölzel; V Kääb; R Rothe; V Stich; S Thomaschewski; D Walter
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.635

8.  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

9.  Aggressiveness of breast cancers detected by screening.

Authors:  S W Duffy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-23

10.  Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.