Literature DB >> 18484587

Breast cancer screening: evidence for false reassurance?

Rianne de Gelder1, Elisabeth van As, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, Carina C M Bartels, Rob Boer, Gerrit Draisma, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

Tumour stage distribution at repeated mammography screening is, unexpectedly, often not more favourable than stage distribution at first screenings. False reassurance, i.e., delayed symptom presentation due to having participated in earlier screening rounds, might be associated with this, and unfavourably affect prognosis. To assess the role of false reassurance in mammography screening, a consecutive group of 155 breast cancer patients visiting a breast clinic in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) completed a questionnaire on screening history and self-observed breast abnormalities. The length of time between the initial discovery of breast abnormalities and first consultation of a general practitioner ("symptom-GP period") was compared between patients with ("screening group") and without a previous screening history ("control group"), using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Of the 155 patients, 84 (54%) had participated in the Dutch screening programme at least once before tumour detection; 32 (38%) of whom had noticed symptoms. They did not significantly differ from control patients (n = 42) in symptom-GP period (symptom-GP period > or = 30 days: 31.2% in the symptomatic screened group, 31.0% in the control group; p = 0.9). Only 2 out of 53 patients (3.8%) with screen-detected cancer had noticed symptoms prior to screening, reporting symptom-GP periods of 2.5 and 4 years. The median period between the first GP- and breast clinic visit was 7.0 days (95% C.I. 5.9-8.1) in symptomatic screened patients and 6.0 days (95% C.I. 4.0-8.0) in control patients. Our results show that false reassurance played, at most, only a minor role in breast cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18484587     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  9 in total

1.  Detection and identification of potential biomarkers of breast cancer.

Authors:  Yuxia Fan; Jiachen Wang; Yang Yang; Qiuliang Liu; Yingzhong Fan; Jiekai Yu; Shu Zheng; Mengquan Li; Jiaxiang Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 2.  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

3.  Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Diana L Miglioretti; Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Diana S M Buist; Hui Huang; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Karla Kerlikowske; Heidi D Nelson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors.

Authors:  Karen Glanz; Kathryn Volpicelli; Peter A Kanetsky; Michael E Ming; Lynn M Schuchter; Christopher Jepson; Susan M Domchek; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Diagnostic and prognostic significance of serum apolipoprotein C-I in triple-negative breast cancer based on mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Dongjian Song; Lifang Yue; Junjie Zhang; Shanshan Ma; Wei Zhao; Fei Guo; Yingzhong Fan; Heying Yang; Qiuliang Liu; Da Zhang; Ziqiang Xia; Pan Qin; Jia Jia; Ming Yue; Jiekai Yu; Shu Zheng; Fuquan Yang; Jiaxiang Wang
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 4.742

6.  Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Rafael Meza; Sylvia K Plevritis; Kevin ten Haaf; Vidit N Munshi; Jihyoun Jeon; Saadet Ayca Erdogan; Chung Yin Kong; Summer S Han; Joost van Rosmalen; Sung Eun Choi; Paul F Pinsky; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Martin C Tammemägi; William D Hazelton; Eric J Feuer; Pamela M McMahon
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Could screening participation bias symptom interpretation? An interview study on women's interpretations of and responses to cancer symptoms between mammography screening rounds.

Authors:  Marit Solbjør; John-Arne Skolbekken; Ann Rudinow Sætnan; Anne Irene Hagen; Siri Forsmo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Advanced breast cancer incidence following population-based mammographic screening.

Authors:  P Autier; M Boniol; R Middleton; J F Doré; C Héry; T Zheng; A Gavin
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Magali Boniol; Alice Koechlin; Cécile Pizot; Mathieu Boniol
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-12-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.