Literature DB >> 20332715

The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening.

John Brodersen1, Karsten J Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche.   

Abstract

The balance between benefits and harms is delicate for cancer screening programs. By attending screening with mammography some women will avoid dying from breast cancer or receive less aggressive treatment. But many more women will be overdiagnosed, receive needless treatment, have a false-positive result, or live more years as a patient with breast cancer. Systematic reviews of the randomized trials have shown that for every 2000 women invited for mammography screening throughout 10 years, only 1 will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women will be overdiagnosed with breast cancer and will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience substantial psychosocial distress for months because of false-positive findings. Regular breast self-examination does not reduce breast cancer mortality, but doubles the number of biopsies, and it therefore cannot be recommended. The effects of routine clinical breast examination are unknown, but considering the results of the breast self-examination trials, it is likely that it is harmful. The effects of screening for breast cancer with thermography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging are unknown. It is not clear whether screening with mammography does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be informed according to the best available evidence, data should be reported in absolute numbers, and benefits and harms should be reported using the same denominator so that they can be readily compared.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20332715

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pol Arch Med Wewn


  16 in total

1.  The reality in the follow-up of breast cancer survivors: survey of Korean Breast Cancer Society.

Authors:  Ku Sang Kim; Zisun Kim; Eun-Jung Shim; Nam Hyoung Kim; So-Youn Jung; Jisun Kim; Guiyun Sohn; Jong Won Lee; Jihyoung Cho; Jung Eun Lee; Juhyung Lee; Hyun Jo Youn; Jihyoun Lee; Min Hyuk Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 1.859

2.  Health behaviour and attitude towards screening examinations in an Austrian urban and rural population: gender aspects - screening and sex.

Authors:  Christian S Göbl; Felix Ortag; Latife Bozkurt; Alexandra Smeikal; Christian Dadak; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2011-03-07

3.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  CT-Screening for lung cancer does not increase the use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication.

Authors:  Linda Kaerlev; Maria Iachina; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Anders Green; Bente Mertz Nørgård
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Louise Mosborg Aggestrup; Mie Sara Hestbech; Volkert Siersma; Jesper Holst Pedersen; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population.

Authors:  Machaon M Bonafede; Vivek B Kalra; Jeffrey D Miller; Laurie L Fajardo
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-01-12

7.  The incidence of breast cancer in population of young women from Podkarpackie province in 2002-2011.

Authors:  Aneta U Radziszewska; Bożenna Karczmarek-Borowska; Monika Grądalska-Lampart; Agata A Filip
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2016-06-14

8.  Preconceptions influence women's perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Ann Dorrit Guassora; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-03

9.  Using Twitter for breast cancer prevention: an analysis of breast cancer awareness month.

Authors:  Rosemary Thackeray; Scott H Burton; Christophe Giraud-Carrier; Stephen Rollins; Catherine R Draper
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

Authors:  Bruno Heleno; Maria F Thomsen; David S Rodrigues; Karsten J Jørgensen; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-09-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.