Literature DB >> 20726723

Breast cancer risk from different mammography screening practices.

Harmen Bijwaard1, Alina Brenner, Fieke Dekkers, Teun van Dillen, Charles E Land, John D Boice.   

Abstract

Mammography screening is an accepted procedure for early detection of breast tumors among asymptomatic women. Since this procedure involves the use of X rays, it is itself potentially carcinogenic. Although there is general consensus about the benefit of screening for older women, screening practices differ between countries. In this paper radiation risks for these different practices are estimated using a new approach. We model breast cancer induction by ionizing radiation in a cohort of patients exposed to frequent X-ray examinations. The biologically based, mechanistic model provides a better foundation for the extrapolation of risks to different mammography screening practices than empirical models do. The model predicts that the excess relative risk (ERR) doubles when screening starts at age 40 instead of 50 and that a continuation of screening at ages 75 and higher carries little extra risk. The number of induced fatal breast cancers is estimated to be considerably lower than derived from epidemiological studies and from internationally accepted radiation protection risks. The present findings, if used in a risk-benefit analysis for mammography screening, would be more favorable to screening than estimates currently recommended for radiation protection. This has implications for the screening ages that are currently being reconsidered in several countries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20726723      PMCID: PMC6276803          DOI: 10.1667/RR2067.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  31 in total

Review 1.  Stem cells in mammary development and carcinogenesis: implications for prevention and treatment.

Authors:  Gabriela Dontu; Suling Liu; Max S Wicha
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.739

2.  Estimation of breast doses and breast cancer risk associated with repeated fluoroscopic chest examinations of women with tuberculosis.

Authors:  J D Boice; M Rosenstein; E D Trout
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 2.841

3.  Two-stage model for carcinogenesis: Epidemiology of breast cancer in females.

Authors:  S H Moolgavkar; N E Day; R G Stevens
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Human breast development.

Authors:  B A Howard; B A Gusterson
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.673

5.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.

Authors:  C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-08-17       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Evaluation of the population dose to the UK population from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.

Authors:  K Faulkner; M G Wallis; F Neilson; C J Whitaker
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  'Hormonal' risk factors, 'breast tissue age' and the age-incidence of breast cancer.

Authors:  M C Pike; M D Krailo; B E Henderson; J T Casagrande; D G Hoel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1983-06-30       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Transformation of different human breast epithelial cell types leads to distinct tumor phenotypes.

Authors:  Tan A Ince; Andrea L Richardson; George W Bell; Maki Saitoh; Samuel Godar; Antoine E Karnoub; James D Iglehart; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 31.743

Review 9.  Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence.

Authors:  Cécile M Ronckers; Christine A Erdmann; Charles E Land
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Survival from cancer of the breast in women in England and Wales up to 2001.

Authors:  M J Quinn; N Cooper; B Rachet; E Mitry; M P Coleman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Breast cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors from multi-model inference with incidence data 1958-1998.

Authors:  J C Kaiser; P Jacob; R Meckbach; H M Cullings
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Retrospective observation on contribution and limitations of screening for breast cancer with mammography in Korea: detection rate of breast cancer and incidence rate of interval cancer of the breast.

Authors:  Kunsei Lee; Hyeongsu Kim; Jung Hyun Lee; Hyoseon Jeong; Soon Ae Shin; Taehwa Han; Young Lan Seo; Youngbum Yoo; Sang Eun Nam; Jong Heon Park; Yoo Mi Park
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 3.  Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast.

Authors:  Jessica S Helm; Ruthann A Rudel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 5.153

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.