Literature DB >> 2107280

The epidemiology of mass breast cancer screening--a plea for a valid measure of benefit.

J G Schmidt1.   

Abstract

The present paper analyses the epidemiologic effects of mass breast cancer screening. Mass mammography may possibly achieve a breast cancer mortality reduction in relative risk terms. However, this does not necessarily represent a net benefit. It is argued that the benefits and adverse effects of a screening programme must be measured in terms of absolute risks. According to this measure, the mortality reduction achieved by a mass breast screening programme is only one death per approx. 15,000 women-years. Many thousands of mammograms are needed to prevent one cancer death, and for each woman who can derive a direct benefit in terms of a prevented breast cancer death, hundreds of women have to suffer the anxiety of a positive screening mammography. Moreover, it is possible that adverse effects of breast cancer screening may contribute to mortality from other causes. Even with the assumption that screening can save lives, the net health effect of mass breast cancer screening is questionable and appears to be rather detrimental. It may be an error to recommend mass breast screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2107280     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90002-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  10 in total

1.  Breast screening in women aged 65-79.

Authors:  A Rodgers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-02-16

2.  Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints?

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Mammography use among sociodemographically diverse women: the accuracy of self-report.

Authors:  J G Zapka; C Bigelow; T Hurley; L D Ford; J Egelhofer; W M Cloud; E Sachsse
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  A reader's guide to the evaluation of screening studies.

Authors:  C Earle; P C Hebert
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 5.  Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited.

Authors:  I T Gram; S E Slenker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Comparison of younger and older breast cancer survivors and age-matched controls on specific and overall quality of life domains.

Authors:  Victoria L Champion; Lynne I Wagner; Patrick O Monahan; Joanne Daggy; Lisa Smith; Andrea Cohee; Kim W Ziner; Joan E Haase; Kathy D Miller; Kamnesh Pradhan; Frederick W Unverzagt; David Cella; Bilal Ansari; George W Sledge
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

Authors:  S Sutton; G Saidi; G Bickler; J Hunter
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Glaucoma screening clinic in general practice: prevalence of occult disease, and resource implications.

Authors:  J H Sheldrick; A J Sharp
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 10.  Review of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a new role of prone scintimammography using technetium-99m sestamibi.

Authors:  I Khalkhali; I Mena; L Diggles
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.