Literature DB >> 21257850

United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored.

R Edward Hendrick1, Mark A Helvie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine the scientific evidence considered by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in recommending against screening mammography in women 40-49 years old and against annual screening mammography in women 50 and older. We use evidence made available to the USPSTF to estimate the benefits and "harms" of screening mammography in women 40 years old and older. We use Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network modeling to compare lives saved by different screening scenarios and the summary of evidence prepared for the USPSTF to estimate the frequency of harms of screening mammography by age.
CONCLUSION: Averaged over the six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models of benefit, screening mammography shows greatest benefit--a 39.6% mortality reduction--from annual screening of women 40-84 years old. This screening regimen saves 71% more lives than the USPSTF-recommended regimen of biennial screening of women 50-74 years old, which had a 23.2% mortality reduction. For U.S. women currently 30-39 years old, annual screening mammography from ages 40-84 years would save 99,829 more lives than USPSTF recommendations if all women comply, and 64,889 more lives with the current 65% compliance rate. The potential harms of a screening examination in women 40-49 years old, on average, consist of the risk of a recall for diagnostic workup every 12 years, a negative biopsy every 149 years, a missed breast cancer every 1,000 years, and a fatal radiation-induced breast cancer every 76,000-97,000 years. Evidence made available to the USPSTF strongly supports the mortality benefit of annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 years, whereas potential harms of screening with this regimen are minor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21257850     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5609

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  26 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Modeling the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality in the United States.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Donald A Berry; Yaojen Chang; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75.

Authors:  Michael S Simon; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Cynthia A Thomson; Roberta M Ray; F Allan Hubbell; Lawrence Lessin; Dorothy S Lane; Lew H Kuller
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Building better models: if we build them, will policy makers use them? Toward integrating modeling into health care decisions.

Authors:  Jeanne Mandelblatt; Clyde Schechter; David Levy; Ann Zauber; Yaojen Chang; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Race/ethnicity and the socioeconomic status gradient in women's cancer screening utilization: a case of diminishing returns?

Authors:  Shannon M Monnat
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2014-02

6.  Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-02

7.  Association between individual and geographic factors and nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines.

Authors:  Kevin A Henry; Kaila McDonald; Recinda Sherman; Anita Y Kinney; Antoinette M Stroup
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Authors:  Christelle Duprez; Véronique Christophe; Isabelle Milhabet; Aurélie Krzeminski; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Jean-Philippe Peyrat; Philippe Vennin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices.

Authors:  Elizabeth Morris; Stephen A Feig; Madeline Drexler; Constance Lehman
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.459

10.  Developing and evaluating an individually tailored intervention to increase mammography adherence among Chinese American women.

Authors:  Tsu-Yin Wu; Chiuman Lin
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.592

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.