Literature DB >> 21718717

Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis.

Rianne de Gelder1, Jacques Fracheboud, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Gerard den Heeten, André L M Verbeek, Mireille J M Broeders, Gerrit Draisma, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Digital mammography has been shown to increase the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared to screen-film mammography. The benefits and risks of such an increase were assessed.
METHODS: Breast cancer detection rates were compared between 502,574 screen-film and 83,976 digital mammograms performed between 2004 and 2006 among Dutch screening participants. The detection rates were then modeled using a baseline model and two extreme models that respectively assumed a high rate of progression and no progression of preclinical DCIS to invasive cancer. With these models, breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis were predicted.
RESULTS: The DCIS detection rate was significantly higher at digital mammography (1.2 per 1000 mammograms (95% C.I. 1.0-1.5)) than at screen-film mammography (0.7 per 1000 mammograms (95% C.I. 0.6-0.7)). Consequently, 287 (range progressive- non progressive model: 1-598) extra breast cancer deaths per 1,000,000 women (a 4.4% increase) were predicted to be prevented. An extra 401 (range: 165-2271) cancers would be overdiagnosed (a 21% increase).
CONCLUSION: Modeling predicted that digital mammography screening would further reduce breast cancer mortality by 4.4%, at a 21% increased overdiagnosis rate. The consequences of digital screening, however, are sensitive to underlying assumptions on the natural history of DCIS.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21718717     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  13 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Oguzhan Alagoz; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Estimation of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis in a U.S. Breast Screening Cohort.

Authors:  Marc D Ryser; Jane Lange; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Ellen S O'Meara; Charlotte Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Andrew F Brouwer; E Shelley Hwang; Ruth B Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 51.598

5.  Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Opportunities for molecular epidemiological research on ductal carcinoma in-situ and breast carcinogenesis: interdisciplinary approaches.

Authors:  Mark E Sherman; Carolyn Mies; Gretchen L Gierach
Journal:  Breast Dis       Date:  2014

Review 7.  Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions.

Authors:  Minal S Kale; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-08-14

Review 8.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.

Authors:  Jamie L Carter; Russell J Coletti; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-07

9.  Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  Ragnhild Sørum Falk; Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Tor Haldorsen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Trends in detection of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ at biennial screening mammography in Spain: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Marta Román; Montse Rué; Maria Sala; Nieves Ascunce; Marisa Baré; Araceli Baroja; Mariola De la Vega; Jaume Galcerán; Carmen Natal; Dolores Salas; Mercedes Sánchez-Jacob; Raquel Zubizarreta; Xavier Castells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.