Literature DB >> 21779225

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.

Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner1, Astrid Hacker, Stefan Sedlacek.   

Abstract

Mammography screening is the only method presently considered appropriate for mass screening of asymptomatic women. Its frequent use, however, warrants diligent analysis of potential side effects. Radiation risk is far below the natural yearly risk of breast cancer and should not be used as an argument against screening. False-positive calls lead to additional imaging or histopathological assessment, mainly percutaneous breast biopsy. These measures are tolerated and accepted fairly well. Their number is limited by strict quality assurance and constant training. Interval cancers represent a limitation of breast screening that should prompt further research for optimization. Evaluation of overdiagnosis is a highly debated topic in the literature. According to the probably most realistic available calculations, overdiagnosis is acceptable as it is compensated by the potential mortality reduction. Nonetheless, this potential side effect warrants optimal adjustment of therapy to the patient's individual risk. The mortality reduction seen in randomized studies was confirmed by results from national screening programs. A recent case referent study indicated that improvements in mortality reduction run parallel to improved mammographic techniques. Use of less aggressive therapies is another valuable effect of screening. Awareness of potential problems, strict quality assurance, and further research should help to further develop screening programs.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 21779225      PMCID: PMC3132967          DOI: 10.1159/000329005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  28 in total

1.  Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data.

Authors: 
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Talya Salz; Sarah E Lillie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia.

Authors:  D Roder; N Houssami; G Farshid; G Gill; C Luke; P Downey; K Beckmann; P Iosifidis; L Grieve; L Williamson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence.

Authors:  Doris Schopper; Chris de Wolf
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  An estimate of overdiagnosis 15 years after the start of mammographic screening in Florence.

Authors:  Donella Puliti; Marco Zappa; Guido Miccinesi; Patrizia Falini; Emanuele Crocetti; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality - an update.

Authors:  Håkan Jonsson; Pál Bordás; Hans Wallin; Lennarth Nyström; Per Lenner
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death.

Authors:  R Gabe; L Tryggvadóttir; B F Sigfússon; G H Olafsdóttir; K Sigurdsson; S W Duffy
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.990

8.  Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening.

Authors:  G van Schoor; S M Moss; J D M Otten; R Donders; E Paap; G J den Heeten; R Holland; M J M Broeders; A L M Verbeek
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Jacques Fracheboud; Arry de Bruijn
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  A case-control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  P C Allgood; J Warwick; R M L Warren; N E Day; S W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-12-04       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  26 in total

1.  Treatment of Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Michael Untch
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 2.  Serum microRNA-21 as a potential diagnostic biomarker for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shichao Li; Xiaorong Yang; Jinmei Yang; Jiesheng Zhen; Dechun Zhang
Journal:  Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 3.984

3.  Detecting Abnormal Axillary Lymph Nodes on Mammograms Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network.

Authors:  Frederik Abel; Anna Landsmann; Patryk Hejduk; Carlotta Ruppert; Karol Borkowski; Alexander Ciritsis; Cristina Rossi; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-29

Review 4.  Chemotherapeutic nanomaterials in tumor boundary delineation: Prospects for effective tumor treatment.

Authors:  Ozioma Udochukwu Akakuru; Zhoujing Zhang; M Zubair Iqbal; Chengjie Zhu; Yewei Zhang; Aiguo Wu
Journal:  Acta Pharm Sin B       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 14.903

5.  [Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Value of Ultrasound in the Detection of Benign and Malignant Breast Diseases: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Authors:  Farideh Gharekhanloo; Mostafa Morad Haseli; Saadat Torabian
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2018-09

7.  Early detection breast cancer: role of circulating plasma miRNA-21 expression as a potential screening biomarker

Authors:  Muhammad Noor Diansyah; Ami Ashariati Prayogo; Made Putra Sedana; Merlyna Savitri; Pradana Zaky Romadhon; Putu Niken Ayu Amrita; Andi Yasmin Wijaya; Winona May Hendrata; Ugroseno Yudho Bintoro
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 0.973

8.  Effect of x-ray energy on the radiological image quality in propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast.

Authors:  Sarina Wan; Benedicta D Arhatari; Yakov I Nesterets; Sheridan C Mayo; Darren Thompson; Jane Fox; Beena Kumar; Zdenka Prodanovic; Daniel Hausermann; Anton Maksimenko; Christopher Hall; Matthew Dimmock; Konstantin M Pavlov; Darren Lockie; Mary Rickard; Ziba Gadomkar; Alaleh Aminzadeh; Elham Vafa; Andrew Peele; Harry M Quiney; Sarah Lewis; Timur E Gureyev; Patrick C Brennan; Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-07-12

9.  Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.

Authors:  Ji-Young Hwang; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn; Mee Young Nam
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.759

10.  Quantifying the natural history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K H X Tan; L Simonella; H L Wee; A Roellin; Y-W Lim; W-Y Lim; K S Chia; M Hartman; A R Cook
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.