Literature DB >> 22015298

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

Jeanne S Mandelblatt1, 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.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Optimal US screening strategies remain controversial. We use six simulation models to evaluate screening outcomes under varying strategies.
METHODS: The models incorporate common data on incidence, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. We evaluate varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially and calculate mammograms, mortality reduction (vs. no screening), false-positives, unnecessary biopsies and over-diagnosis.
RESULTS: The lifetime risk of breast cancer death starting at age 40 is 3% and is reduced by screening. Screening biennially maintains 81% (range 67% to 99%) of annual screening benefits with fewer false-positives. Biennial screening from 50-74 reduces the probability of breast cancer death from 3% to 2.3%. Screening annually from 40 to 84 only lowers mortality an additional one-half of one percent to 1.8% but requires substantially more mammograms and yields more false-positives and over-diagnosed cases.
CONCLUSION: Decisions about screening strategy depend on preferences for benefits vs. potential harms and resource considerations.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22015298      PMCID: PMC3457919          DOI: 10.1016/S0960-9776(11)70299-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  33 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  J S Mandelblatt; D G Fryback; M C Weinstein; L B Russell; M R Gold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  In search of the best upper age limit for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  R Boer; H J de Koning; G J van Oortmarssen; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Seventy-five years is an appropriate upper age limit for population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Jacques Fracheboud; Johanna Helëne Groenewoud; Rob Boer; Gerrit Draisma; Arry E de Bruijn; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-04-15       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; K Robin Yabroff; William Lawrence; James Dignam; Martine Extermann; Sarah Fox; Gretchen Orosz; Rebecca Silliman; Jennifer Cullen; Lodovico Balducci
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  7 in total

1.  Whole body imaging in the diagnosis of blunt trauma, ionizing radiation hazards and residual risk.

Authors:  J P Kepros; R C Opreanu; R Samaraweera; A Briningstool; C A Morrison; B D Mosher; P Schneider; P Stevens
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 2.  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

3.  Breast cancer screening, area deprivation, and later-stage breast cancer in Appalachia: does geography matter?

Authors:  Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Mammography Screening Among the Elderly: A Research Challenge.

Authors:  Maureen Sanderson; Robert S Levine; Mary K Fadden; Barbara Kilbourne; Maria Pisu; Van Cain; Baqar A Husaini; Michael Langston; Lisa Gittner; Roger Zoorob; George S Rust; Charles H Hennekens
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Construction and analysis of the NCI-EDRN breast cancer reference set for circulating markers of disease.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Marks; Karen S Anderson; Paul Engstrom; Andrew K Godwin; Laura J Esserman; Gary Longton; Edwin S Iversen; Anu Mathew; Christos Patriotis; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Implementation and process evaluation of three interventions to promote screening mammograms delivered for 4 years in a large primary care population.

Authors:  Roger Luckmann; Mary Jo White; Mary E Costanza; Christine F Frisard; Caroline Cranos; Susan Sama; Robert Yood
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  An analysis of mass screening strategies using a mathematical model: comparison of breast cancer screening in Japan and the United States.

Authors:  Miwako Tsunematsu; Masayuki Kakehashi
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 3.211

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.