H Gilbert Welch1, Brittney A Frankel. 1. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. H.Gilbert.Welch@dartmouth.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perhaps the most persuasive messages promoting screening mammography come from women who argue that the test "saved my life." Because other possibilities exist, we sought to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening. METHODS: We created a simple method to estimate the probability that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her life saved because of screening. We used DevCan, the National Cancer Institute's software for analyzing Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, to estimate the 10-year risk of diagnosis and the 20-year risk of death--a time horizon long enough to capture the downstream benefits of screening. Using a range of estimates on the ability of screening mammography to reduce breast cancer mortality (relative risk reduction [RRR], 5%-25%), we estimated the risk of dying from breast cancer in the presence and absence of mammography in women of various ages (ages 40, 50, 60, and 70 years). RESULTS: We found that for a 50-year-old woman, the estimated risk of having a screen-detected breast cancer in the next 10 years is 1910 per 100,000. Her observed 20-year risk of breast cancer death is 990 per 100,000. Assuming that mammography has already reduced this risk by 20%, the risk of death in the absence of screening would be 1240 per 100,000, which suggests that the mortality benefit accrued to 250 per 100,000. Thus, the probability that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer avoids a breast cancer death because of mammography is 13% (250/1910). This number falls to 3% if screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by 5%. Similar analyses of women of different ages all yield probability estimates below 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed.
BACKGROUND: Perhaps the most persuasive messages promoting screening mammography come from women who argue that the test "saved my life." Because other possibilities exist, we sought to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening. METHODS: We created a simple method to estimate the probability that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her life saved because of screening. We used DevCan, the National Cancer Institute's software for analyzing Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, to estimate the 10-year risk of diagnosis and the 20-year risk of death--a time horizon long enough to capture the downstream benefits of screening. Using a range of estimates on the ability of screening mammography to reduce breast cancer mortality (relative risk reduction [RRR], 5%-25%), we estimated the risk of dying from breast cancer in the presence and absence of mammography in women of various ages (ages 40, 50, 60, and 70 years). RESULTS: We found that for a 50-year-old woman, the estimated risk of having a screen-detected breast cancer in the next 10 years is 1910 per 100,000. Her observed 20-year risk of breast cancer death is 990 per 100,000. Assuming that mammography has already reduced this risk by 20%, the risk of death in the absence of screening would be 1240 per 100,000, which suggests that the mortality benefit accrued to 250 per 100,000. Thus, the probability that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer avoids a breast cancer death because of mammography is 13% (250/1910). This number falls to 3% if screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by 5%. Similar analyses of women of different ages all yield probability estimates below 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed.
Authors: Paul A Fishman; Mark C Hornbrook; Debra P Ritzwoller; Maureen C O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Ramzi G Salloum Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2013
Authors: A Thomas Stavros; Andrea G Freitas; Giselle G N deMello; Lora Barke; Dennis McDonald; Terese Kaske; Ducly Wolverton; Arnold Honick; Daniela Stanzani; Adriana H Padovan; Ana Paula C Moura; Marilia C V de Campos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Adam A Powell; Ann Bangerter; Krysten Halek; James F Burgess; Deborah A Fisher; David B Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Archana Radhakrishnan; Andrew M Parker; Xinwei Chen; Kala Visvanathan; Sarah A Nowak Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873