Literature DB >> 22025097

Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her "life saved" by that screening.

H Gilbert Welch1, Brittney A Frankel.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22025097     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  19 in total

1.  The challenge of conducting comparative effectiveness research in cancer: the impact of a fragmented U.S. health-care system.

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

Review 2.  Is Adult Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Being Overdiagnosed?

Authors:  Joel Paris; Venkat Bhat; Brett Thombs
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.356

3.  Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study.

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

4.  Levels and variation in overuse of fecal occult blood testing in the Veterans Health Administration.

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

5.  Screening mammography: the turning of the tide?

Authors:  W D Foulkes
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

7.  Association Between Physicians' Experiences With Members of Their Social Network and Efforts to Reduce Breast Cancer Screening.

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

8.  Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective.

Authors:  C Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.677

9.  Screening: part 19 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Claudia Spix; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  Older adults and forgoing cancer screening: "I think it would be strange".

Authors:  Alexia M Torke; Peter H Schwartz; Laura R Holtz; Kianna Montz; Greg A Sachs
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 21.873

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.