Literature DB >> 22147362

Mammography screening and risk of breast cancer death: a population-based case-control study.

Suzie J Otto1, Jacques Fracheboud, André L M Verbeek, Rob Boer, Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink-Verheij, Johannes D M Otten, Mireille J M Broeders, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because the efficacy of mammography screening had been shown in randomized controlled trials, the focus has turned on its effectiveness within the daily practice. Using individual data of women invited to screening, we conducted a case-control study to assess the effectiveness of the Dutch population-based program of mammography screening.
METHODS: Cases were women who died from breast cancer between 1995 and 2003 and were closely matched to five controls on year of birth, year of first invitation, and number of invitations before case's diagnosis. ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between attending either of three screening examinations prior to diagnosis and the risk of breast cancer death were calculated using conditional logistic regression and corrected for self-selection bias.
RESULTS: We included 755 cases and 3,739 matched controls. Among the cases, 29.8% was screen-detected, 34.3% interval-detected, and 35.9% never-screened. About 29.5% of the never-screened cases had stage IV tumor compared with 5.3% of the screen-detected and 15.1% of the interval-detected cases. The OR (95% CIs), all ages (49-75 years), was 0.51 (0.40-0.66) and for the age groups 50-69, 50-75, and 70-75 years were 0.61 (0.47-0.79), 0.52 (CI 0.41-0.67), and 0.16 (0.09-0.29), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence for a beneficial effect of early detection by mammography screening in reducing the risk of breast cancer death among women invited to and who attended the screening. IMPACT: This is the first case-control study that accurately accounts for equal screening opportunity for both cases and matched controls by number of invitations before case's diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22147362     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  29 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  X-ray population exposure from projection radiology and computed tomography in Emilia-Romagna from 2001 to 2010: comparison of ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 weighting factors.

Authors:  Gaetano Compagnone; Paola Angelini; Sara Domenichelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 3.  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

4.  Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-02

5.  More misinformation on breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-02

Review 6.  The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Breast cancer screening: evidence of benefit depends on the method used.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 8.775

8.  Breast cancer mortality in relation to receipt of screening mammography: a case-control study in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Authors:  Gaia Pocobelli; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  From cancer screening to treatment: service delivery and referral in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Jacqueline W Miller; Vivien Hanson; Gale D Johnson; Janet E Royalty; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma.

Authors:  Sudhir Srivastava; Eugene J Koay; Alexander D Borowsky; Angelo M De Marzo; Sharmistha Ghosh; Paul D Wagner; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 60.716

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.