Literature DB >> 22956730

Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis.

Carolyn Nickson1, Kate E Mason, Dallas R English, Anne M Kavanagh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are necessary to assess the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality. While some ecological studies have notably found little or no association, case-control studies consistently show strong inverse associations, but they are sometimes ignored, perhaps due to theoretical biases arising from the study design. We conducted a case-control study of breast cancer deaths in Western Australia to evaluate the effect of participation in the BreastScreen Australia program, paying particular attention to potential sources of bias, and undertook an updated meta-analysis of case-control studies.
METHODS: Our study included 427 cases (women who died from breast cancer), each matched to up to 10 controls. We estimated the association between screening participation and breast cancer mortality, quantifying the effect of potential sources of bias on our findings, including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. We also conducted a meta-analysis of published case-control studies.
RESULTS: The OR for participation in the Western Australian BreastScreen program in relation to death from breast cancer was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.59; P < 0.001]. We were unable to identify biases that could negate this finding: sensitivity analyses generated ORs from 0.45 to 0.52. Our meta-analysis yielded an OR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an average 49% reduction in breast cancer mortality for women who are screened. In practice, theoretical biases have little effect on estimates from case-control studies. IMPACT: Case-control studies, such as ours, provide robust and consistent evidence that screening benefits women who choose to be screened. ©2012 AACR

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22956730     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0468

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


  19 in total

1.  Age-based versus Risk-based Mammography Screening in Women 40-49 Years Old: A Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Christina M Shafer; John M Hampton; Oguz Alagoz; Jennifer R Cox; Eric Mischo; Sarina B Schrager; Lee G Wilke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Early detection and prevention of pancreatic cancer: is it really possible today?

Authors:  Marco Del Chiaro; Ralf Segersvärd; Matthias Lohr; Caroline Verbeke
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Adherence to screening mammography among American Indian women of the Northern Plains.

Authors:  Emily L Roen; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Annette I Joe; Tina R Russell; Amr S Soliman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  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

5.  Population-based service mammography screening: the Icelandic experience.

Authors:  Kristjan Sigurdsson; Elínborg Jóna Olafsdóttir
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2013-05-09

6.  Mammography screening in three Finnish residential areas: comprehensive population-based study of breast cancer incidence and incidence-based mortality 1976-2009.

Authors:  I Parvinen; S Heinävaara; A Anttila; H Helenius; P Klemi; L Pylkkänen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 7.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening.

Authors:  Magnus Løberg; Mette Lise Lousdal; Michael Bretthauer; Mette Kalager
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Sociodemographic and health-related predictors of self-reported mammogram, faecal occult blood test and prostate specific antigen test use in a large Australian study.

Authors:  Marianne F Weber; Michelle Cunich; David P Smith; Glenn Salkeld; Freddy Sitas; Dianne O'Connell
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 9.  Vitamin D intake, serum Vitamin D levels, and risk of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Saeid Khayatzadeh; Awat Feizi; Parvane Saneei; Ahmad Esmaillzadeh
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.852

Review 10.  Mammographic screening for breast cancer: A review.

Authors:  Warwick Lee; Gudrun Peters
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2013-02-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.