Eugenio Paci1. 1. Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology Unit, ISPO, Cancer Prevention and Research Unit, 50144 Florence, Italy. e.paci@ispo.toscana.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To construct a European 'balance sheet' of key outcomes of population-based mammographic breast cancer screening, to inform policy-makers, stakeholders and invited women. METHODS: From the studies reviewed, the primary benefit of screening, breast cancer mortality reduction, was compared with the main harms, over-diagnosis and false-positive screening results (FPRs). RESULTS: Pooled estimates of breast cancer mortality reduction among invited women were 25% in incidence-based mortality studies and 31% in case-control studies (38% and 48% among women actually screened). Estimates of over-diagnosis ranged from 1% to 10% of the expected incidence in the absence of screening. The combined estimate of over-diagnosis for screened women, from European studies correctly adjusted for lead time and underlying trend, was 6.5%. For women undergoing 10 biennial screening tests, the estimated cumulative risk of a FPR followed by non-invasive assessment was 17%, and 3% having an invasive assessment. For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50-51 until age 68-69 and followed up to age 79, an estimated seven to nine lives are saved, four cases are over-diagnosed, 170 women have at least one recall followed by non-invasive assessment with a negative result and 30 women have at least one recall followed by invasive procedures yielding a negative result. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of saving a woman's life by population-based mammographic screening of appropriate quality is greater than that of over-diagnosis. Service screening in Europe achieves a mortality benefit at least as great as the randomized controlled trials. These outcomes should be communicated to women offered service screening in Europe.
OBJECTIVES: To construct a European 'balance sheet' of key outcomes of population-based mammographic breast cancer screening, to inform policy-makers, stakeholders and invited women. METHODS: From the studies reviewed, the primary benefit of screening, breast cancer mortality reduction, was compared with the main harms, over-diagnosis and false-positive screening results (FPRs). RESULTS: Pooled estimates of breast cancer mortality reduction among invited women were 25% in incidence-based mortality studies and 31% in case-control studies (38% and 48% among women actually screened). Estimates of over-diagnosis ranged from 1% to 10% of the expected incidence in the absence of screening. The combined estimate of over-diagnosis for screened women, from European studies correctly adjusted for lead time and underlying trend, was 6.5%. For women undergoing 10 biennial screening tests, the estimated cumulative risk of a FPR followed by non-invasive assessment was 17%, and 3% having an invasive assessment. For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50-51 until age 68-69 and followed up to age 79, an estimated seven to nine lives are saved, four cases are over-diagnosed, 170 women have at least one recall followed by non-invasive assessment with a negative result and 30 women have at least one recall followed by invasive procedures yielding a negative result. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of saving a woman's life by population-based mammographic screening of appropriate quality is greater than that of over-diagnosis. Service screening in Europe achieves a mortality benefit at least as great as the randomized controlled trials. These outcomes should be communicated to women offered service screening in Europe.
Authors: Ernest U Ekpo; Mark F McEntee; Mary Rickard; Patrick C Brennan; Jyotsna Kunduri; Delgermaa Demchig; Claudia Mello-Thoms Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Corey H Basch; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Zerlina L MacDonald; Rachel Reeves; Charles E Basch Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: A García Fernández; C Chabrera; M García Font; M Fraile; J M Lain; S Gónzalez; C Corral; M Torras; J Torres; M Teixido; I Barco; R López; C Gónzalez; A Pessarrodona; N Giménez Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2013-10-09
Authors: Y Inamoto; N N Shah; B N Savani; B E Shaw; A A Abraham; I A Ahmed; G Akpek; Y Atsuta; K S Baker; G W Basak; M Bitan; Z DeFilipp; T K Gregory; H T Greinix; M Hamadani; B K Hamilton; R J Hayashi; D A Jacobsohn; R T Kamble; K A Kasow; N Khera; H M Lazarus; A K Malone; M T Lupo-Stanghellini; S P Margossian; L S Muffly; M Norkin; M Ramanathan; N Salooja; H Schoemans; J R Wingard; B Wirk; W A Wood; A Yong; C N Duncan; M E D Flowers; N S Majhail Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Martin Daniaux; Wolfgang Buchberger; Rudolf Knapp; Willi Oberaigner Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: S Heywang-Koebrunner; K Bock; W Heindel; G Hecht; L Regitz-Jedermann; A Hacker; V Kaeaeb-Sanyal Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.915