Literature DB >> 22972806

Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet.

Eugenio Paci1.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22972806     DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  58 in total

1.  Mammography, Martin Yaffe, and me: response and appreciation.

Authors:  Constantine Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Quantra™ should be considered a tool for two-grade scale mammographic breast density classification.

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

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.  Characteristics of YouTubeTM Videos Related to Mammography.

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

5.  Mortality and recurrence patterns of breast cancer patients diagnosed under a screening programme versus comparable non-screened breast cancer patients from the same population: analytical survey from 2002 to 2012.

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

6.  Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Peter T Scardino; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ethan Basch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Secondary solid cancer screening following hematopoietic cell transplantation.

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

Review 8.  [Screening for cervical and breast cancer].

Authors:  J Wilm; S Schüler-Toprak; O Ortmann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.011

9.  Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.

Authors:  Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Martin Daniaux; Wolfgang Buchberger; Rudolf Knapp; Willi Oberaigner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 1.704

10.  Mammography Screening - as of 2013.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.