Literature DB >> 23117178

The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

.   

Abstract

Whether breast cancer screening does more harm than good has been debated extensively. The main questions are how large the benefit of screening is in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality and how substantial the harm is in terms of overdiagnosis, which is defined as cancers detected at screening that would not have otherwise become clinically apparent in the woman's lifetime. An independent Panel was convened to reach conclusions about the benefits and harms of breast screening on the basis of a review of published work and oral and written evidence presented by experts in the subject. To provide estimates of the level of benefits and harms, the Panel relied mainly on findings from randomised trials of breast cancer screening that compared women invited to screening with controls not invited, but also reviewed evidence from observational studies. The Panel focused on the UK setting, where women aged 50-70 years are invited to screening every 3 years. In this Review, we provide a summary of the full report on the Panel's findings and conclusions. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials, the relative risk of breast cancer mortality for women invited to screening compared with controls was 0·80 (95% CI 0·73-0·89), which is a relative risk reduction of 20%. The Panel considered the internal biases in the trials and whether these trials, which were done a long time ago, were still relevant; they concluded that 20% was still a reasonable estimate of the relative risk reduction. The more reliable and recent observational studies generally produced larger estimates of benefit, but these studies might be biased. The best estimates of overdiagnosis are from three trials in which women in the control group were not invited to be screened at the end of the active trial period. In a meta-analysis, estimates of the excess incidence were 11% (95% CI 9-12) when expressed as a proportion of cancers diagnosed in the invited group in the long term, and 19% (15-23) when expressed as a proportion of the cancers diagnosed during the active screening period. Results from observational studies support the occurrence of overdiagnosis, but estimates of its magnitude are unreliable. The Panel concludes that screening reduces breast cancer mortality but that some overdiagnosis occurs. Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide. If these figures are used directly, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases of breast cancer, invasive and non-invasive, would be overdiagnosed; that is one breast cancer death prevented for about every three overdiagnosed cases identified and treated. Of the roughly 307,000 women aged 50-52 years who are invited to begin screening every year, just over 1% would have an overdiagnosed cancer in the next 20 years. Evidence from a focus group organised by Cancer Research UK and attended by some members of the Panel showed that many women feel that accepting the offer of breast screening is worthwhile, which agrees with the results of previous similar studies. Information should be made available in a transparent and objective way to women invited to screening so that they can make informed decisions.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23117178     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  360 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Screening: Don't look now.

Authors:  Emily Sohn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Perspective: The risks of overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  CJS debate: Is mammography useful in average-risk screening for breast cancer?

Authors:  Muriel Brackstone; Steven Latosinsky; Elizabeth Saettler; Ralph George
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Src Inhibition Blocks c-Myc Translation and Glucose Metabolism to Prevent the Development of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Shalini Jain; Xiao Wang; Chia-Chi Chang; Catherine Ibarra-Drendall; Hai Wang; Qingling Zhang; Samuel W Brady; Ping Li; Hong Zhao; Jessica Dobbs; Matt Kyrish; Tomasz S Tkaczyk; Adrian Ambrose; Christopher Sistrunk; Banu K Arun; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Wei Jia; Victoria L Seewaldt; Dihua Yu
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Epidemiology of Breast Cancer - Current Figures and Trends.

Authors:  N Eisemann; A Waldmann; A Katalinic
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.915

8.  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

9.  Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Elizabeth S Burnside; Cong Xu; Yisheng Li; Oguzhan Alagoz; Sandra J Lee; Natasha K Stout; Juhee Song; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sylvia K Plevritis; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.