Literature DB >> 23171096

Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.

Archie Bleyer1, H Gilbert Welch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To reduce mortality, screening must detect life-threatening disease at an earlier, more curable stage. Effective cancer-screening programs therefore both increase the incidence of cancer detected at an early stage and decrease the incidence of cancer presenting at a late stage.
METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to examine trends from 1976 through 2008 in the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and localized disease) and late-stage breast cancer (regional and distant disease) among women 40 years of age or older.
RESULTS: The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year, from 112 to 234 cases per 100,000 women--an absolute increase of 122 cases per 100,000 women. Concomitantly, the rate at which women present with late-stage cancer has decreased by 8%, from 102 to 94 cases per 100,000 women--an absolute decrease of 8 cases per 100,000 women. With the assumption of a constant underlying disease burden, only 8 of the 122 additional early-stage cancers diagnosed were expected to progress to advanced disease. After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40 years of age, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23171096     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  376 in total

1.  A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Jing Xia; Rebecca Hubbard; Noel S Weiss; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Screening: Don't look now.

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

3.  Molecular biology: Marked progress.

Authors:  Hannah Hoag
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Research Needs for Understanding the Biology of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Sudhir Srivastava; Brian J Reid; Sharmistha Ghosh; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Cell Physiol       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 6.384

5.  Medical Debates and Medical Reversal.

Authors:  Adam S Cifu; Vinay K Prasad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  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

7.  Response to: "Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective".

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: immune cell composition according to subtype.

Authors:  Marie Colombe Agahozo; Mieke R van Bockstal; Floris H Groenendijk; Thierry P P van den Bosch; Pieter J Westenend; Carolien H M van Deurzen
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 7.842

10.  Using Public Claims Data for Neighborhood Level Epidemiologie Surveillance of Breast Cancer Screening: Findings from Evaluating a Patient Navigation Program in Chicago's Chinatown.

Authors:  Joe Feinglass; Jennifer M Cooper; Kelsey Rydland; Laura S Tom; Melissa A Simon
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2019
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.