Literature DB >> 23737396

Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Peter C Gøtzsche1, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN
RESULTS: Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23737396      PMCID: PMC6464778          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  348 in total

1.  The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gøtzsche.

Authors:  Stephen Duffy; László Tabár; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.454

2.  Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  R E Hendrick; R A Smith; J H Rutledge; C R Smart
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

3.  Cytometric and histopathologic features of tumors detected in a randomized mammography screening program: correlation and relative prognostic influence.

Authors:  T Hatschek; O Gröntoft; G Fagerberg; O Stål; S Sullivan; J Carstensen; B Nordenskjöld
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Perception of cancer detection and early treatment in a population participating in the National Breast Screening Study in Canada.

Authors:  A Simard; L Paquette; J Baillargeon; M Falardeau
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1989 May-Jun

5.  Breast cancer screening with mammography.

Authors:  J M Elwood; B Cox; A K Richardson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-06-12       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Association between mortality among women and socioeconomic factors in general practices in Edinburgh: an application of small area statistics.

Authors:  F E Alexander; F O'Brien; W Hepburn; M Miller
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-09-26

7.  The Stockholm breast cancer screening trial--5-year results and stage at discovery.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; U Glas; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project.

Authors:  T J Anderson; J Lamb; F Alexander; W Lutz; U Chetty; A P Forrest; A Kirkpatrick; B Muir; M M Roberts; A Huggins
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-03-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point.

Authors:  L Tabar; S W Duffy; M-F Yen; J Warwick; B Vitak; H-H Chen; R A Smith
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  221 in total

1.  Breast cancer: Doubtful health benefit of screening from 40 years of age.

Authors:  Philippe Autier
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Health screening for older people-what are the current recommendations?

Authors:  S G Sazlina
Journal:  Malays Fam Physician       Date:  2015-04-30

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.  Breast cancer: Updated screening guidelines - much ado about small improvements.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 66.675

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

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

7.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  [Screening for cancer].

Authors:  U Seifert; U Schlanstedt-Jahn; S J Klug
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 0.743

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.