Literature DB >> 2512366

The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit.

L Tabar1, G Fagerberg, S W Duffy, N E Day.   

Abstract

The Swedish two county trial of breast cancer screening is now in its tenth year. This paper presents detailed results on mortality from breast cancer and from all other causes, and on the population denominators at risk for each of the first 8 years of follow up, for each county separately. These data represent a two year update on the last major report. Results show an increasingly significant deficit in deaths from breast cancer among the 77,092 women invited to screening relative to the 56,000 not invited (RR = 0.68, p = 0.002), with no significant difference between the effects of screening in the two counties (p = 0.5). These results remain the same when adjusted for age. Analysis of all cause deaths shows no significant effect of screening (p = 0.5), nor was there any significant effect of screening on deaths from all causes other than breast cancer (p = 0.9). The rates of deaths from intercurrent illness in breast cancer cases were almost identical in the group invited to screening and the group not invited (p = 0.7). This result remained the same when adjusted for age. We calculate that in the age group 50-69 at entry, one breast cancer death was prevented per 4000 woman/years, per 1460 mammographic examinations, per 13.5 biopsies, and per 7.4 breast cancers detected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2512366      PMCID: PMC1052811          DOI: 10.1136/jech.43.2.107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  14 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-10-26       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  False premises and false promises of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-08-10       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Screening for breast cancer: workshop report.

Authors:  N E Day; J Chamberlain
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol       Date:  1988-01

4.  Screening for breast cancer: the Swedish trial.

Authors:  L Tabàr; A Gad
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Effects of repeated mammographic screening on breast cancer stage distribution. Results from a randomised study of 92 934 women in a Swedish county.

Authors:  G Fagerberg; L Baldetorp; O Gröntoft; B Lundström; J C Månson; B Nordenskjöld
Journal:  Acta Radiol Oncol       Date:  1985 Nov-Dec

6.  Breast cancer screening: a different look at the evidence.

Authors:  C J Wright
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  The analysis of mortality by the subject-years method.

Authors:  G Berry
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Breast cancer screening in Sweden. The single modality approach.

Authors:  I Andersson; G Fagerberg; B Lundgren; L Tabár
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.

Authors:  L Tabár; G Faberberg; N E Day; L Holmberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  58 in total

1.  Scientific foundation of mammographic screening is based on inconclusive research in Sweden.

Authors:  G Sjönell; L Stâhle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-03

Review 2.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Screening with discrimination.

Authors:  H S Cuckle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-10-20

4.  Effective Health Care bulletins: are they efficient?

Authors:  D Torgerson; M Ryan; C Donaldson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-03

5.  Breast cancer screening: the current position.

Authors:  N Wald; C Frost; H Cuckle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-04-06

6.  Systematic review of the breast cancer screening trials is error-ridden.

Authors:  László Tabar; Nicholas Day; Robert Smith; Tony H H Chen; Amy M F Yen; Stephen Duffy
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Casey L Luce; Evette Ludman; Amy E Bonomi; Paul A Fishman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Breast screening: a subject for debate.

Authors:  J Austoker; D Sharp
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Mammography FastTrack: an intervention to facilitate reminders for breast cancer screening across a heterogeneous multi-clinic primary care network.

Authors:  William T Lester; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Richard W Grant; Henry C Chueh; Michael J Barry; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Female patients' attitudes to mammography screening.

Authors:  J A Hammond; M Stewart
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 3.275

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.