Literature DB >> 25362701

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

Ruth Etzioni1, Jing Xia2, Rebecca Hubbard2, Noel S Weiss2, Roman Gulati2.   

Abstract

The frequency of overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening is a topic of controversy. Published estimates vary widely, but identifying which estimates are reliable is challenging. In this article we present an approach that provides a check on these estimates. Our approach leverages the close link between overdiagnosis and lead time by identifying the average lead time most consistent with a given overdiagnosis frequency. We consider a high-profile study that suggested that 31% of breast cancers diagnosed in the United States in 2008 were overdiagnosed and show that this corresponds to an average lead time of about nine years among localized cases. Comparing this estimate with the average lead time for invasive, screen-detected breast cancers of 40 months, around which there is a relative consensus, suggests the published estimate of overdiagnosis is excessive. This approach provides a novel way to appraise estimates of overdiagnosis given knowledge of disease natural history.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25362701      PMCID: PMC4334796          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  14 in total

Review 1.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Leslie Mallinger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Healthy screened bias in epidemiologic studies of cancer incidence.

Authors:  N S Weiss; M A Rossing
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49.

Authors:  S W Duffy; H H Chen; L Tabar; G Fagerberg; E Paci
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Estimating asymptomatic duration in cancer: the AIDS connection.

Authors:  R Etzioni; Y Shen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  RE: A model too far.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.

Authors:  Donella Puliti; Stephen W Duffy; Guido Miccinesi; Harry de Koning; Elsebeth Lynge; Marco Zappa; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily White; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Laura Saba; Pamela M Vacek; Patricia A Carney; Diana S M Buist; Nina Oestreicher; William Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Archie Bleyer; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry to and exit from the preclinical detectable phase.

Authors:  S W Duffy; H H Chen; L Tabar; N E Day
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller; Claus Wall; Cornelia J Baines; Ping Sun; Teresa To; Steven A Narod
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-11
View more
  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Comparative safety of diabetes medications and risk of incident invasive breast cancer: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Gregory S Calip; Onchee Yu; Joann G Elmore; Denise M Boudreau
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  The Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Jeanette Birnbaum; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Elan Markowitz; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  The impact of overdiagnosis on the selection of efficient lung cancer screening strategies.

Authors:  Summer S Han; Kevin Ten Haaf; William D Hazelton; Vidit N Munshi; Jihyoun Jeon; Saadet A Erdogan; Colden Johanson; Pamela M McMahon; Rafael Meza; Chung Yin Kong; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  More misinformation on breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-02

Review 7.  Missteps in Current Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Editorial: Challenges in Quantifying Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Evidence for Detection Bias by Medication Use in a Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Survivors.

Authors:  Heidi S Wirtz; Gregory S Calip; Diana S M Buist; Julie R Gralow; William E Barlow; Shelly Gray; Denise M Boudreau
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-04-15       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Differences in Breast Cancer Characteristics by Mammography Screening Participation or Non-Participation.

Authors:  Bettina Braun; Laura Khil; Joke Tio; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Andrea Fuhs; Oliver Heidinger; Hans-Werner Hense
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.