Literature DB >> 25430053

The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy.

Rianne de Gelder1, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Jacques Fracheboud, Gerrit Draisma, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

Adjuvant systemic therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. The additional effect of mammography screening remains uncertain, in particular for women aged 40-49 years. We therefore assessed the effects of screening starting between age 40 and 50, as compared to the effects of adjuvant systemic therapy. The use of adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy and the combination of endocrine- and chemotherapy, as well as the uptake of mammography screening in the Netherlands was modeled using micro-simulation. The effects of screening and treatment were modeled based on randomized controlled trials. The effects of adjuvant therapy, biennial screening between age 50 and 74 in the presence of adjuvant therapy, and extending the screening programme by starting at age 40 were assessed by comparing breast cancer mortality in women aged 0-100 years in scenarios with and without these interventions. In 2008, adjuvant treatment was estimated to have reduced the breast cancer mortality rate in the simulated population by 13.9%, compared to a situation without treatment. Biennial screening between age 50 and 74 further reduced the mortality rate by 15.7%. Extending screening to age 48 would lower the mortality rate by 1.0% compared to screening from age 50; 10 additional screening rounds between age 40 and 49 would reduce this rate by 5.1%. Adjuvant systemic therapy and screening reduced breast cancer mortality in similar amounts. Expanding the lower age limit of screening would further reduce breast cancer mortality.
© 2014 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer therapy; mammography; mortality; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25430053     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  11 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.  Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country.

Authors:  Sibel Ozkan Gurdal; Ayse Nilufer Ozaydın; Erkin Aribal; Beyza Ozcinar; Neslihan Cabioglu; Cennet Sahin; Vahit Ozmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.630

3.  Low HECTD1 mRNA expression is associated with poor prognosis and may be correlated with increased mitochondrial respiratory function in breast cancer.

Authors:  Yasuaki Uemoto; Eriko Katsuta; Naoto Kondo; Yumi Wanifuchi-Endo; Takashi Fujita; Tomoko Asano; Tomoka Hisada; Mitsuo Terada; Akiko Kato; Katsuhiro Okuda; Hiroshi Sugiura; Masayuki Komura; Hiroyuki Kato; Satoshi Osaga; Satoru Takahashi; Tatsuya Toyama
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 5.942

4.  Anti-MUC1 Antibody in Nipple Aspirate Fluids Correlates with Tumor Aggressiveness in Breast Cancer: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Ebru Menekse; John McKolanis; Olivera J Finn; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Ronald Johnson; Atilla Soran
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2015-11-29       Impact factor: 3.434

5.  Cx26 knockout predisposes the mammary gland to primary mammary tumors in a DMBA-induced mouse model of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael K G Stewart; John F Bechberger; Ian Welch; Christian C Naus; Dale W Laird
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-11-10

6.  The significance of tumour microarchitectural features in breast cancer prognosis: a digital image analysis.

Authors:  I Roxanis; R Colling; C Kartsonaki; A R Green; E A Rakha
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies.

Authors:  Lindy M Kregting; Valérie D V Sankatsing; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 7.316

8.  Reply to: Comments on "Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modeled strategies".

Authors:  Lindy M Kregting; Valérie D V Sankatsing; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 7.316

9.  Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients.

Authors:  Sepideh Saadatmand; Reini Bretveld; Sabine Siesling; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-10-06

10.  Comparison of pathological characteristics between self-detected and screen-detected invasive breast cancers in Chinese women: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Qi Zhang; Lanjun Ding; Xuan Liang; Yuan Wang; Jiao Jiao; Wenli Lu; Xiaojing Guo
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.