Literature DB >> 26089721

Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective.

C Kaniklidis1.   

Abstract

After some decades of contention, one can almost despair and conclude that (paraphrasing) "the mammography debate you will have with you always." Against that sentiment, in this review I argue, after reflecting on some of the major themes of this long-standing debate, that we must begin to move beyond the narrow borders of claim and counterclaim to seek consensus on what the balance of methodologically sound and critically appraised evidence demonstrates, and also to find overlooked underlying convergences; after acknowledging the reality of some residual and non-trivial harms from mammography, to promote effective strategies for harm mitigation; and to encourage deployment of new screening modalities that will render many of the issues and concerns in the debate obsolete. To these ends, I provide a sketch of what this looking forward and beyond the current debate might look like, leveraging advantages from abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging technologies (such as the ultrafast and twist protocols) and from digital breast tomosynthesis-also known as three-dimensional mammography. I also locate the debate within the broader context of mammography in the real world as it plays out not for the disputants, but for the stakeholders themselves: the screening-eligible patients and the physicians in the front lines who are charged with enabling both the acts of screening and the facts of screening at their maximally objective and patient-accessible levels to facilitate informed decisions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mammography; benefits; breast cancer; controversy; debate; harms; screening

Year:  2015        PMID: 26089721      PMCID: PMC4462532          DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2585

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  129 in total

Review 1.  Digital tomosynthesis: technique.

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe; James G Mainprize
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ('Age' trial): patterns of screening attendance.

Authors:  L E Johns; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Experience from randomized controlled breast screening with mammography in Ostergötland county, Sweden: a preliminary report.

Authors:  G Fagerberg
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  1984

4.  Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Honor J Passow
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 21.873

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.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Marc D Schwartz; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2013-05

8.  Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms.

Authors:  K J Jørgensen; J Brodersen; O J Hartling; M Nielsen; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Trends in breast cancer mortality in Sweden before and after implementation of mammography screening.

Authors:  Jari Haukka; Graham Byrnes; Mathieu Boniol; Philippe Autier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola Agbaje; Laszlo Tabar; Bedrich Vitak; Nils Bjurstam; Lena Björneld; Jonathan P Myles; Jane Warwick
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  8 in total

1.  The mammography debate, round two: science, smoke and mirrors.

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  D Lin; L Moy; D Axelrod; J Smith
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  The mammography debate: the senior years.

Authors:  C Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  To screen or not to screen for breast cancer? How do modelling studies answer the question?

Authors:  R G Koleva-Kolarova; Z Zhan; M J W Greuter; T L Feenstra; G H De Bock
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Annual surveillance mammography after early-stage breast cancer and breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  L F Paszat; R Sutradhar; S Gu; E Rakovitch
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 8.  The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-09-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.