Literature DB >> 26414384

Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices.

Elizabeth Morris1,2, Stephen A Feig3,4, Madeline Drexler5, Constance Lehman6.   

Abstract

This review article explores the issue of overdiagnosis in screening mammography. Overdiagnosis is the screen detection of a breast cancer, histologically confirmed, that might not otherwise become clinically apparent during the lifetime of the patient. While screening mammography is an imperfect tool, it remains the best tool we have to diagnose breast cancer early, before a patient is symptomatic and at a time when chances of survival and options for treatment are most favorable. In 2015, an estimated 231,840 new cases of breast cancer (excluding ductal carcinoma in situ) will be diagnosed in the United States, and some 40,290 women will die. Despite these data, screening mammography for women ages 40-69 has contributed to a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality, and organized screening programs have led to a shift from late-stage diagnosis to early-stage detection. Current estimates of overdiagnosis in screening mammography vary widely, from 0% to upwards of 30% of diagnosed cancers. This range reflects the fact that measuring overdiagnosis is not a straightforward calculation, but usually one based on different sets of assumptions and often biased by methodological flaws. The recent development of tomosynthesis, which creates high-resolution, three-dimensional images, has increased breast cancer detection while reducing false recalls. Because the greatest harm of overdiagnosis is overtreatment, the key goal should not be less diagnosis but better treatment decision tools. (Population Health Management 2015;18:S3-S11).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26414384      PMCID: PMC4589101          DOI: 10.1089/pop.2015.29023.mor

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Popul Health Manag        ISSN: 1942-7891            Impact factor:   2.459


  46 in total

1.  Older women with localized breast cancer: costs and survival rates increased across two time periods.

Authors:  Aaron J Feinstein; Jessica Long; Pamela R Soulos; Xiaomei Ma; Jeph Herrin; Kevin D Frick; Anees B Chagpar; Harlan M Krumholz; James B Yu; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 2.  Screening mammography: update and review of publications since our report in the New England Journal of Medicine on the magnitude of the problem in the United States.

Authors:  Archie Bleyer
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  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

6.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 7.  A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  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

10.  Complexities in the estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  S W Duffy; E Lynge; H Jonsson; S Ayyaz; A H Olsen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  How Can Advanced Imaging Be Used to Mitigate Potential Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis?

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Elizabeth S McDonald; Janie M Lee; Savannah C Partridge; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Advances in Analyzing the Breast Cancer Lipidome and Its Relevance to Disease Progression and Treatment.

Authors:  Ashley V Ward; Steven M Anderson; Carol A Sartorius
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 2.673

3.  Women's Awareness of and Responses to Messages About Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Results From a 2016 National Survey.

Authors:  Rebekah H Nagler; Erika Franklin Fowler; Sarah E Gollust
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

Authors:  Gisèle Diendéré; Selma Chipenda Dansokho; Rhéa Rocque; Anne-Sophie Julien; France Légaré; Luc Côté; Sonia Mahmoudi; Philippe Jacob; Natalia Arias Casais; Laurie Pilote; Roland Grad; Anik M C Giguère; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Using an Agent-based Model to Examine Deimplementation of Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Sarah A Nowak; Andrew M Parker; Archana Radhakrishnan; Nancy Schoenborn; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Association between Breast Cancer Screening Intention and Behavior in the Context of Screening Cessation in Older Women.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Adlin Pinheiro; Christine E Kistler; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Plasma lipidomics profiling identified lipid biomarkers in distinguishing early-stage breast cancer from benign lesions.

Authors:  Xiaoli Chen; Hankui Chen; Meiyu Dai; Junmei Ai; Yan Li; Brett Mahon; Shengming Dai; Youping Deng
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-06-14

8.  Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography in Vietnamese women.

Authors:  Chi Phuong Nguyen; Eddy M M Adang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Virtual Touch IQ elastography reduces unnecessary breast biopsies by applying quantitative "rule-in" and "rule-out" threshold values.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kapetas; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Katja Pinker; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women.

Authors:  Sophia Siedlikowski; Carolyn Ells; Gillian Bartlett
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2018-04-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.