Literature DB >> 26756460

Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Diana L Miglioretti, Jane Lange, Jeroen J van den Broek, Christoph I Lee, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Dominique Ritley, Karla Kerlikowske, Joshua J Fenton, Joy Melnikow, Harry J de Koning, Rebecca A Hubbard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Estimates of risk for radiation-induced breast cancer from mammography screening have not considered variation in dose exposure or diagnostic work-up after abnormal screening results.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate distributions of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening while considering exposure from screening and diagnostic mammography and dose variation among women.
DESIGN: 2 simulation-modeling approaches.
SETTING: U.S. population. PATIENTS: Women aged 40 to 74 years. INTERVENTION: Annual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted (benefits) and radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality (harms) per 100,000 women screened.
RESULTS: Annual screening of 100,000 women aged 40 to 74 years was projected to induce 125 breast cancer cases (95% CI, 88 to 178) leading to 16 deaths (CI, 11 to 23), relative to 968 breast cancer deaths averted by early detection from screening. Women exposed at the 95th percentile were projected to develop 246 cases of radiation-induced breast cancer leading to 32 deaths per 100,000 women. Women with large breasts requiring extra views for complete examination (8% of population) were projected to have greater radiation-induced breast cancer risk (266 cancer cases and 35 deaths per 100,000 women) than other women (113 cancer cases and 15 deaths per 100,000 women). Biennial screening starting at age 50 years reduced risk for radiation-induced cancer 5-fold. LIMITATION: Life-years lost from radiation-induced breast cancer could not be estimated.
CONCLUSION: Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose variability from screening, resultant diagnostic work-up, initiation age, and screening frequency. Women with large breasts may have a greater risk for radiation-induced breast cancer. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26756460      PMCID: PMC4878445          DOI: 10.7326/M15-1241

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  45 in total

Review 1.  Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  M Koutalonis; H Delis; A Pascoal; G Spyrou; L Costaridou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  T Olgar; T Kahn; D Gosch
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2012-06-18

8.  Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening.

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe; James G Mainprize
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  S A Feig; R E Hendrick
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

10.  Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; H H Chen; S W Duffy; A Gad
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1996-05-16       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  26 in total

1.  Comparative Benefit-to-Radiation Risk Ratio of Molecular Breast Imaging, Two-Dimensional Full-Field Digital Mammography with and without Tomosynthesis, and Synthetic Mammography with Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Matthew Brown; Matthew F Covington
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

2.  Should we expect all-cause mortality reductions in large screening studies?

Authors:  Kevin K Dobbin; Mark Ebell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment.

Authors:  Janet M Gray; Sharima Rasanayagam; Connie Engel; Jeanne Rizzo
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2017-09-02       Impact factor: 5.984

5.  Commentary ACOG Practice Bulletin July 2017: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Authors:  Victoria Mango; Yolanda Bryce; Elizabeth Anne Morris; Elisabetta Gianotti; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.

Authors:  Bruno Barufaldi; Samantha P Zuckerman; Regina B Medeiros; Andrew D Maidment; Homero Schiabel
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.685

8.  Breast-iRRISC: a novel model for predicting the individualised lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from a single screening event.

Authors:  Sahand Hooshmand; Warren M Reed; Mo'ayyad E Suleiman; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Keeping Pace With Technology Advances in Breast Cancer Screening: Synthetic 2D Images Outperform Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  A multicenter hospital-based diagnosis study of automated breast ultrasound system in detecting breast cancer among Chinese women.

Authors:  Xi Zhang; Xi Lin; Yanjuan Tan; Ying Zhu; Hui Wang; Ruimei Feng; Guoxue Tang; Xiang Zhou; Anhua Li; Youlin Qiao
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.