BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. DESIGN: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. INTERVENTION: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. RESULTS: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. CONCLUSION: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. DESIGN: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. INTERVENTION: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. RESULTS: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. CONCLUSION: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Paul D P Pharoah; Kyriaki Michailidou; Jonathan Tyrer; Mark N Brook; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Alison M Dunning; Mitul Shah; Robert Luben; Judith Brown; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Henrik Flyger; Kamila Czene; Hatef Darabi; Mikael Eriksson; Julian Peto; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Frank Dudbridge; Nichola Johnson; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Senno Verhoef; Emiel J Rutgers; Anthony Swerdlow; Alan Ashworth; Nick Orr; Minouk J Schoemaker; Jonine Figueroa; Stephen J Chanock; Louise Brinton; Jolanta Lissowska; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Celine Vachon; Vernon S Pankratz; Diether Lambrechts; Hans Wildiers; Chantal Van Ongeval; Erik van Limbergen; Vessela Kristensen; Grethe Grenaker Alnæs; Silje Nord; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Heli Nevanlinna; Taru A Muranen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Petra Seibold; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Peter A Fasching; Lothar Haeberle; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Barbara Burwinkel; Frederik Marme; Andreas Schneeweiss; Christof Sohn; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Polly Newcomb; Linda Titus; Kathleen M Egan; David J Hunter; Sara Lindstrom; Rulla M Tamimi; Peter Kraft; Nazneen Rahman; Clare Turnbull; Anthony Renwick; Sheila Seal; Jingmei Li; Jianjun Liu; Keith Humphreys; Javier Benitez; M Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias Perez; Primitiva Menéndez; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Katarzyna Durda; Natalia V Bogdanova; Natalia N Antonenkova; Thilo Dörk; Hoda Anton-Culver; Susan L Neuhausen; Argyrios Ziogas; Leslie Bernstein; Peter Devilee; Robert A E M Tollenaar; Caroline Seynaeve; Christi J van Asperen; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Malcolm W R Reed; Elza Khusnutdinova; Marina Bermisheva; Darya Prokofyeva; Zalina Takhirova; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Christian Sutter; Rongxi Yang; Peter Schürmann; Michael Bremer; Hans Christiansen; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Peter Hillemanns; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Florence Menegaux; Marie Sanchez; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Siranoush Manoukian; Valeria Pensotti; John L Hopper; Helen Tsimiklis; Carmel Apicella; Melissa C Southey; Hiltrud Brauch; Thomas Brüning; Yon-Dschun Ko; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Ute Hamann; Diana Torres; Hans-Ulrich Ulmer; Asta Försti; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Michael J Kerin; Nicola Miller; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Gord Glendon; Anna Marie Mulligan; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Rosemary Balleine; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Catriona McLean; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Fredrick Schumacher; Loic Le Marchand; Ursula Eilber; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Maartje J Hooning; Antoinette Hollestelle; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Linetta B Koppert; Jane Carpenter; Christine Clarke; Rodney Scott; Arto Mannermaa; Vesa Kataja; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jaana M Hartikainen; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Aida Karina Dieffenbach; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Mervi Grip; Kenneth Offit; Joseph Vijai; Mark Robson; Rohini Rau-Murthy; Miriam Dwek; Ruth Swann; Katherine Annie Perkins; Mark S Goldberg; France Labrèche; Martine Dumont; Diana M Eccles; William J Tapper; Sajjad Rafiq; Esther M John; Alice S Whittemore; Susan Slager; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Amanda E Toland; Song Yao; Wei Zheng; Sandra L Halverson; Anna González-Neira; Guillermo Pita; M Rosario Alonso; Nuria Álvarez; Daniel Herrero; Daniel C Tessier; Daniel Vincent; Francois Bacot; Craig Luccarini; Caroline Baynes; Shahana Ahmed; Mel Maranian; Catherine S Healey; Jacques Simard; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Montserrat Garcia-Closas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Elizabeth S Burnside; Cong Xu; Yisheng Li; Oguzhan Alagoz; Sandra J Lee; Natasha K Stout; Juhee Song; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Sylvia K Plevritis; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Jinani Jayasekera; Young Chandler; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Aimee M Near; Diana L Miglioretti; Diego Munoz; Brian L Sprague; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Ronald Gangnon; Allison W Kurian; Harald Weedon-Fekjaer; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xiaoxue Li; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; Xuelin Huang; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Rinaa S Punglia; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ronald E Gangnon; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; John M Hampton; Brian L Sprague; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583
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
Authors: Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Mucahit Cevik; Clyde B Schechter; Sandra J Lee; Hui Huang; Yisheng Li; Diego F Munoz; Sylvia K Plevritis; Harry J de Koning; Natasha K Stout; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583