Literature DB >> 26756606

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

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.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26756606      PMCID: PMC5079106          DOI: 10.7326/M15-1536

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


  72 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies.

Authors:  Mireille Broeders; Sue Moss; Lennarth Nyström; Sisse Njor; Håkan Jonsson; Ellen Paap; Nathalie Massat; Stephen Duffy; Elsebeth Lynge; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 3.  A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends.

Authors:  Lauren D Clarke; Sylvia K Plevritis; Rob Boer; Kathleen A Cronin; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

4.  External validation of an index to predict up to 9-year mortality of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Roger B Davis; Ellen P McCarthy; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

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

6.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

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

Review 7.  Genetic susceptibility to triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Kristen N Stevens; Celine M Vachon; Fergus J Couch
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.

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

9.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.

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

10.  Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants.

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

View more
  84 in total

1.  Breast Cancer Incidence by Stage Before and After Change in Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Yong-Fang Kuo; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49.

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

3.  Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.

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

4.  Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown-Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model.

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

5.  Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling.

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

6.  The Dana-Farber CISNET Model for Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: An Update.

Authors:  Sandra J Lee; Xiaoxue Li; Hui Huang; Marvin Zelen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches.

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

8.  Contribution of Breast Cancer to Overall Mortality for US Women.

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

9.  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

10.  Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.