Literature DB >> 26756737

Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Heidi D Nelson, Miranda Pappas, Amy Cantor, Jessica Griffin, Monica Daeges, Linda Humphrey.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years.
PURPOSE: To review studies of screening in average-risk women with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography that reported on false-positive results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through December 2014. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies of screening. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators extracted and confirmed data from studies and dual-rated study quality. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Based on 2 studies of U.S. data, 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual than biennial screening (61% vs. 42% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively) and for women aged 40 to 49 years, those with dense breasts, and those using combination hormone therapy. Twenty-nine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0% to 54%; rates from randomized trials were 11% to 22%. Women with false-positive results reported more anxiety, distress, and breast cancer-specific worry, although results varied across 80 observational studies. Thirty-nine observational studies indicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1% to 77%); of these, 11% to 46% declined future screening. Models estimated 2 to 11 screening-related deaths from radiation-induced cancer per 100,000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval. Five observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone. LIMITATIONS: Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates varied depending on the analytic approach. Studies of anxiety and pain used different outcome measures. Radiation exposure was based on models.
CONCLUSION: False-positive results are common and are higher for annual screening, younger women, and women with dense breasts. Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on individual women are difficult to estimate and vary widely. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26756737     DOI: 10.7326/M15-0970

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


  95 in total

1.  Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.

Authors:  Jaya S Khushalani; Donatus U Ekwueme; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Gery P Guy; Yuanhui Zhang; Florence Tangka
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?

Authors:  Yue Hu; Yaping Yang; Ran Gu; Liang Jin; Shiyu Shen; Fengtao Liu; Hongli Wang; Jingsi Mei; Xiaofang Jiang; Qiang Liu; Fengxi Su
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Rationally Incomprehensible.

Authors:  Clemens F Hess
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

5.  Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening: A Density Conundrum.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Analysis of blood markers for early breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  J Bayo; M A Castaño; F Rivera; F Navarro
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.405

7.  The Role of Disease Label in Patient Perceptions and Treatment Decisions in the Setting of Low-Risk Malignant Neoplasms.

Authors:  Peter R Dixon; George Tomlinson; Jesse David Pasternak; Ozgur Mete; Chaim M Bell; Anna M Sawka; David P Goldstein; David R Urbach
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Awardee-specific economic costs of providing cancer screening and health promotional services to medically underserved women eligible in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Donatus U Ekwueme; Jacqueline W Miller; Jaya S Khushalani; Justin G Trogdon; Faye L Wong
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 9.  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

10.  Portable impulse-radar detector for breast cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Shinsuke Sasada; Norio Masumoto; Hang Song; Keiko Kajitani; Akiko Emi; Takayuki Kadoya; Koji Arihiro; Takamaro Kikkawa; Morihito Okada
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-06-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.