Arnaud Seigneurin1, José Labarère2, Olivier François3, Catherine Exbrayat4, Maylis Dupouy3, Marc Filippi3, Marc Colonna5. 1. Unité d'évaluation médicale, pavillon Taillefer, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Cs 10217, 38043 Grenoble Cedex 9, France; Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, Techniques de l'Ingénierie Médicale et de la Complexité - Informatique Mathématiques et Applications Grenoble, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5525, 38041 Grenoble, France. Electronic address: aseigneurin@chu-grenoble.fr. 2. Unité d'évaluation médicale, pavillon Taillefer, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Cs 10217, 38043 Grenoble Cedex 9, France; Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, Techniques de l'Ingénierie Médicale et de la Complexité - Informatique Mathématiques et Applications Grenoble, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5525, 38041 Grenoble, France. 3. Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, Techniques de l'Ingénierie Médicale et de la Complexité - Informatique Mathématiques et Applications Grenoble, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5525, 38041 Grenoble, France. 4. Office De Lutte contre le Cancer, 38240 Meylan, France. 5. Registre du Cancer de l'Isère, Pavillon E, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Cs 10217, 38043 Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The magnitude of overdiagnosis of breast cancer associated with mammography screening remains controversial because of methodological issues. The objective of this study was to quantify overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with a population-based screening programme, taking into account lead time and uncertainty concerning baseline incidence of breast cancers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A simulation model was developed to replicate incidence and detection rates of breast cancer observed in the Isère Département, France. The parameters of the model were estimated using an approximate Bayesian computation method. RESULTS: For women aged 50-74 years during the 2007-2010 period, overdiagnosis of non-progressive breast cancers accounted for 17.0% (95% credibility interval (CI): 2.5%-35.5%) of all in situ cancers diagnosed, 5.5% (95% CI: 0.8%-9.8%) of all invasive cancers diagnosed, and 20.3% (95% CI: 3.0%-38.9%) of in situ and 13.0% (95% CI: 2.2%-23.3%) of invasive screen detected breast cancers. The estimates of overdiagnosis due to competitive causes of death were 1.0% (95% CI: 0.2%-%1.7) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6%-1.7%) for all in situ and invasive cancers diagnosed, respectively, and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.0%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.4%-4.0%) of all in situ and invasive screen detected breast cancers, respectively. Among 1000 screen-detected cancers in 2010, 155 (95% CI: 27-284), 134 (95% CI: 10-242) and 140 (95% CI: 25-254) women underwent breast conserving surgery, lymph node dissection and radiation therapy for overdiagnosed cancers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our estimates of overdiagnosis should be balanced against the reduction of breast cancer mortality to assess the value of breast cancer screening programme.
OBJECTIVES: The magnitude of overdiagnosis of breast cancer associated with mammography screening remains controversial because of methodological issues. The objective of this study was to quantify overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with a population-based screening programme, taking into account lead time and uncertainty concerning baseline incidence of breast cancers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A simulation model was developed to replicate incidence and detection rates of breast cancer observed in the Isère Département, France. The parameters of the model were estimated using an approximate Bayesian computation method. RESULTS: For women aged 50-74 years during the 2007-2010 period, overdiagnosis of non-progressive breast cancers accounted for 17.0% (95% credibility interval (CI): 2.5%-35.5%) of all in situ cancers diagnosed, 5.5% (95% CI: 0.8%-9.8%) of all invasive cancers diagnosed, and 20.3% (95% CI: 3.0%-38.9%) of in situ and 13.0% (95% CI: 2.2%-23.3%) of invasive screen detected breast cancers. The estimates of overdiagnosis due to competitive causes of death were 1.0% (95% CI: 0.2%-%1.7) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6%-1.7%) for all in situ and invasive cancers diagnosed, respectively, and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.0%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.4%-4.0%) of all in situ and invasive screen detected breast cancers, respectively. Among 1000 screen-detected cancers in 2010, 155 (95% CI: 27-284), 134 (95% CI: 10-242) and 140 (95% CI: 25-254) women underwent breast conserving surgery, lymph node dissection and radiation therapy for overdiagnosed cancers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our estimates of overdiagnosis should be balanced against the reduction of breast cancer mortality to assess the value of breast cancer screening programme.
Authors: Marc D Ryser; Roman Gulati; Marisa C Eisenberg; Yu Shen; E Shelley Hwang; Ruth B Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Raymond Khanano; Skye Barbic; Joanna Henderson; Steve Mathias; Christopher G Richardson Journal: J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-01
Authors: Kevin Jenniskens; Joris A H de Groot; Johannes B Reitsma; Karel G M Moons; Lotty Hooft; Christiana A Naaktgeboren Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Delphine Lefeuvre; Nathalie Catajar; Christine Le Bihan Benjamin; Norbert Ifrah; Frédéric De Bels; Jérôme Viguier; Philippe Jean Bousquet Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Sarocha Chootipongchaivat; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Xiaoxue Li; Hui Huang; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Marc D Ryser; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 6.466