Literature DB >> 2788627

Evaluation of overdiagnosis of breast cancer in screening with mammography: results of the Nijmegen programme.

P H Peeters1, A L Verbeek, H Straatman, R Holland, J H Hendriks, M Mravunac, C Rothengatter, A Van Dijk-Milatz, J M Werre.   

Abstract

After 12 years of screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen (1975-86), during which period six mammographic examination rounds were carried out, the extent of overdiagnosis was evaluated. Overdiagnosis is defined as a histologically established diagnosis of invasive or intraductal breast cancer that would never have developed into a clinically manifest tumour during the patient's normal life expectancy if no screening examination had been carried out. The whole 12-year period shows an excess of 11% of breast cancer cases in Nijmegen, compared with the neighbouring city of Arnhem, where no mass screening was performed. The incidence of breast cancers in Nijmegen in the period 1975-78 is higher, compared with the incidence rates in Arnhem; the rate ratio is 1.30. For the time-intervals 1979-82 and 1983-86 the rate ratios are 1.03 and 1.01 respectively with (0.89; 1.18) and (0.86; 1.16) as 95% confidence intervals. This leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence that screening programmes using modern mammography constitute a significant risk for overdiagnosis of breast cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2788627     DOI: 10.1093/ije/18.2.295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  12 in total

1.  Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study.

Authors:  Sophia Zackrisson; Ingvar Andersson; Lars Janzon; Jonas Manjer; Jens Peter Garne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-03

Review 2.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 3.  Recent trends in breast cancer incidence, mortality, and mammography.

Authors:  P A Newcomb; P M Lantz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Age-specific sensitivities of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  P G Peer; A L Verbeek; H Straatman; J H Hendriks; R Holland
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Management of screen-detected breast cancer: audit of the first 100 cases in the Southampton and Salisbury breast screening programme.

Authors:  I Campbell; G Royle; R Coddington; A Herbert; C Rubin; I Taylor; P Guyer
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Screen-detected vs clinical breast cancer: the advantage in the relative risk of lymph node metastases decreases with increasing tumour size.

Authors:  L Bucchi; A Barchielli; A Ravaioli; M Federico; V De Lisi; S Ferretti; E Paci; M Vettorazzi; S Patriarca; A Frigerio; E Buiatti
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-01-17       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Overdiagnosis: epidemiologic concepts and estimation.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2015-02-10

Review 8.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.

Authors:  Jamie L Carter; Russell J Coletti; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-07

9.  Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  Ragnhild Sørum Falk; Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Tor Haldorsen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  A proposal for short-term quality control in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  A L Verbeek; M C Van den Ban; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.