Literature DB >> 28832983

Comparison of recommendations for screening mammography using CISNET models.

Elizabeth Kagan Arleo1, R Edward Hendrick2, Mark A Helvie3, Edward A Sickles4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are several different recommendations for screening mammography from major national health care organizations, including: 1) annual screening at ages 40 to 84 years; 2) screening annually at ages 45 to 54 years, then biennially at ages 55 to 79 years; and 3) biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years.
METHODS: Mean values of six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were used to compare these three screening mammography recommendations in terms of benefits and risks.
RESULTS: Mean mortality reduction was greatest with the recommendation of annual screening at ages 40 to 84 years (39.6%), compared with the hybrid recommendation of screening annually at ages 45 to 54 years, then biennially at ages 55 to 79 years (30.8%), and the recommendation of biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years (23.2%). For a single-year cohort of US women aged 40 years, assuming 100% compliance, more breast cancers deaths would be averted over their lifetime with annual screening starting at age 40 (29,369) than with the hybrid recommendation (22,829) or biennial screening ages 50-74 (17,153 based on 2009 CISNET estimates, 15,599 based on 2016 CISNET estimates). To achieve the greatest mortality benefit, this single-year cohort of women would have the greatest total number of screening mammograms, benign recalls, and benign biopsies performed over the course of screening by following annual screening starting at age 40 years (90.2 million, 6.8 million, and 481,269, respectively) than by following the hybrid recommendation (49.0 million, 4.1 million, and 286,288, respectively) or biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years (27.3 million, 2.3 million, and 162,885, respectively).
CONCLUSION: CISNET models demonstrate that the greatest mortality reduction is achieved with annual screening of women starting at age 40 years. Cancer 2017;123:3673-3680.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; life-years gained; lives saved; mammography; mortality benefit; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28832983     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  12 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Finite element modelling and validation for breast cancer detection using digital image elasto-tomography.

Authors:  Hina M Ismail; Chris G Pretty; Matthew K Signal; Marcus Haggers; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-03-10       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 4.  The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Christine E Edmonds; Sylvia A Reyes; Cletus Arciero; Vivian J Bea; Angelena Crown; Kathie-Ann Joseph
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Marrying Story with Science: The Impact of Outdated and Inconsistent Breast Cancer Screening Practices in Canada.

Authors:  Jennie Dale; Michelle Di Tomaso; Victoria Gay
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 3.109

6.  Mapping mammography in Arkansas: Locating areas with poor spatial access to breast cancer screening using optimization models and geographic information systems.

Authors:  Meghan Ayers; Sharp F Malak; Sean G Young
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2020-03-24

7.  Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Narumi Harada-Shoji; Akihiko Suzuki; Takanori Ishida; Ying-Fang Zheng; Yoko Narikawa-Shiono; Akiko Sato-Tadano; Rie Ohta; Noriaki Ohuchi
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-08-02

8.  Breast Cancer in Jamaica: Stage, Grade and Molecular Subtype Distributions Across Age Blocks, the Implications for Screening and Treatment.

Authors:  Jason Copeland; Abimbola Oyedeji; Neggoshane Powell; Cherian J Cherian; Yoshihisa Tokumaru; Vijayashree Murthy; Kazuaki Takabe; Jessica Young
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2021-07-10

Review 9.  The Role of Ultrasound in Screening Dense Breasts-A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for Implementation.

Authors:  Denise Thigpen; Amanda Kappler; Rachel Brem
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-16

Review 10.  Screening mammography with special reference to guidelines in South Africa.

Authors:  Shirley Lipschitz
Journal:  SA J Radiol       Date:  2018-10-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.