Literature DB >> 31385214

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women With Down Syndrome: a Collaborative Modeling Study.

Oguzhan Alagoz1, Ali Hajjar2, Sarocha Chootipongchaivat3, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn3, Jennifer M Yeh4, Mehmet Ali Ergun5, Harry J de Koning3, Brian Chicoine6, Barry Martin7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women with Down syndrome have a lower breast cancer risk and significantly lower life expectancies than women without Down syndrome. Therefore, it is not clear whether mammography screening strategies used for women without Down syndrome would benefit women with Down syndrome in the same way.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of various mammography screening strategies for women with Down syndrome using collaborative simulation modeling.
DESIGN: Two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) simulation models estimated the benefits and harms of various screening strategies for women with Down syndrome over a lifetime horizon. PARTICIPANTS: We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US women with Down syndrome who were born in 1970.
INTERVENTIONS: Annual, biennial, triennial, and one-time digital mammography screenings during the ages 40-74. MAIN MEASURES: The models estimated numbers of mammograms, false-positives, benign biopsies, breast cancer deaths prevented, and life-years gained per 1000 screened women when compared with no screening. KEY
RESULTS: In average-risk women 50-74, biennial screening incurred 122 mammograms, 10 false-positive mammograms, and 1.4 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. In women with Down syndrome, the same screening strategy incurred 2752 mammograms, 242 false-positive mammograms, and 34 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. The harm/benefit ratio varied for other screening strategies, and was most favorable for one-time screening at age 50, which incurred 1629 mammograms, 144 false-positive mammograms, and 20 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The harm/benefit ratios for various mammography screening strategies in women with Down syndrome are not as favorable as those for average-risk women. The benefit of screening mammography for women with Down syndrome is less pronounced due to lower breast cancer risk and shorter life expectancy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Down syndrome; mammography; screening; simulation modeling

Year:  2019        PMID: 31385214      PMCID: PMC6848489          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05182-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  30 in total

1.  Comparative survival advantage of males with Down syndrome.

Authors:  E J Glasson; S G Sullivan; R Hussain; B A Petterson; P D Montgomery; A H Bittles
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.937

2.  Sedation methods for transthoracic echocardiography in children with Trisomy 21-a retrospective study.

Authors:  Jeff Miller; Lili Ding; James Spaeth; Jennifer Lam; Joanna Paquin; Erica Lin; Allison Divanovic; Bi Lian Li; Shankar Baskar; Andreas W Loepke
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 2.556

3.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Oguzhan Alagoz; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The changing survival profile of people with Down's syndrome: implications for genetic counselling.

Authors:  E J Glasson; S G Sullivan; R Hussain; B A Petterson; P D Montgomery; A H Bittles
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Breast cancer screening for women with Down syndrome: lessons learned.

Authors:  Brian Chicoine; Melody Roth; Laura Chicoine; Suela Sulo
Journal:  Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2015-04

6.  Mortality associated with Down's syndrome in the USA from 1983 to 1997: a population-based study.

Authors:  Quanhe Yang; Sonja A Rasmussen; J M Friedman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-23       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  [Breast cancer in women with trisomy 21].

Authors:  D Satgé; A J Sasco; H Pujol; M O Rethoré
Journal:  Bull Acad Natl Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 0.144

8.  Frequency of anesthesia-related complications in children with Down syndrome under general anesthesia for noncardiac procedures.

Authors:  Lawrence M Borland; Jacqueline Colligan; Barbara W Brandom
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.556

9.  Mortality and cancer incidence among individuals with Down syndrome.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Gloria Gridley; Sven Cnattingius; Lene Mellemkjaer; Martha Linet; Hans-Olof Adami; Jorgen H Olsen; Olof Nyren; Joseph F Fraumeni
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-03-24

10.  Low risk of solid tumors in persons with Down syndrome.

Authors:  Henrik Hasle; Jan M Friedman; Jørgen H Olsen; Sonja A Rasmussen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

1.  Capsule Commentary on Alagoz et al., Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women with Down Syndrome.

Authors:  Peter Bulova
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christina Chapman; Xuelin Huang; Jinani Jayasekera; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Jennifer M Yeh; Sylvia K Plevritis; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.475

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.