Literature DB >> 32898241

Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.

Ismail Jatoi1, Paul F Pinsky2.   

Abstract

Screening mammography was assessed in 9 randomized trials initiated between 1963 and 1990, with breast cancer-specific mortality as the primary endpoint. In contrast, breast cancer detection has been the primary endpoint in most screening trials initiated during the past decade. These trials have evaluated digital breast tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound, and novel screening strategies have been recommended solely on the basis of improvements in breast cancer detection rates. Yet, the assumption that increases in tumor detection produce reductions in cancer mortality has not been validated, and tumor-detection endpoints may exacerbate the problem of overdiagnosis. Indeed, the detection of greater numbers of early stage breast cancers in the absence of a subsequent decline in rates of metastatic cancers and cancer-related mortality is the hallmark of overdiagnosis. There is now evidence to suggest that both ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancers are overdiagnosed as a consequence of screening. For each patient who is overdiagnosed with breast cancer, the adverse consequences include unnecessary anxiety, financial hardships, and a small risk of morbidity and mortality from unnecessary treatments. Moreover, the overtreatment of breast cancer, as a consequence of overdiagnosis, is costly and contributes to waste in health-care spending. In this article, we argue that there is a need to establish better endpoints in breast cancer screening trials, including quality of life and composite endpoints. Tumor-detection endpoints should be abandoned, because they may lead to the implementation of screening strategies that increase the risk of overdiagnosis.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32898241      PMCID: PMC8633447          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  31 in total

1.  Adoption of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Ilana B Richman; Jessica R Hoag; Xiao Xu; Howard P Forman; Regina Hooley; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Underdiagnosis is the main challenge in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  The history of cancer screening.

Authors:  Ismail Jatoi; William F Anderson; Anthony B Miller; Otis W Brawley
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 4.  Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Miranda Pappas; Amy Cantor; Jessica Griffin; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

Authors:  Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Loren Saulsberry; Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Characteristics of State Policies Impact Health Care Delivery: An Analysis of Mammographic Dense Breast Notification and Insurance Legislation.

Authors:  Michal Horný; Michael Shwartz; Richard Duszak; Cindy L Christiansen; Alan B Cohen; James F Burgess
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Breast cancer and atypia among young and middle-aged women: a study of 110 medicolegal autopsies.

Authors:  M Nielsen; J L Thomsen; S Primdahl; U Dyreborg; J A Andersen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population.

Authors:  Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Ann G Zauber; Jeffrey K Lee; Wei K Zhao; Natalia Udaltsova; Nirupa R Ghai; Alexander T Lee; Charles P Quesenberry; Bruce H Fireman; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  3 in total

1.  Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.

Authors:  Francesco Attena; Lucia Abagnale; Angela Avitabile
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 2.742

2.  Keeping Pace With Technology Advances in Breast Cancer Screening: Synthetic 2D Images Outperform Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Automated artifact detection in abbreviated dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI-derived maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of the breast.

Authors:  Lorenz A Kapsner; Sabine Ohlmeyer; Lukas Folle; Frederik B Laun; Armin M Nagel; Andrzej Liebert; Hannes Schreiter; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Evelyn Wenkel; Sebastian Bickelhaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 7.034

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.