Literature DB >> 33650900

Beneficial Effect of Consecutive Screening Mammography Examinations on Mortality from Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.

Stephen W Duffy1, László Tabár1, Amy Ming-Fang Yen1, Peter B Dean1, Robert A Smith1, Håkan Jonsson1, Sven Törnberg1, Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu1, Sam Li-Sheng Chen1, Grace Hsiao-Hsuan Jen1, May Mei-Sheng Ku1, Chen-Yang Hsu1, Johan Ahlgren1, Roberta Maroni1, Lars Holmberg1, Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen1.   

Abstract

Background Previously, the risk of death from breast cancer was analyzed for women participating versus those not participating in the last screening examination before breast cancer diagnosis. Consecutive attendance patterns may further refine estimates. Purpose To estimate the effect of participation in successive mammographic screening examinations on breast cancer mortality. Materials and Methods Participation data for Swedish women eligible for screening mammography in nine counties from 1992 to 2016 were linked with data from registries and regional cancer centers for breast cancer diagnosis, cause, and date of death (Uppsala University ethics committee registration number: 2017/147). Incidence-based breast cancer mortality was calculated by whether the women had participated in the most recent screening examination prior to diagnosis only (intermittent participants), the penultimate screening examination only (lapsed participants), both examinations (serial participants), or neither examination (serial nonparticipants). Rates were analyzed with Poisson regression. We also analyzed incidence of breast cancers proving fatal within 10 years. Results Data were available for a total average population of 549 091 women (average age, 58.9 years ± 6.7 [standard deviation]). The numbers of participants in the four groups were as follows: serial participants, 392 135; intermittent participants, 41 746; lapsed participants, 30 945; and serial nonparticipants, 84 265. Serial participants had a 49% lower risk of breast cancer mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.55; P < .001) and a 50% lower risk of death from breast cancer within 10 years of diagnosis (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.55; P < .001) than serial nonparticipants. Lapsed and intermittent participants had a smaller reduction. Serial participants had significantly lower risk of both outcomes than lapsed or intermittent participants. Analyses correcting for potential biases made little difference to the results. Conclusion Women participating in the last two breast cancer screening examinations prior to breast cancer diagnosis had the largest reduction in breast cancer death. Missing either one of the last two examinations conferred a significantly higher risk. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Stephen A. Feig in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33650900     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  10 in total

1.  Breast Cancer Screening: Opportunities and Challenges with Fully 3D Tomographic X-Ray Imaging.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Bridge (Wash D C)       Date:  2022-03-28

2.  Toward Using Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Guiding Screening Decisions.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 11.816

Review 3.  Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Derek L Nguyen; Emily B Ambinder; Kelly S Myers; Eniola Oluyemi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Nationwide Survey of German Outpatient Gynecologic Oncology Practices during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Reactions to the First Wave and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Erwin Vu; Christina Schröder; Jonas Dülk; Jean-Jacques Stelmes; Jennifer Vu; Jörg Schilling; Frank Gerhard Förster; Robert Förster
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Unemployment and cancer screening: Baseline estimates to inform health care delivery in the context of COVID-19 economic distress.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; K Robin Yabroff; Priti Bandi; Robert A Smith; Nigar Nargis; Zhiyuan Zheng; Jeffrey Drope; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 6.921

6.  Interventions to increase mammography screening uptake among women living in low-income and middle-income countries: a protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Ifeoma Jovita Nduka; Izuchukwu Loveth Ejie; Charles Ebuka Okafor; George Uchenna Eleje; Obinna Ikechukwu Ekwunife
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  A multi-theory model based analysis of correlates for initiating and sustaining mammography screening behavior among Hispanic American women in the United States.

Authors:  Manoj Sharma; Kavita Batra; Amanda H Wilkerson; Francesco Chirico; Siddharth Raich
Journal:  Health Promot Perspect       Date:  2022-05-29

Review 8.  An introduction to male breast cancer for urologists: epidemiology, diagnosis, principles of treatment, and special situations.

Authors:  Fabiana Baroni Alves Makdissi; Silvana S Santos; Almir Bitencourt; Fernando Augusto Batista Campos
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2022 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Effectiveness of Organized Mammography Screening for Different Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes.

Authors:  Lilu Ding; Marcel J W Greuter; Inge Truyen; Mathijs Goossens; Bert Van der Vegt; Harlinde De Schutter; Guido Van Hal; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 6.575

10.  Interpreting Breast Cancer Mortality Trends Related to Introduction of Mammography Screening: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  Torunn Heggland; Lars Johan Vatten; Signe Opdahl; Harald Weedon-Fekjær
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2022-10-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.