Literature DB >> 7872591

Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence.

R Harris1, L Leininger.   

Abstract

When balancing the benefits of screening women for breast cancer against the harms and costs of such screening, one needs to consider the risk for dying of breast cancer, the relative reduction in that risk that will result from screening women in different age groups, and the harms and costs associated with screening. Seven randomized controlled trials provide evidence of the relative risk reduction that results from screening women in different age groups; other studies estimate the harms and costs of screening. These studies indicate that the benefit of screening, expressed as the absolute number of lives extended per 1000 women screened, increases with age and that the harm of screening, expressed as the number of follow-up procedures per cancer detected, decreases with age. Thus, the tradeoff between the benefits and the harms and costs of screening is better for older than for younger women. Because there is no clear cut-point for determining when benefits outweigh harms and costs, it is important to involve women in discussions of breast cancer screening. The women who most need to be involved are those for whom the benefits of screening clearly outweigh the harms and costs and those for whom the benefits and the harms and costs constitute a "close call." For women in both groups, the physician should routinely raise the issue of screening, first eliciting the patient's perceptions and then providing information and discussion about the risk for breast cancer and about the benefits and the harms and costs of screening. Furthermore, the physician should encourage the patient to use her own values to weigh the benefits against the harms and costs, pointing out biases in reasoning and minimizing socioeconomic barriers. Finally, when the benefits obviously outweigh the harms and costs, the physician should make a clear recommendation for screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7872591     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-122-7-199504010-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  12 in total

1.  Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women.

Authors:  Electra Paskett; Cathy Tatum; Julia Rushing; Robert Michielutte; Ronny Bell; Kristie Long Foley; Marisa Bittoni; Stephanie L Dickinson; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine Reeves
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Race and mammography use in two North Carolina counties.

Authors:  M S O'Malley; J A Earp; R P Harris
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Invited Commentary: Opportunities That Come With Studying the Co-Occurrence of Multiple Outcomes.

Authors:  Sebastien Haneuse; Deborah Schrag; Daniel Nevo
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Racial differences in knowledge, attitudes, and cancer screening practices among a triracial rural population.

Authors:  Electra D Paskett; Cathy Tatum; Julia Rushing; Robert Michielutte; Ronny Bell; Kristie Long Foley; Marisa Bittoni; Stephanie Dickinson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Stephen M Downs; Linda S Kinsinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Physician-patient discussions of controversial cancer screening tests.

Authors:  A S Dunn; K V Shridharani; W Lou; J Bernstein; C R Horowitz
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 7.  Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 1. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Evaluation of breast self-examination program using Health Belief Model in female students.

Authors:  Mitra Moodi; Mahdi Baladi Mood; Gholam Reza Sharifirad; Hossein Shahnazi; Gholamreza Sharifzadeh
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.852

9.  Prospective screening study of 0.5 Tesla dedicated magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in young, high-risk women.

Authors:  Wendy S Rubinstein; Jean J Latimer; Jules H Sumkin; Michelle Huerbin; Stephen G Grant; Victor G Vogel
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2006-06-26       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  Identification of women with early breast cancer by analysis of p43-positive lymphocytes.

Authors:  L Auerbach; M Hellan; M Stierer; A C Rosen; C Ausch; R Obwegeser; E Kubista; G Wolf; H R Rosen; S Panzer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.