Literature DB >> 8980168

Breast-cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years. Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

.   

Abstract

For some years, there has been a perceived need for more information on the effect of screening for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49. Our approach was to gather the most recent data on screening in this age group, to assess the following quantities: the likely benefit in mortality terms, measures of screening performance and arrest of tumour progression through screening, costs and public-health implications, and prospects for future screening and research. A collaborative meeting was held in Falun, Sweden, for which data were gathered in advance from all the randomized trials of breast-cancer screening that included women in this age group, and all identifiable substantial databases on service screening of women aged 40 to 49. Updated results from the Swedish overview of mammographic screening trials indicated relative mortality associated with invitation to screening of 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.59-1.01). Combining all population-based randomized trials gave the relative-mortality figure of 0.76 (0.62-0.93), and combining all trials gave 0.85 (0.71-1.01). Relative-mortality figures in individual trials could be predicted by the rates of advanced cancers in those trials. Detailed analysis suggested faster tumour progression in the age group 40 to 49 compared with groups aged 50 or more. It is likely that mammographic screening of women aged 40 to 49 can reduce subsequent mortality from breast cancer, and studies on tumour progression indicate that to obtain substantial benefit it is probably necessary to screen every 12 to 18 months, with 2-view mammography and double reading of films. This represents a greater outlay in resources and in commitment of the population. Further work remains to be done on the time taken for a mortality benefit to emerge, on age at diagnosis in some of the trials, and on costs and public-health aspects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8980168     DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19961211)68:6<693::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-Z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  17 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Evidence based case report: Advice about mammography for a young woman with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  A Lucassen; E Watson; D Eccles
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

3.  Guidelines for a genetic risk based approach to advising women with a family history of breast cancer. UK Cancer Family Study Group (UKCFSG).

Authors:  D M Eccles; D G Evans; J Mackay
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 4.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Genotype phenotype correlation in Li-Fraumeni syndrome kindreds and its implications for management.

Authors:  R N Moule; S G Jhavar; R A Eeles
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Mammography and the politics of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  J Wells
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

7.  A New Robust Method for Nonlinear Regression.

Authors:  M A Tabatabai; J J Kengwoung-Keumo; W M Eby; S Bae; U Manne; M Fouad; K P Singh
Journal:  J Biom Biostat       Date:  2014

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?

Authors:  J M Seely; T Alhassan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.677

9.  MRI screening for breast cancer in women with familial or genetic predisposition: design of the Dutch National Study (MRISC).

Authors:  M Kriege; C T Brekelmans; C Boetes; E J Rutgers; J C Oosterwijk; R A Tollenaar; R A Manoliu; R Holland; H J de Koning; J G Klijn
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  False positive mammograms and detection controlled estimation.

Authors:  Andrew N Kleit; James F Ruiz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.