Literature DB >> 9267441

NIH Consensus Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data regarding the effectiveness of mammography screening for women ages 40-49. PARTICIPANTS: A non-Federal, nonadvocate, 12-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, obstetrics and gynecology, geriatrics, public health, and epidemiology and including patient representatives. In addition, 32 experts in oncology, surgical oncology, radiology, public health, and epidemiology presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of 1,100. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched through Medline and an extensive bibliography of references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel, answering predefined questions, developed its conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised draft statement at the end of the conference. The final statement with a minority report was completed within several weeks after the conference.
CONCLUSIONS: The Panel concludes that the data currently available do not warrant a universal recommendation for mammography for all women in their forties. Each woman should decide for herself whether to undergo mammography. Her decision may be based not only on an objective analysis of the scientific evidence and consideration of her individual medical history, but also on how she perceives and weighs each potential risk and benefit, the values she places on each, and how she deals with uncertainty. However, it is not sufficient just to advise a woman to make her own decision about mammograms. Given both the importance and the complexity of the issues involved in assessing the evidence, a woman should have access to the best possible relevant information regarding both benefits and risks, presented in an understandable and usable form. Information should be developed for women in their forties regarding potential benefits and risks to be provided to enable each woman to make the most appropriate decision. In addition, educational material to accompany this information should be prepared that will lead women step by step through the process of using such information in the best possible way for reaching a decision. For women in their forties who choose to have mammography performed, the costs of the mammograms should be reimbursed by third-party payors or covered by health maintenance organizations so that financial impediments will not influence a woman's decision. Additionally, a woman's health care provider must be equipped with sufficient information to facilitate her decisionmaking process. Therefore, educational material for physicians should be developed to assist them in providing the guidance and support needed by the women in their care who are making difficult decisions regarding mammography. The two panel members writing a minority report believed the risks of mammography to be overemphasized by the majority and concluded that the data did support a recommendation for mammography screening for all women in this age group and that the survival benefit and diagnosis at an earlier stage outweigh the potential risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9267441

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NIH Consens Statement        ISSN: 1080-1707


  10 in total

1.  Communicating scientific uncertainty.

Authors:  Baruch Fischhoff; Alex L Davis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

3.  More Is Not Always Better: Intuitions About Effective Public Policy Can Lead to Unintended Consequences.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; William Klein; Annette Kaufman; Louise Meilleur; Anna Dixon
Journal:  Soc Issues Policy Rev       Date:  2013-01-01

4.  US women's attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

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.  A cyclic-RGD-BioShuttle functionalized with TMZ by DARinv "Click Chemistry" targeted to αvβ3 integrin for therapy.

Authors:  Klaus Braun; Manfred Wiessler; Rüdiger Pipkorn; Volker Ehemann; Tobias Bäuerle; Heinz Fleischhacker; Gabriele Müller; Peter Lorenz; Waldemar Waldeck
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Authors:  Christelle Duprez; Véronique Christophe; Isabelle Milhabet; Aurélie Krzeminski; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Jean-Philippe Peyrat; Philippe Vennin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Factors associated with annual-interval mammography for women in their 40s.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Suzanne C O'Neill; Barbara K Rimer; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.

Authors:  John D Keen; James E Keen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-09-21       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Breast Cancer in Canadian Women.

Authors:  Heather Bryant
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2004-08-25       Impact factor: 2.809

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.