Literature DB >> 9718526

Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance?

P M Beemsterboer1, P G Warmerdam, R Boer, H J de Koning.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of breast cancer deaths induced by low dose radiation in breast cancer screening programmes compared with numbers prevented.
METHODS: A computer simulation model on the natural history of breast cancer was combined with a model from BEIR-V on induced breast cancer mortality from low levels of radiation. The improvement in prognosis resulting from screening was based on the results of the Swedish overview of the randomised screening trials for breast cancer and the performance of screening in the Netherlands. Different scenarios (ages and intervals) were used to explore the objectives. Sensitivity analyses were carried out for latency period, dose of mammography, sensitivity of the screening test, early detection by screening of induced breast tumours, and new 1996 risk estimates by Howe and McLaughlin.
RESULTS: For a screening programme, age group 50-69, two year interval, 2 mGy per view, the balance between the number of deaths induced versus those prevented was favourable: 1:242. When screening is expanded to the age group 40-49 with a one or two year interval the results may be less favourable, that is, 1:66 and 1:97. According to these scenarios and with the Dutch scenario as reference, one breast cancer death from radiation may be expected to occur to save eight extra deaths from breast cancer. If screening was equally effective in young women as in women aged 50-69, the marginal value was 1:+/- 30. Assuming detection of induced cancers by screening could influence the ratios by about 30%, but did not substantially change the conclusions. The new risk estimates by Howe and McLaughlin resulted in five times to eight times favourable ratios breast cancer deaths induced to prevented. Besides age group of screening, dose of mammography is the other determinant of risk.
CONCLUSIONS: For screening under the age of 50, the balance between the number of breast cancer deaths prevented by screening compared with the number induced by radiation seem less favourable. Credibility intervals were however wide, because of many uncertainties of radiation risk at very low doses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9718526     DOI: 10.1136/jms.5.2.81

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  11 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Breast cancer: Doubtful health benefit of screening from 40 years of age.

Authors:  Philippe Autier
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Breast MR imaging in women at high-risk of breast cancer. Is something changing in early breast cancer detection?

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Franca Podo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-29       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths.

Authors:  R de Gelder; G Draisma; E A M Heijnsdijk; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Mammographic screening before age 50 years in the UK: comparison of the radiation risks with the mortality benefits.

Authors:  A Berrington de González; G Reeves
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-09-05       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  H M Verkooijen; P H Peeters; E Buskens; V C Koot; I H Borel Rinkes; W P Mali; T J van Vroonhoven
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Rising incidence of breast cancer among female cancer survivors: implications for surveillance.

Authors:  I Soerjomataram; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm; J W W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Breast cancer causes and treatment: where are we going wrong?

Authors:  Colin B Seymour; Carmel Mothersill
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2013-12-03

Review 10.  Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context.

Authors:  Anne Andermann; Tikki Pang; John N Newton; Adrian Davis; Ulysses Panisset
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-03-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.