Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis

Tips for Addressing Screening Concerns: "Harms of Screening"

Early detection decreases deaths from breast cancer. Yet, there are conflicting recommendations about screening mammography by major professional medical organizations, including the age and frequency with which women should be screened. The controversy over breast cancer screening is centered on 3 main points: the impact on mortality, overdiagnosis, and false positive results. Some studies claim that adverse psychological effects such as anxiety or distress are caused by screening mammography. The purpose of this article is to address negative breast cancer screening concerns including overdiagnosis and overtreatment, effect on mortality, false positive results, mammography-related anxiety, and fear of radiation.

Health benefits and harms of mammography screening in older women (75+ years)-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the outcomes of mammography screening in women aged 75 years and older.

METHODS

A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 27 observational studies and 9 modelling studies. Many of the included studies used no or uninformative comparison groups resulting in a potential bias towards the benefits of screening. Despite this, there was mixed evidence about the benefits and harms of continuing mammography screening beyond the age of 75 years. Some studies showed a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality, and other studies showed no effect on mortality. Some studies showed some harms (false positive tests and recalls) being comparable to those in younger age-groups, with other studies showing increase in false positive screens and biopsies in older age-group. Although reported in fewer studies, there was consistent evidence of increased overdiagnosis in older age-groups.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence available to make a recommendation for/against continuing breast screening beyond the age of 75 years. Future studies should use more informative comparisons and should estimate overdiagnosis given potentially substantial harm in this age-group due to competing causes of death. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203131).

Data-driven overdiagnosis definitions: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Adequate methods to promptly translate digital health innovations for improved patient care are essential. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have been sources of digital innovation and hold the promise to revolutionize the way we treat, manage and diagnose patients. Understanding the benefits but also the potential adverse effects of digital health innovations, particularly when these are made available or applied on healthier segments of the population is essential. One of such adverse effects is overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

to comprehensively analyze quantification strategies and data-driven definitions for overdiagnosis reported in the literature.

METHODS

we conducted a scoping systematic review of manuscripts describing quantitative methods to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosed patients.

RESULTS

we identified 46 studies that met our inclusion criteria. They covered a variety of clinical conditions, primarily breast and prostate cancer. Methods to quantify overdiagnosis included both prospective and retrospective methods including randomized clinical trials, and simulations.

CONCLUSION

a variety of methods to quantify overdiagnosis have been published, producing widely diverging results. A standard method to quantify overdiagnosis is needed to allow its mitigation during the rapidly increasing development of new digital diagnostic tools.

Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States

BACKGROUND

Overdiagnosis is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening, particularly for older women.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women by age.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study comparing the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among older women who continued screening in the next interval with those who did not. Analyses used competing risk models, stratified by age.

SETTING

Fee-for-service Medicare claims, linked to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program.

PATIENTS

Women 70 years and older who had been recently screened.

MEASUREMENTS

Breast cancer diagnoses and breast cancer death for up to 15 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

This study included 54 635 women. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.4) per 100 screened women versus 4.2 cases (CI, 3.5 to 5.0) per 100 unscreened women. An estimated 31% of breast cancer among screened women were potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 75 to 84 years, cumulative incidence was 4.9 (CI, 4.6 to 5.2) per 100 screened women versus 2.6 (CI, 2.2 to 3.0) per 100 unscreened women, with 47% of cases potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 85 and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 (CI, 2.3 to 3.4) among screened women versus 1.3 (CI, 0.9 to 1.9) among those not, with up to 54% overdiagnosis. We did not see statistically significant reductions in breast cancer-specific death associated with screening.

LIMITATIONS

This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, limiting our ability to draw conclusions on all benefits and harms of screening. Unmeasured differences in risk for breast cancer and differential competing mortality between screened and unscreened women may confound results. Results were sensitive to model specifications and definition of a screening mammogram.

CONCLUSION

Continued breast cancer screening was associated with greater incidence of breast cancer, suggesting overdiagnosis may be common among older women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after screening. Whether harms of overdiagnosis are balanced by benefits and for whom remains an important question.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Women 75 Years Old or Older: To Screen or Not to Screen?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with the incidence rising substantially with age. Older women are a vulnerable population at increased risk of developing and dying from breast cancer. However, women aged 75 years and older were excluded from all randomized controlled screening trials, so the best available data regarding screening benefits and risks in this age group are from observational studies and modeling predictions. Benefits of screening in older women are the same as those in younger women: early detection of smaller lower-stage cancers, resulting in less invasive treatment and lower morbidity and mortality. Mammography performs significantly better in older women with higher sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values, accompanied by lower recall rates and false positives. The overdiagnosis rate is low, with benefits outweighing risks until age 90 years. Although there are conflicting national and international guidelines about whether to continue screening mammography in women beyond age 74 years, clinicians can use shared decision making to help women make decisions about screening and fully engage them in the screening process. For women aged 75 years and older in good health, continuing annual screening mammography will save the most lives. An informed discussion of the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women needs to include each woman's individual values, overall health status, and comorbidities. This article will review the benefits, risks, and controversies surrounding screening mammography in women 75 years old and older and compare the current recommendations for screening this population from national and international professional organizations. ^©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Assessing overdiagnosis of fecal immunological test screening for colorectal cancer with a digital twin approach

Evaluating the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with stool-based service screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) beyond a randomized controlled trial is often intractable and understudied. We aim to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosis in population-based service screening programs for CRC with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The natural process of overdiagnosis-embedded disease was first built up to learn transition parameters that quantify the pathway of non-progressive and progressive screen-detected cases calibrated with sensitivity, while also taking competing mortality into account. The Markov algorithms were then developed for estimating these transition parameters based on Taiwan FIT service CRC screening data on 5,417,699 residents aged 50-69 years from 2004 to 2014. Following the digital twin design with the parallel universe structure for emulating the randomized controlled trial, the screened twin, mirroring the control group without screening, was virtually recreated by the application of the above-mentioned trained parameters to predict CRC cases containing overdiagnosis. The ratio of the predicted CRCs derived from the screened twin to the observed CRCs of the control group minus 1 was imputed to measure the extent of overdiagnosis. The extent of overdiagnosis for invasive CRCs resulting from FIT screening is 4.16% (95% CI: 2.61-5.78%). The corresponding figure is increased to 9.90% (95% CI: 8.41-11.42%) for including high grade dysplasia (HGD) and further inflated to 15.83% (95% CI: 15.23-16.46%) when the removal adenoma is considered. The modest proportion of overdiagnosis modelled by the digital twin method, dispensing with the randomized controlled trial design, suggests the harm done to population-based FIT service screening is negligible.

The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women

Randomized, clinical trials have established the efficacy of screening mammography in improving survival from breast cancer for women through detection of early, asymptomatic disease. However, disparities in survival rates between black women and women from other racial and ethnic groups following breast cancer diagnosis persist. Various professional groups have different, somewhat conflicting, guidelines with regards to recommended age for commencing screening as well as recommended frequency of screening exams, but the trials upon which these recommendations are based were not specifically designed to examine benefit among black women. Furthermore, these recommendations do not appear to incorporate the unique epidemiological circumstances of breast cancer among black women, including higher rates of diagnosis before age 40 years and greater likelihood of advanced stage at diagnosis, into their formulation. In this review, we examined the epidemiologic and socioeconomic factors that are associated with breast cancer among black women and assess the implications of these factors for screening in this population. Specifically, we recommend that by no later than age 25 years, all black women should undergo baseline assessment for future risk of breast cancer utilizing a model that incorporates race (e.g., Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [BCRAT], formerly the Gail model) and that this assessment should be conducted by a breast specialist or a healthcare provider (e.g., primary care physician or gynecologist) who is trained to assess breast cancer risk and is aware of the increased risks of early (i.e., premenopausal) and biologically aggressive (e.g., late-stage, triple-negative) breast cancer among black women.

Addressing Misinformation About the Canadian Breast Screening Guidelines

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 41% in screened women ages 40-69 years. There is misinformation about breast screening and the Canadian breast screening guidelines. This can decrease confidence in screening mammography and can lead to suboptimal recommendations. We review some of this misinformation to help radiologists and referring physicians navigate the varied international and provincial guidelines. We address the ages to start and stop breast screening. We explore how these recommendations may vary for specific populations such as patients who are at increased risk, transgender patients and minorities. We identify who would benefit from supplemental screening and review the available supplemental screening modalities including ultrasound, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography and others. We describe emerging technologies including the potential use of artificial intelligence for breast screening. We provide background on why screening policies vary across the country between provinces and territories. This review is intended to help radiologists and referring physicians understand and navigate the varied international and provincial recommendations and guidelines and make the best recommendations for their patients.

When to stop? Mammographic surveillance in breast cancer survivors aged 70 years and older

AIM

To assess the rates of breast cancer detected in postoperative surveillance mammograms in women >70 Years and overall mortality in this age group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and ninety-eight patients were identified retrospectively from a database from a single large UK hospital. Patients were included in the study if they were female, aged >70 years at diagnosis of either invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), had surgical treatment between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014, and no previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Statistical analysis was performed using Excel, using the X2 test, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean age of women included in this study was 77 years. The mean number of postoperative surveillance mammograms performed per patient was 4.2. In the 5-year follow-up, there was a local recurrence rate of 1.9% (n=6) and a contralateral breast cancer rate of 1% (n=6). The 5-year overall mortality rate was 17.7% (n=88), and the 5-year breast cancer-specific mortality rate was 7.2% (n=36).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated low local recurrence and contralateral breast cancer rates during the 5-year follow-up period. Clear discussions therefore need to be held with older patients about the value of postoperative mammographic surveillance. Further research is required regarding patient opinion and experience to help develop more consistent guidelines.

Opting into breast screening over the age of 70 years: seeking evidence to support informed choice

AIM

To provide evidence specific to the Scottish population regarding the risk-benefit balance of women >70 years opting into continued breast screening, which may be used as a basis for patient information documentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study consisted of a parallel, retrospective data analysis of breast cancer mortality data for breast cancer cases diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 (n=22,013) followed up to 31/12/18, and breast screening programme data from 2010 and 2015 (n=47,235). Screening outcome measures included recall for assessment, oncome of assessment, and tumour features. Tumours were classified as high, intermediate, or low risk according to grade and presence of invasion. Mortality data were linked to age at diagnosis and cause of death was recorded.

RESULTS

The proportion of all deaths due breast cancer is inversely related to age at diagnosis. From 77 years, women are more likely to die with breast cancer, than directly due to breast cancer. Mammographic screening accurately identifies breast cancer in older women; however, many of the cancers detected were considered intermediate or low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Harms may outweigh the benefits of continued breast screening in older women. This information should be available to all older women.

Ageing and cancer: a research gap to fill

The complex mechanisms of ageing biology are increasingly understood. Interventions to reduce or delay ageing‐associated diseases are emerging. Cancer is one of the diseases promoted by tissue ageing. A clockwise mutational signature is identified in many tumours. Ageing might be a modifiable cancer risk factor. To reduce the incidence of ageing‐related cancer and to detect the disease at earlier stages, we need to understand better the links between ageing and tumours. When a cancer is established, geriatric assessment and measures of biological age might help to generate evidence‐based therapeutic recommendations. In this approach, patients and caregivers would include the respective weight to give to the quality of life and survival in the therapeutic choices. The increasing burden of cancer in older patients requires new generations of researchers and geriatric oncologists to be trained, to properly address disease complexity in a multidisciplinary manner, and to reduce health inequities in this population of patients. In this review, we propose a series of research challenges to tackle in the next few years to better prevent, detect and treat cancer in older patients while preserving their quality of life.

Breast Cancer in the Elderly: An Observational Study Investigating Compliance of Screening Mammography in an Underserved Community

Background

The incidence of breast cancer increases with age. Individuals living in higher socioeconomic communities also have higher incidence secondary to early detection of breast cancer from increased accessibility to mammograms. This retrospective study studied the percentage of new breast cancer cases in the elderly between 2010 and 2019, and investigated the compliance of screening mammography in some of the medically underserved suburbs of southern Chicago.

Methods

The parameters used to power this study include “age greater than 70” and “2010 to present” at the time the study was first initiated. The final data set contained 381 electronic health records (EMRs) that met the parameters of interest. We specifically looked at method of diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, date of last normal screening mammogram, hormone status, histology, race, and smoking history.

Results

Thirty percent of the breast cancer patients diagnosed at our institution were over 70 years of age between 2010 and 2019. Of the 381 patients included in the overall sample, 45% were diagnosed with breast cancer by screening mammogram, and 52% of individuals in the 70 - 75 age group were diagnosed with breast cancer by screening mammography. Only 40% of individuals in the 75+ age group were diagnosed with breast cancer by screening mammogram (P = 0.0234). Furthermore, in the overall sample, 63% had a normal screening mammogram at some time prior to their breast cancer diagnosis. In the 70 - 75 age group, 76% had a normal screening mammogram at some time prior to their breast cancer diagnosis. In the 75+ age group, only 54% had a normal screening mammogram at some time prior to their breast cancer diagnosis (P < 0.0001). Individuals in both age groups were more likely to have early-stage breast cancers and luminal A hormone expression.

Conclusions

Decreased compliance to screening mammography is observed in the elderly living in underserved communities. Since the elderly are underrepresented in research, organizations do not have sufficient information to recommend screening mammography in the elderly. With increasing life expectancy, observational studies have demonstrated a mortality benefit with screening mammography by early detection of breast cancer, favorable breast cancer characteristics and potentially higher cure rates. Socioeconomic factors also affect screening compliance and likely influenced the results of our study. Future studies should investigate how individual factors influence screening mammography compliance in the elderly in underserved communities.

Using Risk Stratification to Optimize Mammography Screening in Chinese Women

Background

The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening among Chinese women remains contentious. Here, we characterized breast cancer (BC) epidemiology in Hong Kong and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of personalized risk-based screening.

Methods

We used the Hong Kong Breast Cancer Study (a case-control study with 3501 cases and 3610 controls) and Hong Kong Cancer Registry to develop a risk stratification model based on well-documented risk factors. We used the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study to validate the model. We considered risk-based programs with different screening age ranges and risk thresholds under which women were eligible to join if their remaining BC risk at the starting age exceeded the threshold.

Results

The lifetime risk (15-99 years) of BC ranged from 1.8% to 26.6% with a mean of 6.8%. Biennial screening was most cost-effective when the starting age was 44 years, and screening from age 44 to 69 years would reduce breast cancer mortality by 25.4% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 20.5%-29.4%) for all risk strata. If the risk threshold for this screening program was 8.4% (the average remaining BC risk among US women at their recommended starting age of 50 years), the coverage was 25.8%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$18 151 (95% CrI = $10 408-$27 663) per quality-of-life-year (QALY) compared with no screening. The ICER of universal screening was $34 953 (95% CrI = $22 820-$50 268) and $48 303 (95% CrI = $32 210-$68 000) per QALY compared with no screening and risk-based screening with 8.4% threshold, respectively.

Conclusion

Organized BC screening in Chinese women should commence as risk-based programs. Outcome data (e.g., QALY loss because of false-positive mammograms) should be systemically collected for optimizing the risk threshold.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.

Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study

Objective

Guidelines informing screening mammography for older women are lacking. This study sought to characterize PCP perspectives on screening mammography for patients aged 75 and older.

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative study based on semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with PCPs from six clinics affiliated with a tertiary medical center. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcripts and identified themes, subthemes, and representative quotes using inductive analysis methodology.

Results

Ten providers completed interviews. The majority (90%) of providers reported insufficient evidence to suggest a best practice for screening in this population. Providers relied on shared decision-making with patients, a process facilitated by strong provider-patient relationships. Providers took into consideration factors such as functional status, personal risk of breast cancer, and patient preference. Time constraints disincentivized providers to engage in discussions.

Conclusions

PCPs make decisions about screening mammography for older patients on an individualized basis, taking into account patient overall health status and desire for aggressive intervention. They often rely on shared decision-making given unclear clinical guidelines.

Practice implications

These findings suggest that fostering strong provider-patient relationships, addressing patient knowledge gaps, and compensating providers for time spent on counseling may facilitate cost-efficient and patient-centered utilization of screening mammography.

Which type of cancer is detected in breast screening programs? Review of the literature with focus on the most frequent histological features

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer affecting female patients. The introduction of breast cancer screening programs led to a substantial reduction of mortality from breast cancer. Nevertheless, doubts are being raised on the real efficacy of breast screening programs. The aim of the present paper is to review the main pathological type of cancers detected in breast cancer screening programs. Specifically, attention will be given to: in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma histotypes and interval cancer.

A Panel of Tumor-associated Autoantibodies for the Detection of Early-stage Breast Cancer

We previously found a panel of autoantibodies against multiple tumor-associated antigens (BMI-1, HSP70, MMP-7, NY-ESO-1, p53 and PRDX6) that might facilitate early detection of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Here we aimed at assessing the diagnostic performance of these autoantibodies in breast cancer patients. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was applied to detect sera autoantibodies in 123 breast cancer patients and 123 age-matched normal controls. We adopted logistic regression analysis to identify optimized autoantibody biomarkers for diagnosis and receiver-operating characteristics to analyze diagnostic efficiency. Five of six autoantibodies, BMI-1, HSP70, NY-ESO-1, p53 and PRDX6 demonstrated significantly elevated serum levels in breast cancer compared to normal controls. An optimized panel composed of autoantibodies to BMI-1, HSP70, NY-ESO-1 and p53 showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.819 (95% CI 0.766-0.873), 63.4% sensitivity and 90.2% specificity for diagnosing breast cancer. Moreover, this autoantibody panel could differentiate patients with early stage breast cancer from normal controls, with AUC of 0.805 (95% CI 0.743-0.886), 59.6% sensitivity and 90.2% specificity. Our findings indicated that the panel of autoantibodies to BMI-1, HSP70, NY-ESO-1 and p53 as serum biomarkers have the potential to help detect early stage breast cancer.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Early Detection of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Accurate early diagnosis of breast cancer is critical in the management of the disease. Although mammogram screening has been widely used for breast cancer screening, high false-positive and false-negative rates and radiation from mammography have always been a concern. Over the last 20 years, the emergence of "omics" strategies has resulted in significant advances in the search for non-invasive biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis at an early stage. Circulating carcinoma antigens, circulating tumor cells, circulating cell-free tumor nucleic acids (DNA or RNA), circulating microRNAs, and circulating extracellular vesicles in the peripheral blood, nipple aspirate fluid, sweat, urine, and tears, as well as volatile organic compounds in the breath, have emerged as potential non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers to supplement current clinical approaches to earlier detection of breast cancer. In this review, we summarize the current progress of research in these areas.

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician's Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results. We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

The challenge of avoiding over- and under-treatment in older women with ductal cancer in situ: A scoping review of existing knowledge gaps and a meta-analysis of real-world practice patterns

Ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) is mainly a screen-detected disease and although the risk for breast cancer is age-dependent, most screening programs do not include women over the age of 75 years. Older women are usually excluded from clinical trials and treatment practices are largely based on observational studies or extrapolation of trial results from younger patients, leading to either over- or under-treatment of this population. We systematically reviewed available electronic databases for DCIS treatment patterns and outcomes in older patients 15 years. Inclusion criteria allowed for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control and cross-sectional studies, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews and position papers. Results showed that, although elderly are not necessarily frail, they are generally treated as such by physicians, aiming to de-escalate therapeutic interventions. After adjusting for frailty, age seems to be a significant factor for less surgery; however, older women with DCIS are more probable to receive surgery than their counterparts with early invasive cancer. DCIS biology and subtypes are independent risk factors for local recurrence or progression to invasive carcinoma, if DCIS is under-treated. The end-benefit of surgery, radio- and endocrine-therapy depend on additional parameters, such as life expectancy, co-morbidities and competing risks of death. Screen-detected DCIS in older women is a challenging clinical problem, mainly due to the lack of high-level data. Therapeutic strategies should be tailored to life expectancy and performance status, DCIS features and patient preference, aiming at combining optimal oncological outcomes with maintenance of quality of life.

Mammographic Screening in Older Women: When Is It Time to Stop?

Mammographic screening guidelines in women aged 75 and older are inconsistent due to a lack of data from prospective randomized controlled trials, such as those that exist for women between 40-74 years of age. In addition, older women are perceived as less likely to benefit from early detection due to increased comorbidities and a greater proportion of biologically favorable cancers. With increasing life expectancy and quality of life in the elderly, the question of when to stop mammographic screening merits renewed discussion. Observational data support a survival benefit from regular screening in older women with no severe comorbidities. In addition, screening mammography in this age group has been shown to perform better than in younger age groups, tipping the balance toward greater benefits than harms. Early studies of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in older women suggest that performance metrics are further improved with DBT screening. While a biennial schedule in older women preserves some of the benefit of screening, annual mammography achieves the greatest reductions in breast cancer mortality and morbidity. As the medical community strives to offer personalized care for all age groups, health care providers are well positioned to offer shared decision-making based on existing data and tailored to each woman's individual risk profile, comorbid conditions, and personal values.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women With Down Syndrome: a Collaborative Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Women with Down syndrome have a lower breast cancer risk and significantly lower life expectancies than women without Down syndrome. Therefore, it is not clear whether mammography screening strategies used for women without Down syndrome would benefit women with Down syndrome in the same way.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefits and harms of various mammography screening strategies for women with Down syndrome using collaborative simulation modeling.

DESIGN

Two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) simulation models estimated the benefits and harms of various screening strategies for women with Down syndrome over a lifetime horizon.

PARTICIPANTS

We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US women with Down syndrome who were born in 1970.

INTERVENTIONS

Annual, biennial, triennial, and one-time digital mammography screenings during the ages 40-74.

MAIN MEASURES

The models estimated numbers of mammograms, false-positives, benign biopsies, breast cancer deaths prevented, and life-years gained per 1000 screened women when compared with no screening.

KEY RESULTS

In average-risk women 50-74, biennial screening incurred 122 mammograms, 10 false-positive mammograms, and 1.4 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. In women with Down syndrome, the same screening strategy incurred 2752 mammograms, 242 false-positive mammograms, and 34 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. The harm/benefit ratio varied for other screening strategies, and was most favorable for one-time screening at age 50, which incurred 1629 mammograms, 144 false-positive mammograms, and 20 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The harm/benefit ratios for various mammography screening strategies in women with Down syndrome are not as favorable as those for average-risk women. The benefit of screening mammography for women with Down syndrome is less pronounced due to lower breast cancer risk and shorter life expectancy.

Screening Mammography: There Is Value in Screening Women Aged 75 Years and Older

OBJECTIVE

Patient screening mammography records performed in women aged 75 years and older were reviewed to evaluate the value of screening in this population, by determining the incidence of cancer diagnosed and associated outcomes.

METHODS

Data from patients aged 75 years and older who presented for screening mammography and underwent biopsy with resultant malignant pathology were retrospectively collected and analyzed to record patient demographics and outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2007-2017, there were 763,256 screening mammography appointments in 130,232 patients, with 3716 patients diagnosed with 4412 screen-detected malignancies (5.8 per 1000 cancers). In women aged 75 years and older, 76,885 (76,885 per 130,232, 10.1%) screening mammograms were performed in 18,497patients, with 643 malignancies diagnosed in 614 women eligible for study inclusion (8.4 per 1000 cancers). Lesions frequently presented as a mass with or without calcifications (472 per 643, 73%). A majority (529 per 643, 82%) was invasive; 79% (507 per 643) stage 0 or 1, and 63% (407 per 643) grade 2 or 3. Lymph node-positive status was confirmed in 7% of patients (46 per 614). Surgical intervention was pursued by 98% of patients (599 per 614).

CONCLUSION

Screening mammograms in women aged 75 years and older comprise a small percentage of the total screening examinations; however, they represented a significant portion of all patients diagnosed with screen-detected cancers, showing a substantial cancer detection rate. Most tumors were low stage, intermediate to high grade, and invasive. The majority had treatment involving surgery, suggesting these women are in good health and want to pursue surgical intervention. Screening mammography should be performed in this age group.

Digital 2D versus Tomosynthesis Screening Mammography among Women Aged 65 and Older in the United States

Background Although breast cancer incidence and mortality rates increase with advancing age, there are limited data on the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women and on the performance of two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in older women. Purpose To compare performance metrics of DM and DBT among women aged 65 years and older. Materials and Methods For this retrospective study, consecutive screening mammograms in patients aged 65 years and older from March 2008 to February 2011 (DM group) and from January 2013 to December 2015 (DBT group) were reviewed. Cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to compare performance metrics in the DM versus DBT groups. Results The DM group had 15 019 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 72.7 years ± 6.3), and the DBT group had 20 646 women (mean age, 72.1 years ± 5.9). After adjusting for multiple variables, there was no difference in cancer detection rate between the DM and DBT groups (6.9 vs 8.2 per 1000 examinations; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; P = .23). Compared with the DM group, the DBT group had a lower abnormal interpretation rate (5.7% vs 5.8%; AOR, 0.88; P < .001), higher positive predictive value 1 (14.5% vs 11.9%; AOR, 1.26; P = .03), and higher specificity (95.1% vs 94.8%; AOR, 1.18; P < .001). The DBT group had a higher proportion of invasive cancers relative to in situ cancers (81.1% vs 74.4%; P = .06) and fewer node-positive cancers (10.2% vs 16.6%; P = .054) than did the DM group. Conclusion In women aged 65 years and older, integration of digital breast tomosynthesis led to improved performance metrics, with a lower abnormal interpretation rate, higher positive predictive value 1, and higher specificity. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Philpotts and Durand in this issue.

Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services

BACKGROUND

There is still lack of consensus on the benefit-harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health-related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines.

METHODS

We searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research.

RESULTS

We included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false-positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness.

CONCLUSIONS

Women value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false-positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide.

Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures

Policy decisions regarding breast cancer screening and treatment programmes may be misplaced unless the decision process includes the appropriate utilities and disutilities of mammography screening and its sequelae. The objectives of this study were to critically review how economic evaluations have valued the health states associated with breast cancer screening, and appraise the primary evidence informing health state utility values (cardinal measures of quality of life). A systematic review was conducted up to September 2018 of studies that elicited or used utilities relevant to mammography screening. The methods used to elicit utilities and the quality of the reported values were tabulated and analysed narratively. 40 economic evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes and 10 primary studies measuring utilities for health states associated with mammography were reviewed in full. The economic evaluations made different assumptions about the measures used, duration applied and the sequalae included in each health state. 22 evaluations referenced utilities based on assumptions or used measures that were not methodologically appropriate. There was significant heterogeneity in the utilities generated by the 10 primary studies, including the methods and population used to derive them. No study asked women to explicitly consider the risk of overdiagnosis when valuing the health states described. Utilities informing breast screening policy are restricted in their ability to reflect the full benefits and harms. Evaluating the true cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening will remain problematic, unless the methodological challenges associated with valuing the disutilities of screening are adequately addressed.

Personalized Mammography Screening and Screening Adherence-A Simulation and Economic Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Personalized breast cancer screening has so far been economically evaluated under the assumption of full screening adherence. This is the first study to evaluate the effects of nonadherence on the evaluation and selection of personalized screening strategies.

METHODS

Different adherence scenarios were established on the basis of findings from the literature. A Markov microsimulation model was adapted to evaluate the effects of these adherence scenarios on three different personalized strategies.

RESULTS

First, three adherence scenarios describing the relationship between risk and adherence were identified: 1) a positive association between risk and screening adherence, 2) a negative association, or 3) a curvilinear relationship. Second, these three adherence scenarios were evaluated in three personalized strategies. Our results show that it is more the absolute adherence rate than the nature of the risk-adherence relationship that is important to determine which strategy is the most cost-effective. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that there are risk-stratified screening strategies that are more cost-effective than routine screening if the willingness-to-pay threshold for screening is below US $60,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that "nonadherence" affects the relative performance of screening strategies. Thus, it is necessary to include the true adherence level to evaluate personalized screening strategies and to select the best strategy.

Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening

There are relatively limited data on outcomes of screening older adults for cancer; therefore, the decision to screen older adults requires balancing the potential harms of screening and follow-up diagnostic tests with the possibility of benefit. Harms of screening can be amplified in older and frail adults and include discomfort from undergoing the test itself, anxiety, potential complications from diagnostic procedures resulting from a false-positive test, false reassurance from a false-negative test, and overdiagnosis of tumors that are of no threat and may result in overtreatment. In this paper, we review the evidence and guidelines on breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer as applied to older adults. We also provide a general framework for approaching cancer screening in older adults by incorporating evidence-based guidelines, patient preferences, and patient life expectancy estimates into shared screening decisions.

Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980's, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature.

DESIGN

Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters.

RESULTS

These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%.

LIMITATIONS

DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models.

CONCLUSION

In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models' representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS.

Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models

The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Working Group is a consortium of National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigators who use statistical and simulation modeling to evaluate the impact of cancer control interventions on long-term population-level breast cancer outcomes such as incidence and mortality and to determine the impact of different breast cancer control strategies. The CISNET breast cancer models have been continuously funded since 2000. The models have gone through several updates since their inception to reflect advances in the understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer, changes in the prevalence of common risk factors, and improvements in therapy and early detection technology. This article provides an overview and history of the CISNET breast cancer models, provides an overview of the major changes in the model inputs over time, and presents examples for how CISNET breast cancer models have been used for policy evaluation.

Testing Behavior Change Techniques to Encourage Primary Care Physicians to Access Cancer Screening Audit and Feedback Reports: Protocol for a Factorial Randomized Experiment of Email Content

Background

Cancer Care Ontario’s Screening Activity Report (SAR) is an online audit and feedback tool designed to help primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada, identify patients who are overdue for cancer screening or have abnormal results requiring follow-up. Use of the SAR is associated with increased screening rates. To encourage SAR use, Cancer Care Ontario sends monthly emails to registered primary care physicians announcing that updated data are available. However, analytics reveal that 50% of email recipients do not open the email and less than 7% click the embedded link to log in to their report.

Objective

The goal of the study is to determine whether rewritten emails result in increased log-ins. This manuscript describes how different user- and theory-informed messages intended to improve the impact of the monthly emails will be experimentally tested and how a process evaluation will explore why and how any effects observed were (or were not) achieved.

Methods

A user-centered approach was used to rewrite the content of the monthly email, including messages operationalizing 3 behavior change techniques: anticipated regret, material incentive (behavior), and problem solving. A pragmatic, 2x2x2 factorial experiment within a multiphase optimization strategy will test the redesigned emails with an embedded qualitative process evaluation to understand how and why the emails may or may not have worked. Trial outcomes will be ascertained using routinely collected administrative data. Physicians will be recruited for semistructured interviews using convenience and snowball sampling.

Results

As of April 2017, 5576 primary care physicians across the province of Ontario, Canada, had voluntarily registered for the SAR, and in so doing, signed up to receive the monthly email updates. From May to August 2017 participants received the redesigned monthly emails with content specific to their allocated experimental condition prompting use of the SAR. We have not yet begun analyses.

Conclusions

This study will inform how to communicate effectively with primary care providers by email and identify which behavior change techniques tested are most effective at encouraging engagement with an audit and feedback report.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124316; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124316 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6w2MqDWGu)

Quantifying Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Methodology

Background

Overdiagnosis is the main harm of cancer screening programs but is difficult to quantify. This review aims to evaluate existing approaches to estimate the magnitude of overdiagnosis in cancer screening in order to gain insight into the strengths and limitations of these approaches and to provide researchers with guidance to obtain reliable estimates of overdiagnosis in cancer screening.

Methods

A systematic review was done of primary research studies in PubMed that were published before January 1, 2016, and quantified overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. The studies meeting inclusion criteria were then categorized by their methods to adjust for lead time and to obtain an unscreened reference population. For each approach, we provide an overview of the data required, assumptions made, limitations, and strengths.

Results

A total of 442 studies were identified in the initial search. Forty studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative review. We grouped the approaches to adjust for lead time in two main categories: the lead time approach and the excess incidence approach. The lead time approach was further subdivided into the mean lead time approach, lead time distribution approach, and natural history modeling. The excess incidence approach was subdivided into the cumulative incidence approach and early vs late-stage cancer approach. The approaches used to obtain an unscreened reference population were grouped into the following categories: control group of a randomized controlled trial, nonattenders, control region, extrapolation of a prescreening trend, uninvited groups, adjustment for the effect of screening, and natural history modeling.

Conclusions

Each approach to adjust for lead time and obtain an unscreened reference population has its own strengths and limitations, which should be taken into consideration when estimating overdiagnosis.

Decision-Making Regarding Mammography Screening for Older Women

The population is aging, and breast cancer incidence increases with age, peaking between the ages of 75 and 79. However, it is not known whether mammography screening helps women aged 75 and older live longer because they have not been included in randomized controlled trials evaluating mammography screening. Guidelines recommend that older women with less than a 10-year life expectancy not be screened because it takes approximately 10 years before a screen-detected breast cancer may affect an older woman's survival. Guidelines recommend that clinicians discuss the benefits and risks of screening with women aged 75 and older with a life expectancy of 10 years or longer to help them elicit their values and preferences. It is estimated that two of 1,000 women who continue to be screened every other year from age 70 to 79 may avoid breast cancer death, but 12% to 27% of these women will experience a false-positive test, and 10% to 20% of women who experience a false-positive test will undergo a breast biopsy. In addition, approximately 30% of screen-detected cancers would not otherwise have shown up in an older woman's lifetime, yet nearly all older women undergo treatment for these breast cancers, and the risks of treatment increase with age. To inform decision-making, tools are available to estimate life expectancy and to educate older women about the benefits and harms of mammography screening. Guides are also available to help clinicians discuss stopping screening with older women with less than a 10-year life expectancy. Ideally, screening decisions would consider an older woman's life expectancy, breast cancer risk, and her values and preferences.

Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Biennial screening is generally recommended for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, but tailored screening may provide greater benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate outcomes for various screening intervals after age 50 years based on breast density and risk for breast cancer.

DESIGN

Collaborative simulation modeling using national incidence, breast density, and screening performance data.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Women aged 50 years or older with various combinations of breast density and relative risk (RR) of 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, or 4.0.

INTERVENTION

Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no screening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years).

MEASUREMENTS

Lifetime breast cancer deaths, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-positive results to breast cancer deaths averted.

RESULTS

Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR. False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with increasing risk. Among women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular density and an RR of 1.0 or 1.3, breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted). Breast cancer deaths averted increased with annual versus biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years at all levels of breast density and an RR of 4.0, and those aged 65 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and an RR of 4.0. However, harms were almost 2-fold higher. Triennial screening for the average-risk subgroup and annual screening for the highest-risk subgroup cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained.

LIMITATION

Models did not consider women younger than 50 years, those with an RR less than 1, or other imaging methods.

CONCLUSION

Average-risk women with low breast density undergoing triennial screening and higher-risk women with high breast density receiving annual screening will maintain a similar or better balance of benefits and harms than average-risk women receiving biennial screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the rate of non-palpable cancer detection and benign biopsy rates for follow-up mammograms in elderly breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Women 80 years of age and older who underwent operation for ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer from 2005 to 2010 and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were identified from a single-institution, prospectively maintained, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant database. Patients with mammographic, other imaging, or palpable abnormalities were identified, and the results of their imaging studies and biopsies were reviewed. Number of locoregional recurrences, contralateral cancers, and benign biopsies were determined. Follow-up and survival data were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 429 women with a mean age of 83.4 years were included. Mean follow-up was 50.0 months (range 6-113). Patients had a median of four follow-up mammograms (range 0-11). The 1466 mammograms detected 17 biopsy-proven cancers and generated 18 benign biopsies. In the 305 women who had had breast-conserving surgery, 18 (5.9 %) experienced local recurrence, 9 detected by mammography alone (mean size 1.2 cm) and 9 palpable (mean size 2.0 cm). Contralateral cancer developed in 4 (0.9 %) of the 429 patients, all detected on screening mammogram alone.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 13 non-palpable breast cancers were detected in 1466 mammograms (0.9 %). While these results are acceptable for screening programs in healthy populations, further study of the need for routine follow-up imaging in the elderly, and the appropriate interval, is needed to maximize resource utilization.

How Can Advanced Imaging Be Used to Mitigate Potential Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis?

Radiologists, as administrators and interpreters of screening mammography, are considered by some to be major contributors to the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this article, we outline current efforts within the breast imaging community toward mitigating screening harms, including the widespread adoption of tomosynthesis and potentially adjusting screening frequency and thresholds for image-guided breast biopsy. However, the emerging field of breast radiomics may offer the greatest promise for reducing overdiagnosis by identifying imaging-based biomarkers strongly associated with tumor biology, and therefore helping prevent the harms of unnecessary treatment for indolent cancers.

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.

DESIGN

Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.

INTERVENTION

Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.

RESULTS

Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.

LIMITATION

Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.

CONCLUSION

Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Mammography, Martin Yaffe, and me: response and appreciation

I thank Dr. Martin Yaffe for his many constructive comments in his thoughtful review of my previous invited editorial, providing valuable insights into the complex and controversial issues of the current mammography debate. [...]

Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices

This review article explores the issue of overdiagnosis in screening mammography. Overdiagnosis is the screen detection of a breast cancer, histologically confirmed, that might not otherwise become clinically apparent during the lifetime of the patient. While screening mammography is an imperfect tool, it remains the best tool we have to diagnose breast cancer early, before a patient is symptomatic and at a time when chances of survival and options for treatment are most favorable. In 2015, an estimated 231,840 new cases of breast cancer (excluding ductal carcinoma in situ) will be diagnosed in the United States, and some 40,290 women will die. Despite these data, screening mammography for women ages 40-69 has contributed to a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality, and organized screening programs have led to a shift from late-stage diagnosis to early-stage detection. Current estimates of overdiagnosis in screening mammography vary widely, from 0% to upwards of 30% of diagnosed cancers. This range reflects the fact that measuring overdiagnosis is not a straightforward calculation, but usually one based on different sets of assumptions and often biased by methodological flaws. The recent development of tomosynthesis, which creates high-resolution, three-dimensional images, has increased breast cancer detection while reducing false recalls. Because the greatest harm of overdiagnosis is overtreatment, the key goal should not be less diagnosis but better treatment decision tools. (Population Health Management 2015;18:S3-S11).