1
|
De Troeyer K, Silversmit G, Rosskamp M, Truyen I, Van Herck K, Goossens MM, Martens P, Kellen E, Hendrickx E, Rummens E, De Smet F, Broeders M, Verdoodt F, De Schutter H. The effect of the Flemish breast cancer screening program on breast cancer-specific mortality: A case-referent study. Cancer Epidemiol 2023; 82:102320. [PMID: 36608495 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2022.102320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer screening programs were introduced in many countries worldwide following randomized controlled trials in the 1980s showing a reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality. However, their effectiveness remains debated and estimates vary. A breast cancer screening program was introduced in 2001 in Flanders, Belgium where high levels of opportunistic screening practices are observed. The effectiveness of this program was estimated by measuring its effect on breast cancer-specific mortality. METHODS We performed a case-referent study to investigate the effect of participation in the Flemish population-based mammography screening program (PMSP) on breast cancer-specific mortality from 2005 to 2017. A multiple logistic regression model assessed the association between breast cancer-specific death and screening program participation status in the four years prior to (pseudo)diagnosis (yes/no), with adjustment for potential confounders (individual socio-economic position and calendar year of diagnosis) and stratified for age. In addition, we performed different sensitivity analyses. RESULTS We identified 1571 cases and randomly selected 6284 referents. After adjustment, women who participated in PMSP had a 51 % lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to those who did not (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] =0.49, 95 % CI: 0.44-0.55). Sensitivity analyses did not markedly change the estimated associations. Correction for self-selection bias reduced the effect size, but the estimate remained significant. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that in a context of high opportunistic screening rates, participation in breast cancer screening program substantially reduces breast cancer-specific mortality. For policy, these results should be balanced against the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katrien De Troeyer
- Belgian Cancer Registry, 1210 Brussels, Belgium; Family Medicine and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
| | | | | | - Inge Truyen
- Belgian Cancer Registry, 1210 Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Mathijs Michiel Goossens
- Centre for Cancer Detection, 8000 Bruges, Belgium; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Eliane Kellen
- Centre for Cancer Detection, 8000 Bruges, Belgium; University Hospital Leuven, Campus Sint Rafael, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Erik Hendrickx
- Agency for Care and Health, Flemish Government, 1030 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Elise Rummens
- Christian Health Insurance Fund, 1031 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Frank De Smet
- Christian Health Insurance Fund, 1031 Brussels, Belgium; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Environment and Health, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Autier P, Boniol M. Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine. Eur J Cancer 2017; 90:34-62. [PMID: 29272783 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2017] [Accepted: 11/03/2017] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer mortality is declining in most high-income countries. The role of mammography screening in these declines is much debated. Screening impacts cancer mortality through decreasing the incidence of number of advanced cancers with poor prognosis, while therapies and patient management impact cancer mortality through decreasing the fatality of cancers. The effectiveness of cancer screening is the ability of a screening method to curb the incidence of advanced cancers in populations. Methods for evaluating cancer screening effectiveness are based on the monitoring of age-adjusted incidence rates of advanced cancers that should decrease after the introduction of screening. Likewise, cancer-specific mortality rates should decline more rapidly in areas with screening than in areas without or with lower levels of screening but where patient management is similar. These two criteria have provided evidence that screening for colorectal and cervical cancer contributes to decreasing the mortality associated with these two cancers. In contrast, screening for neuroblastoma in children was discontinued in the early 2000s because these two criteria were not met. In addition, overdiagnosis - i.e. the detection of non-progressing occult neuroblastoma that would not have been life-threatening during the subject's lifetime - is a major undesirable consequence of screening. Accumulating epidemiological data show that in populations where mammography screening has been widespread for a long time, there has been no or only a modest decline in the incidence of advanced cancers, including that of de novo metastatic (stage IV) cancers at diagnosis. Moreover, breast cancer mortality reductions are similar in areas with early introduction and high penetration of screening and in areas with late introduction and low penetration of screening. Overdiagnosis is commonplace, representing 20% or more of all breast cancers among women invited to screening and 30-50% of screen-detected cancers. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment and inflicts considerable physical, psychological and economic harm on many women. Overdiagnosis has also exerted considerable disruptive effects on the interpretation of clinical outcomes expressed in percentages (instead of rates) or as overall survival (instead of mortality rates or stage-specific survival). Rates of radical mastectomies have not decreased following the introduction of screening and keep rising in some countries (e.g. the United States of America (USA)). Hence, the epidemiological picture of mammography screening closely resembles that of screening for neuroblastoma. Reappraisals of Swedish mammography trials demonstrate that the design and statistical analysis of these trials were different from those of all trials on screening for cancers other than breast cancer. We found compelling indications that these trials overestimated reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with screening, in part because of the statistical analyses themselves, in part because of improved therapies and underreporting of breast cancer as the underlying cause of death in screening groups. In this regard, Swedish trials should publish the stage-specific breast cancer mortality rates for the screening and control groups separately. Results of the Greater New York Health Insurance Plan trial are biased because of the underreporting of breast cancer cases and deaths that occurred in women who did not participate in screening. After 17 years of follow-up, the United Kingdom (UK) Age Trial showed no benefit from mammography screening starting at age 39-41. Until around 2005, most proponents of breast screening backed the monitoring of changes in advanced cancer incidence and comparative studies on breast cancer mortality for the evaluation of breast screening effectiveness. However, in an attempt to mitigate the contradictions between results of mammography trials and population data, breast-screening proponents have elected to change the criteria for the evaluation of cancer screening effectiveness, giving precedence to incidence-based mortality (IBM) and case-control studies. But practically all IBM studies on mammography screening have a strong ecological component in their design. The two IBM studies done in Norway that meet all methodological requirements do not document significant reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with mammography screening. Because of their propensity to exaggerate the health benefits of screening, case-control studies may demonstrate that mammography screening could reduce the risk of death from diseases other than breast cancer. Numerous statistical model approaches have been conducted for estimating the contributions of screening and of patient management to reductions in breast cancer mortality. Unverified assumptions are needed for running these models. For instance, many models assume that if screening had not occurred, the majority of screen-detected asymptomatic cancers would have progressed to symptomatic advanced cancers. This assumption is not grounded in evidence because a large proportion of screen-detected breast cancers represent overdiagnosis and hence non-progressing tumours. The accumulation of population data in well-screened populations diminishes the relevance of model approaches. The comparison of the performance of different screening modalities - e.g. mammography, digital mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), three-dimensional tomosynthesis (TDT) - concentrates on detection rates, which is the ability of a technique to detect more cancers than other techniques. However, a greater detection rate tells little about the capacity to prevent interval and advanced cancers and could just reflect additional overdiagnosis. Studies based on the incidence of advanced cancers and on the evaluation of overdiagnosis should be conducted before marketing new breast-imaging technologies. Women at high risk of breast cancer (i.e. 30% lifetime risk and more), such as women with BRCA1/2 mutations, require a close breast surveillance. MRI is the preferred imaging method until more radical risk-reduction options are eventually adopted. For women with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (i.e. 10-29% lifetime risk), including women with extremely dense breast at mammography, there is no evidence that more frequent mammography screening or screening with other modalities actually reduces the risk of breast cancer death. A plethora of epidemiological data shows that, since 1985, progress in the management of breast cancer patients has led to marked reductions in stage-specific breast cancer mortality, even for patients with disseminated disease (i.e. stage IV cancer) at diagnosis. In contrast, the epidemiological data point to a marginal contribution of mammography screening in the decline in breast cancer mortality. Moreover, the more effective the treatments, the less favourable are the harm-benefit balance of screening mammography. New, effective methods for breast screening are needed, as well as research on risk-based screening strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe Autier
- University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health at IPRI, International Prevention Research Institute, Espace Européen, Building G, Allée Claude Debussy, 69130 Ecully Lyon, France; International Prevention Research Institute (iPRI), 95 Cours Lafayette, 69006 Lyon, France.
| | - Mathieu Boniol
- University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health at IPRI, International Prevention Research Institute, Espace Européen, Building G, Allée Claude Debussy, 69130 Ecully Lyon, France; International Prevention Research Institute (iPRI), 95 Cours Lafayette, 69006 Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Breast cancer screening effectiveness in Portugal central Region. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017; 26 Joining forces for better cancer registration in Europe:S204-S207. [DOI: 10.1097/cej.0000000000000376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
4
|
Johns LE, Swerdlow AJ, Moss SM. Effect of population breast screening on breast cancer mortality to 2005 in England and Wales: A nested case-control study within a cohort of one million women. J Med Screen 2017; 25:76-81. [DOI: 10.1177/0969141317713232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) on breast cancer mortality in England and Wales and to compare findings with a cohort analysis of the same underlying population. Methods A nested case-control study within a cohort of 959,738 women in England and Wales aged 49–64 who were eligible for routine NHSBSP screening during 1991–2005. Cases who died from breast cancer in 1991–2005 were matched to controls without breast cancer at the case diagnosis date and alive when the case died. Risk of breast cancer mortality associated with intention to screen (ITS) (7047 cases/28,188 controls) and screening attendance (4707 cases/9413 controls) was examined. Bias was minimised in accordance with currently advocated best practice. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using conditional logistic regression. Results were compared with findings from an incidence-based breast cancer mortality cohort analysis. Results ITS was associated with a 21% breast cancer mortality reduction (OR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.88, P < 0.001). Attendance ≤5 years before diagnosis was associated with a 47% reduction in breast cancer mortality after self-selection correction (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46–0.62, P < 0.001). Breast cancer mortality reduction associated with ITS was 21% in both the case-control and cohort analyses, but the impact of attendance was marginally greater in the case-control analysis (36% vs. 32%). Conclusions Case-control studies designed and analysed according to current best practice guidelines offer an effective means of evaluating population breast screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise E Johns
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anthony J Swerdlow
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Susan M Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
|
6
|
Broeders M, Paci E. The Balance Sheet of Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Population-Based Screening in Europe: Outcome Research, Practice and Future Challenges. WOMENS HEALTH 2015; 11:883-90. [DOI: 10.2217/whe.15.34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer screening programs are still object of harsh debate. In 2012, the Independent UK Panel reviewed the benefits and harms of mammography screening based on randomized trials and the EUROSCREEN Working Group reviewed European observational outcome studies. The conclusion was that screening programs should continue, while acknowledging that harms, such as the occurrence of false-positive results and overdiagnosis, can have a negative impact on a woman's life. Information on the balance sheet of the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening should help women and their physicians to make an informed choice. The future challenge for breast screening programs is to assess the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and impact of risk-based screening in order to maximize benefit-to-harm ratios.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mireille Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Eugenio Paci
- Epidemiologist, Formerly at the Institute for Cancer Research and Prevention, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Paap E, Verbeek ALM, Botterweck AAM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Imhof-Tas M, de Koning HJ, Otto SJ, de Munck L, van der Steen A, Holland R, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM. Breast cancer screening halves the risk of breast cancer death: a case-referent study. Breast 2014; 23:439-44. [PMID: 24713277 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2013] [Revised: 03/03/2014] [Accepted: 03/03/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Large-scale epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of mammographic screening programs, however the benefits are still subject to debate. We estimated the effect of the Dutch screening program on breast cancer mortality. In a large multi-region case-referent study, we identified all breast cancer deaths in 2004 and 2005 in women aged 50-75 who had been invited for screening (cases). Cases were individually matched to referents from the population invited to screening. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of breast cancer death according to individual screening history. The OR was adjusted for self-selection bias using regional correction factors for the difference in baseline risk for breast cancer death between screened and unscreened women. A total of 1233 cases and 2090 referents were included in this study. We found a 58% reduction in breast cancer mortality in screened versus unscreened women (adjusted OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). Screening, i.e. early detection and treatment, has resulted in a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality, indicating that the Dutch breast cancer screening program is highly effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Paap
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - André L M Verbeek
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Mechli Imhof-Tas
- Department of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Screening Program Early Detection of Breast Cancer in the Eastern Part of the Netherlands, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzie J Otto
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Linda de Munck
- Comprehensive Cancer Centre the Netherlands, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Annemieke van der Steen
- Screening Program Early Detection of Breast Cancer in the South-West Part of the Netherlands, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
| | - Roland Holland
- National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Gerard J den Heeten
- National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Massat NJ, Sasieni PD, Parmar D, Duffy SW. An ongoing case-control study to evaluate the NHS breast screening programme. BMC Cancer 2013; 13:596. [PMID: 24330588 PMCID: PMC3866937 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-596] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2013] [Accepted: 12/04/2013] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background In England, a national breast screening programme (NHSBSP) has been in place since 1988, and assessment of its impact on breast cancer incidence and mortality is essential to ensure that the programme is indeed doing more good than harm. This article describes large observation studies designed to estimate the effects of the current programme in terms of the benefits on breast cancer incidence and mortality and detrimental effect in terms of overdiagnosis. The case-control design of the cervical screening programme evaluation was highly effective in informing policy on screening intervals and age ranges. We propose innovative selection of cases and controls and gathering of additional variables to address new outcomes of interest and develop new methodologies to control for potential sources of bias. Methods/Design Traditional case-control evaluation of breast screening uses women who have died from breast cancer as cases, and women known to be alive at the time of case death as controls. Breast screening histories prior to the cases’ date of first diagnosis are compared. If breast screening is preventing mortality from breast cancer, cases will be characterised by a lesser screening history than controls. All deaths and incident cases of primary breast cancer in England within each 2-year study period will be included in this ongoing evaluation. Cases will be age- and area-matched to controls and variables related to cancer treatment and breast tumour pathology will be obtained to investigate the interplay between screening and treatment, and the effect of screening on incidence of advanced stage disease. Screening attendance at other national screening programmes will also be collected to derive superior adjustment for self-selection bias. The study is registered and has received full ethics approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Stephen W Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine - Room 009, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, Massat N, Duffy S, Lynge E, Paci E. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 2013; 19 Suppl 1:14-25. [PMID: 22972807 DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 270] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the impact of population-based mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe, considering different methodologies and limitations of the data. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review of European trend studies (n = 17), incidence-based mortality (IBM) studies (n = 20) and case-control (CC) studies (n = 8). Estimates of the reduction in breast cancer mortality for women invited versus not invited and/or for women screened versus not screened were obtained. The results of IBM studies and CC studies were each pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Twelve of the 17 trend studies quantified the impact of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality. The estimated breast cancer mortality reductions ranged from 1% to 9% per year in studies reporting an annual percentage change, and from 28% to 36% in those comparing post- and prescreening periods. In the IBM studies, the pooled mortality reduction was 25% (relative risk [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.81) among invited women and 38% (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56-0.69) among those actually screened. The corresponding pooled estimates from the CC studies were 31% (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83), and 48% (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.65) adjusted for self-selection. CONCLUSIONS Valid observational designs are those where sufficient longitudinal individual data are available, directly linking a woman's screening history to her cause of death. From such studies, the best 'European' estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction is 25-31% for women invited for screening, and 38-48% for women actually screened. Much of the current controversy on breast cancer screening is due to the use of inappropriate methodological approaches that are unable to capture the true effect of mammographic screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mireille Broeders
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre & National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lönnberg S, Anttila A, Luostarinen T, Nieminen P. Age-Specific Effectiveness of the Finnish Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21:1354-61. [DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-12-0162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
11
|
Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Verbeek ALM, Boer R, Reijerink-Verheij JCIY, Otten JDM, Broeders MJM, de Koning HJ. Mammography Screening and Risk of Breast Cancer Death: A Population-Based Case–Control Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 21:66-73. [PMID: 22147362 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-11-0476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Suzie J Otto
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Coldman A, Phillips N. Population studies of the effectiveness of mammographic screening. Prev Med 2011; 53:115-7. [PMID: 21798279 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2011] [Revised: 07/05/2011] [Accepted: 07/11/2011] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine population data to see whether survival from breast cancer has improved differentially in screened and unscreened women and examine published studies on mammographic screening to determine whether there is evidence that screening is no longer effective. METHODS Data was reviewed on trends in breast cancer specific survival among women participating and not participating in the British Columbia Breast Screening Program. Population studies of mammographic screening published between 2000 and 2010 with breast cancer mortality as the outcome were also reviewed. RESULTS Breast cancer specific survival in British Columbia improved more in screening participants than non-participants, HR=0.74 (0.58,0.93) between the periods 1990-4 and 2000-4. Among the published studies of mortality between 2000 and 2010 selected from different jurisdictions all had found a reduction in breast cancer mortality although this was not always statistically different from zero. Studies had used a range of designs and evaluative methods which may have contributed to the magnitude of the effect reported. CONCLUSION No evidence was found in the British Columbia data and the published studies reviewed, that treatment or other changes, had caused mammographic screening to become ineffective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Coldman
- Surveillance and Outcomes Unit, British Columbia Cancer Agency, #800-686 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1G1.
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM, van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JDM, Donders R, Paap E, den Heeten GJ, Holland R. Reply: Flawed methods explain the effect of mammography screening in Nijmegen. Br J Cancer 2011. [PMCID: PMC3170965 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
|
14
|
Paap E, Verbeek A, Puliti D, Paci E, Broeders M. Breast cancer screening case–control study design: impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncol 2011; 22:863-869. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
|
15
|
van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JDM, Donders R, Paap E, den Heeten GJ, Holland R, Broeders MJM, Verbeek ALM. Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. Br J Cancer 2011; 104:910-4. [PMID: 21343930 PMCID: PMC3065280 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.44] [Citation(s) in RCA: 89] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2010] [Revised: 01/06/2011] [Accepted: 01/26/2011] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Favourable outcomes of breast cancer screening trials in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in the launch of population-based service screening programmes in many Western countries. We investigated whether improvements in mammography and treatment modalities have had an influence on the effectiveness of breast cancer screening from 1975 to 2008. METHODS In Nijmegen, the Netherlands, 55,529 women received an invitation for screening between 1975 and 2008. We designed a case-referent study to evaluate the impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality over time from 1975 to 2008. A total number of 282 breast cancer deaths were identified, and 1410 referents aged 50-69 were sampled from the population invited for screening. We estimated the effectiveness by calculating the odds ratio (OR) indicating the breast cancer death rate for screened vs unscreened women. RESULTS The breast cancer death rate in the screened group over the complete period was 35% lower than in the unscreened group (OR=0.65; 95% CI=0.49-0.87). Analysis by calendar year showed an increasing effectiveness from a 28% reduction in breast cancer mortality in the period 1975-1991 (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.47-1.09) to 65% in the period 1992-2008 (OR=0.35; 95% CI=0.19-0.64). CONCLUSION Our results show an increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality over time because of mammographic screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G van Schoor
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JDM, Donders R, Paap E, den Heeten GJ, Holland R, Broeders MJM, Verbeek ALM. Effective biennial mammographic screening in women aged 40-49. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:3137-40. [PMID: 21036034 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2010] [Revised: 09/20/2010] [Accepted: 09/27/2010] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The United Kingdom is currently moving the age limit for invitation in its national breast screening programme downwards from 50 to 47. In contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded that, because of borderline statistical significance on effectiveness of mammographic screening, the current evidence is insufficient to advise screening in women aged 40-49. MATERIAL AND METHODS We designed a case-referent study to investigate the effect of biennial mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality for women in their forties. In Nijmegen, the Netherlands, screening started in 1975. A total of 272 breast cancer deaths were identified, and 1360 referents aged 40-69 were sampled from the population invited for screening. Effectiveness was estimated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) indicating the breast cancer death rate in screened versus unscreened women. RESULTS In women aged 40-49, the effect of screening was OR = 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.30-0.82). This result is similar to those aged 50-59 (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.35-0.85) and 60-69 (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.38-1.13). CONCLUSION Our results add convincing evidence about the effectiveness of biennial mammographic screening in women aged 40-49.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guido van Schoor
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|