Non-palpable invasive breast carcinomas from the Stockholm screening project

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (June 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. We excluded a biased trial from analysis. Two trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.09) at 13 years; four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, RR 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83) (P = 0.02 for difference between the two estimates). RR for all six trials combined was 0.80 (0.73 to 0.88). The two trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, RR 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, RR 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04) after 13 years. We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups, RR 1.31 (1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. Based on all trials, the reduction is 20%, but as the effect is lower in the highest quality trials, a more reasonable estimate is a 15% relative risk reduction. Based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with an estimated 30% increase, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.

Will we need lymph node dissection at all in the future?

Traditionally in the treatment of primary breast cancer, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) plays an important role. However, a substantial and increasing percentage of patients appear to have no nodal involvement and have been subjected to ALND unnecessarily. The first reason to perform an ALND is axillary nodal staging. After reviewing the literature, it can be concluded that in clinically node-negative patients an adequately conducted lymphatic mapping by sentinel node procedure is equal to ALND for this purpose. The second reason to perform an ALND is to establish the extent of nodal involvement, which might have an impact on adjuvant treatment recommendations. However, there is no evidence available that patients with extensive nodal involvement (= 4 positive nodes) benefit more from adjuvant systemic treatment (either standard or high dose) in terms of reduction of odds of recurrence and mortality compared to patients with limited nodal involvement and optimally administered so-called standard adjuvant treatment. The third reason to perform an ALND is to ensure axillary tumor control. Reviewing the different treatment options, it can be concluded that in clinically node-negative patients axillary control after axillary radiotherapy appears to be similar to axillary control after ALND. In clinically overt axillary involvement, ALND (with or without adjuvant radiotherapy) may result in an improved regional control. In the near future, ALND will not be the standard of care but will be reserved for those patients with proven axillary lymph node involvement. In microscopic disease, radiotherapy may be an alternative with equal control and less morbidity.

Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography

PURPOSE

To determine the false-negative rate in screening mammography, the capability of computer-aided detection (CAD) to identify these missed lesions, and whether or not CAD increases the radiologists' recall rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All available screening mammograms that led to the detection of biopsy-proved cancer (n = 1,083) and the most recent corresponding prior mammograms (n = 427) were collected from 13 facilities. Panels of radiologists evaluated the retrospectively visible prior mammograms by means of blinded review. All mammograms were analyzed by a CAD system that marks features associated with cancer. The recall rates of 14 radiologists were prospectively measured before and after installation of the CAD system.

RESULTS

At retrospective review, 67% (286 of 427) of screening mammography-detected breast cancers were visible on the prior mammograms. At independent, blinded review by panels of radiologists, 27% (115 of 427) were interpreted as warranting recall on the basis of a statistical evaluation index; and the CAD system correctly marked 77% (89 of 115) of these cases. The original attending radiologists' sensitivity was 79% (427 of [427 + 115]). There was no statistically significant increase in the radiologists' recall rate when comparing the values before (8.3%) with those after (7.6%) installation of the CAD system.

CONCLUSION

The original attending radiologists had a false-negative rate of 21% (115 of [427 + 115]). CAD prompting could have potentially helped reduce this false-negative rate by 77% (89 of 115) without an increase in the recall rate.

Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the accuracy of mammographic screening.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of published literature.

DATA SOURCES

Published English-language randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and demonstration projects involving screening mammography were identified using recent review articles. We found additional references using MEDLINE searches combining the MeSH terms "mammography," "screening," and/or study authors and locations.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all studies that provided information to calculate the true-positive rate (TPR) and the false-positive rate (FPR) for breast cancer screening.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reported data were reviewed independently by the authors; calculations were compared and discrepancies resolved. We calculated the sensitivity as the number of breast cancers detected during the first round of screening (true positives) divided by the sum of the true positives and the false negatives (defined as cancer discovered within 1 year of screening). False-positives were determined by biopsy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

TPR and FPR values from each study were plotted in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. Tests of homogeneity were performed to assess the validity of using summary ROC curves or a single point to summarize the data. The reported TPR and FPR of mammography ranged from 83% to 95% and 0.9% to 6.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of mammography is higher in women over the age of 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of mammography should be recognized and included in discussions about policies for screening for breast cancer. This meta-analysis, by quantifying the expected TPR/FPR, should assist program planners, physicians, and women to understand better the cost and clinical implications of such screening programs.

Informing the mammography coverage debate. Results of meta-analysis, computer modeling, and issue analysis

Methods of meta-analysis, computer modeling, and issue analysis are used to answer four key questions related to efficacy, cost, and political feasibility of legislating insurance coverage for mammography. The findings are presented, and the strengths and weaknesses of the combined use of these methods to inform policy debate at the regional level are discussed.