CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Breast Cancer

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 26 No. 5
Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
REVIEW ARTICLE 

Breast Cancer Screening: The Evolving Evidence

By Robert A. Smith, PhD1, Stephen W. Duffy, MSc2, László Tabár, MD, FACR (Hon)3 | May 15, 2012
1American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia 2Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 3Department of Mammography, Falun Central Hospital, Falun, Sweden

Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines

TABLE 3

Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women, From the American Cancer Society (2003) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (2009)

Breast cancer screening guidelines for average-risk women, from the American Cancer Society (ACS)[39] and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),[40] are commonly cited by primary care physicians as very influential in guiding their recommendations to patients.[41] Both organizations endorse the importance of mammography screening, but they differ in their recommendations for the age to begin and end screening, and in the screening interval (Table 3).

In 2002, the USPSTF had recommended mammography for women aged 40 years and older, with or without CBE, every 1 to 2 years.[42] This recommendation was similar to the ACS guidelines, which recommend annual mammography and CBE for women beginning at 40 years of age.[39] Also, similar to the ACS, the USPSTF had stated that the evidence that mammography screening was beneficial in women aged 40 to 69 was generalizable to women 70 years of age and older “if their life expectancy is not compromised by comorbid disease”—and essentially concluding that as long as a woman was in good health, mammography screening could be expected to be beneficial. The ACS recommendation for annual screening was based on improved sensitivity of mammography with annual vs biennial screening, especially in women under age 50, whereas the USPSTF recommendation for screening every 1 to 2 years was based on RCT evidence showing a mortality reduction associated with annual and biennial testing, and the absence of an RCT comparing the two intervals. In 2009, the USPSTF modified its recommendations, withdrawing a recommendation that women aged 40 to 49 undergo routine mammography screening every 1 to 2 years in favor of individualized decisions, and changing the recommendation that women 50 to 74 years of age be screened with mammography every 1 to 2 years to a biennial screening interval.[40] In the updated recommendations, the USPSTF also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of CBE, and also mammography screening for women 75 years of age and older.

(MORE: Breast Cancer Recurrence Is Dictated by High-Risk Biology, Not Choice of Surgery)

Although evidence from age-specific meta-analyses of RCT data showed similar mortality reductions from women randomized in their 40s and 50s, the USPSTF concluded that since a woman’s absolute risk of breast cancer during her 40s was lower, and the harms of screening were judged to be similar or slightly higher compared with older women, there was “moderate certainty that the net benefit was small.”[40] The underpinnings of this decision can be challenged on several points; First, the USPSTF chose to rely only on meta-analysis of RCT data, which as described above results in an underestimate of the benefit of modern mammography. This is especially problematic because the first generation of RCTs screened women under age 50 with protocols (2-year interval, single-view mammography, etc) that were shown to be ineffective in younger women. Second, while the absolute risk to women in their 40s is less than that of women in their 50s and 60s, it is not trivial; death from breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related premature mortality in women, and a leading cause of premature death from all causes. Third, the USPSTF overestimated the impact of the harms relative to benefits in two ways: 1) screening benefits estimated by the RCTs were compared with harms based on modern rates of false-positive results from a mammography surveillance registry. Since the true benefit of screening is underestimated in the RCTs because some women in the invited group are not exposed to any or all screening rounds, comparing harms measured among all women attending community based screening overestimates harms relative to benefits; 2) evidence that showed women are aware of false-positive results and regard them as an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of early detection was not included in the systematic review.[43]

Conclusion

There is strong evidence that mammography screening is an effective strategy to reduce the incidence of advanced breast cancer. Therefore, it is a means to reduce mortality by creating the opportunity to initiate breast cancer treatment earlier in the natural history of the disease. For screening programs to be successful, high rates of adherence to regular attendance must be coupled with high-quality screening and prompt delivery of state-of-the-art treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Because screening is inherently imperfect, efforts must be equally focused on reducing the adverse effects of false-positive tests, especially the fraction that is avoidable. Organized screening programs tend to be more successful in delivering high-quality screening and thus are preferable to opportunistic screening.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.

Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

This article reviewed

Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: What Are the Metrics

Breast Cancer Recurrence Is Dictated by High-Risk Biology, Not Choice of Surgery





References

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893-917.

2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10-29.

3. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:625-51.

4. Howlander N, Noone A, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2008. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2011.

5. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA. 1971;215:1777-85.

6. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829-32.

7. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053-60.

8. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, et al. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793-806.

9. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;
260:658-63.

10. US Food and Drug Administration: MQSA National Statistics. 2012. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed April 17, 2012.

11. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98-105.

12. Monsees BS. The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:759-72.

13. Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:79-86.

14. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: Performance measures for 1,960,150 screening mammography examinations from 2002 to 2006 by age--based on BCSC data as of 2009. National Cancer Institute, 2012. Available at http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/2009/perf_age.html. Accessed on April 17, 2012.

15. National Cancer Institute: Smoothed plots of frequency distributions of PPV3 for 32,031 screening mammography examinations: abnormal results for which biopsy was recommended and performed (among radiologists with 30 or more biopsies performed), 1996–2005. National Cancer Institute, 2012. Available at http://www.science.gov/topicpages/d/distribution+des+biopsies.html. Accessed April 17, 2012.

16. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA. Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys. 2008;95:599-611.

17. Gabe R, Duffy SW. Evaluation of service screening mammography in practice: the impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(Suppl 2):ii153-62.

18. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2011;343:d4411.

19. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami HO. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1203-10.

20. Wu JC, Anttila A, Yen AM, et al. Evaluation of breast cancer service screening programme with a Bayesian approach: mortality analysis in a Finnish region. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121:671-8.

21. Paap E, Holland R, den Heeten GJ, et al. A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1569-73.

22. Swedish Organized Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:45-51.

23. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Olsen AH, et al. Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen. 2010;17:25-30.

24. Gabe R, Tryggvadottir L, Sigfusson BF, et al. A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:948-55.

25. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer. 2011;117:714-22.

26. Swedish Organized Service Screening Evaluation Group. Effect of mammographic service screening on stage at presentation of breast cancers in Sweden. Cancer. 2007;109:2205-12.

27. Beral V, Alexander M, Duffy S, et al. The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer. J Med Screen. 2011;18:210-2.

28. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD001877.

29. Puliti D, Zappa M, Miccinesi G, et al. An estimate of overdiagnosis 15 years after the start of mammographic screening in Florence. Eur J Cancer. 2009;
45:3166-71.

30. Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabár L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005; 7:258-65.

31. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.

32. Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328:921-4.

33. Moss S. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:230-4.

34. Paci E, Miccinesi G, Puliti D, et al. Estimate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography after adjustment for lead time. A service screening study in Italy. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R68.

35. Waller M, Moss S, Watson J, Moller H. The effect of mammographic screening and hormone replacement therapy use on breast cancer incidence in England and Wales. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2257-61.

36. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, et al. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J. 2006;12:338-42.

37. Hofvind S, Thoresen S, Tretli S. The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer. 2004;101:1501-7.

38. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:481-92.

39. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:141-69.

40. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716-26.

41. Meissner HI, Klabunde CN, Han PK, et al. Breast cancer screening beliefs, recommendations and practices: primary care physicians in the United States. Cancer. 2011;117:3101-11.

42. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:344-6.

43. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, et al. US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;320:1635-40.


 
RELATED CONTENT

ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
June 18, 2013
Postmenopausal Hormone Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer
ONCOLOGY,  June 17, 2013
Fertility Preservation and Breast Cancer: A Complex Problem
ONCOLOGY,  June 17, 2013
Metaplastic Mammary Carcinoma With Discrepant Hormone Receptor Results by IHC and RT-PCR
ONCOLOGY,  June 17, 2013
Supreme Court Ruling Invalidates Myriad’s BRCA Gene Patents
June 14, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • A 48-Year-Old Woman With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • ASCO: Dabrafenib Shows Activity in BRAF-Mutated NSCLC Patients
  • Preventing Burnout in Oncology
  • ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
  • Physical Activity Across the Cancer Continuum
  • Exercise After Cancer Diagnosis: Time to Get Moving
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • ASCO: Vinegar Screening Significantly Reduces Cervical Cancer Mortality
  • ASCO: Sulforaphane in Prostate Cancer Found Worthy of Further Investigation
  • Study: Recurrent Heartburn Ups Risk for Throat Cancer
  • Radiation-Induced Enteritis: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Management
  • HER2-Directed Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook
 
SearchMedica SEARCH RESULTS

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Breast Cancer
Evidence on Breast Cancer
Guidelines on Breast Cancer
Patient Education on Breast Cancer
Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer
Practical Articles on Breast Cancer
Research and Reviews on Breast Cancer
All "Breast Cancer" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy