Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26501537/ below:

Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Review

Affiliations

• ¹ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ² Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina3Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ³ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina4Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina5Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical.
• ⁴ Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁵ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁶ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina4Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁷ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

• PMID: 26501537
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183

Item in Clipboard

Review

Evan R Myers et al. JAMA. 2015.

• ¹ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ² Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina3Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ³ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina4Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina5Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical.
• ⁴ Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁵ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁶ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina4Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
• ⁷ Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

• PMID: 26501537
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183

Item in Clipboard

• Unclear Information in Table.

  [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA. 2016 Apr 5;315(13):1406. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3295. JAMA. 2016. PMID: 27046377 No abstract available.

Importance: Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

Objective: To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Evidence review: We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews.

Findings: Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE.

Conclusions and relevance: For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.

  Medical Advisory Secretariat. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007;7(1):1-32. Epub 2007 Jan 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007. PMID: 23074501 Free PMC article.

• Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

  Pillay J, Guitard S, Rahman S, Saba S, Rahman A, Bialy L, Gehring N, Tan M, Melton A, Hartling L. Pillay J, et al. Syst Rev. 2024 May 28;13(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02539-8. Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38807191 Free PMC article.

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

  Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CB, Ergun MA, van den Broek JJ, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, van Ravesteyn NT, Near AM, Gangnon RE, Hampton JM, Chandler Y, de Koning HJ, Mandelblatt JS, Tosteson AN; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 15;165(10):700-712. doi: 10.7326/M16-0476. Epub 2016 Aug 23. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27548583 Free PMC article.

• Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

  Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Nelson HD, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):256-67. doi: 10.7326/M15-0970. Epub 2016 Jan 12. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 26756737 Review.

• Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

  Ringash J; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Ringash J, et al. CMAJ. 2001 Feb 20;164(4):469-76. CMAJ. 2001. PMID: 11233866 Free PMC article. Review.

• Utilization of screening mammography in older women according to comorbidity and age: protocol for a systematic review.

  Demb J, Allen I, Braithwaite D. Demb J, et al. Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 4;5(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0345-y. Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27716433 Free PMC article.

• Association of education level with the risk of female breast cancer: a prospective cohort study.

  Jiang R, Wang X, Sun Z, Wu S, Chen S, Cai H. Jiang R, et al. BMC Womens Health. 2023 Mar 7;23(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02245-y. BMC Womens Health. 2023. PMID: 36882777 Free PMC article.

• Does regular quality control improve the quality of surgery in Slovenian breast cancer screening program?

  Perhavec A, Milicevic S, Peric B, Zgajnar J. Perhavec A, et al. Radiol Oncol. 2020 May 28;54(4):488-494. doi: 10.2478/raon-2020-0030. Radiol Oncol. 2020. PMID: 32463384 Free PMC article.

• Pink October and Breast Cancer in Brazil.

  Sá MFS. Sá MFS. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;43(10):725-727. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1739451. Epub 2021 Nov 16. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2021. PMID: 34784627 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

• The risk of cardiovascular disease following breast cancer by Framingham risk score.

  Gernaat SAM, Boer JMA, van den Bongard DHJ, Maas AHEM, van der Pol CC, Bijlsma RM, Grobbee DE, Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH. Gernaat SAM, et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jul;170(1):119-127. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4723-0. Epub 2018 Feb 28. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018. PMID: 29492735 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3