Article

Overdiagnosis in screening mammography in Denmark: population based cohort study

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Østre Farimagsgade 5, DK 1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 02/2013; 346:f1064. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f1064
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To use data from two longstanding, population based screening programmes to study overdiagnosis in screening mammography.
Population based cohort study.
Copenhagen municipality (from 1991) and Funen County (from 1993), Denmark.
57 763 women targeted by organised screening, aged 56-69 when the screening programmes started, and followed up to 2009.
Overdiagnosis of breast cancer in women targeted by screening, assessed by relative risks compared with historical control groups from screening regions, national control groups from non-screening regions, and historical national control groups.
In total, 3279 invasive breast carcinomas and ductal carcinomas in situ occurred. The start of screening led to prevalence peaks in breast cancer incidence: relative risk 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.64 to 2.59) for Copenhagen and 1.84 (1.46 to 2.32) for Funen. During subsequent screening rounds, relative risks were slightly above unity: 1.04 (0.85 to 1.27) for Copenhagen and 1.14 (0.98 to 1.32) for Funen. A compensatory dip was seen after the end of invitation to screening: relative risk 0.80 (0.65 to 0.98) for Copenhagen and 0.67 (0.55 to 0.81) for Funen during the first four years. The relative risk of breast cancer accumulated over the entire follow-up period was 1.06 (0.90 to 1.25) for Copenhagen and 1.01 (0.93 to 1.10) for Funen. Relative risks for participants corrected for selection bias were estimated to be 1.08 for Copenhagen and 1.02 for Funen; for participants followed for at least eight years after the end of screening, they were 1.05 and 1.01. A pooled estimate gave 1.040 (0.99 to 1.09) for all targeted women and 1.023 (0.97 to 1.08) for targeted women followed for at least eight years after the end of screening.
On the basis of combined data from the two screening programmes, this study indicated that overdiagnosis most likely amounted to 2.3% (95% confidence interval -3% to 8%) in targeted women. Among participants, it was most likely 1-5%. At least eight years after the end of screening were needed to compensate for the excess incidence during screening.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
70 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Overdiagnosis is the most important adverse event of breast cancer screening with the estimates ranging from 0% to 40-50% depending on invitational age and methods. We updated the estimates of overdiagnosis in Helsinki service screening study in Finland by comparing the observed and expected cumulative incidence of all breast carcinomas and invasive breast carcinomas.Methods:Women aged 50-59 years have been invited to Helsinki service screening since 1986. The incidence of breast carcinoma in the first invited birth cohorts born in 1935-1939 was compared with older, non-invited cohorts. The minimum follow-up time of the invitees after the last screening round was 14 years. Expected cumulative incidence rates were estimated with two alternative approaches.Results:For both any breast carcinoma and invasive breast carcinoma, the estimates of overdiagnosis varied from 5% (95% CI=-1, 11%) to 7% (95% CI=1, 13%) depending on the approach.Conclusions:Our estimates of overdiagnosis are of the same magnitude than other plausible estimates in Europe. Both alternative approaches produced similar estimates for the expected cumulative incidence, which increased the confidence in the estimates of overdiagnosis.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 14 August 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.413 www.bjcancer.com.
    British Journal of Cancer 08/2014; 111(7). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.413 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When estimating the decline in breast cancer mortality attributable to screening, the challenge is to provide valid comparison groups and to distinguish the screening effect from other effects. In Funen, Denmark, multidisciplinary breast cancer management teams started before screening was introduced; both activities came later in the rest of Denmark. Because Denmark had national protocols for breast cancer treatment, but hardly any opportunistic screening, Funen formed a "natural experiment", providing valid comparison groups and enabling the separation of the effect of screening from other factors. Using Poisson regression we compared the observed breast cancer mortality rate in Funen after implementation of screening with the expected rate without screening. The latter was estimated from breast cancer mortality in the rest of Denmark controlled for historical differences between Funen/rest of Denmark. As multidisciplinary teams were introduced gradually in the rest of Denmark from 1994, the screening effect was slightly underestimated. Over 14 years, women targeted by screening in Funen experienced a 22% (95% confidence interval 11%-32%) reduction in breast cancer mortality associated with screening (a reduction in breast cancer mortality rate from 61 to 47 per 100,000). The estimated reduction for participants corrected for selection bias was 28% (13%-41%). Excluding deaths in breast cancer cases diagnosed after end of screening, these numbers became 26% and 31%, respectively. There is additional benefit in reducing breast cancer mortality from the early detection of breast cancer through mammographic screening over and above the benefits arising from improvements in treatment alone. © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.
    Journal of Medical Screening 12/2014; DOI:10.1177/0969141314563632 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The sensitivity of a mammography program is normally evaluated by comparing the interval cancer rate to the expected breast cancer incidence without screening, i.e. the proportional interval cancer rate (PICR). The expected breast cancer incidence in absence of screening is, however, difficult to estimate when a program has been running for some time. As an alternative to the PICR we propose the interval cancer ratio ICR=intervalcancersintervalcancers+screendetectedcancers. We validated this simple measure by comparing it with the traditionally used PICR.
    BMC Cancer 01/2014; 14(1):782. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-782 · 3.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
19 Downloads
Available from
May 26, 2014