The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer

University of Oxford, UK.
Journal of Medical Screening (Impact Factor: 3.1). 12/2011; 18(4):210-2. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2011.011134
Source: PubMed


The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer depends strongly on several factors, including the age at which regular screening starts, the period over which it continues, and the duration of follow-up after screening. Furthermore, more women would need to be INVITED for screening than would need to be SCREENED to prevent one death, since not all women invited attend for screening or are screened regularly. Failure to consider these important factors accounts for many of the major discrepancies between different published estimates. The randomised evidence indicates that, in high income countries, around one breast cancer death would be prevented in the long term for every 400 women aged 50-70 years regularly screened over a ten-year period.


Available from: Rosalind Given Wilson
  • Source
    • "The group concluded that for biennial screening for 20 years starting at age 50 in a typical European country, and with follow-up to age 79, a 38–48% reduction in breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis of 6.5% of all breast cancer would be expected in screened women (Paci and EUROSCREEN Working Group, 2012). Differences in estimates of benefits and harms of mammography screening may be due to differences in delivered interventions, data sources used, the choice of denominators, and length of follow-up (Beral et al, 2011; Paci and EUROSCREEN Working Group, 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The benefits and harms of population-wide mammography screening have been long debated. This study evaluated the impact of screening frequency and age range on breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis. Methods: We developed a Markov simulation model for the evaluation of mammography screening in a cohort of British women born in 1935–40. Results: For triennial screening in women aged 47–73, breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis was 18.1% (95% confidence interval: 17.3%, 19.0%) and 5.6% (5.1%, 6.1%), of all breast cancer deaths and diagnoses, respectively, from age 40 to 85 years. For annual screening in the same age range, estimates for both outcomes increased considerably to 35.0% (34.2%, 35.7%) and 7.6% (7.1%, 8.1%), respectively. For the age extension of triennial screening from 50–70 to 47–73, we estimated 5 (3, 7) incremental breast cancer deaths avoided and 14 (9, 19) incremental cases overdiagnosed per 10 000 women invited for screening. Conclusions: Estimates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis were highly dependent on screening frequency, age range, and uptake, which may explain differences between some previous estimates obtained from randomised trials and from service screening.
    British Journal of Cancer 04/2014; 110(10). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.206 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer among women in the developed and developing world. Detecting and treating breast cancer earlier in its natural history improve prognosis and result in a reduction in breast cancer mortality. There have been eight population-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mammography screening, which individually and collectively provide strong support for the efficacy of breast cancer screening. The evaluation of modern service screening also has shown that modern breast cancer screening is contributing to reductions in breast cancer mortality at a rate as good as or better than that observed in the RCTs. In the last decade, different interpretations of the evidence from the RCTs and observational studies have resulted in different screening guidelines and contentious academic debates over the balance of benefits and potential harms from breast cancer screening. In this paper, the historic and recent evidence supporting the value of breast cancer screening will be described, along with the underpinnings of the current debate over the relative and absolute benefit of regular mammography screening.
    Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) 05/2012; 26(5):471-5, 479-81, 485-6. · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To construct a European 'balance sheet' of key outcomes of population-based mammographic breast cancer screening, to inform policy-makers, stakeholders and invited women. Methods: From the studies reviewed, the primary benefit of screening, breast cancer mortality reduction, was compared with the main harms, over-diagnosis and false-positive screening results (FPRs). Results: Pooled estimates of breast cancer mortality reduction among invited women were 25% in incidence-based mortality studies and 31% in case-control studies (38% and 48% among women actually screened). Estimates of over-diagnosis ranged from 1% to 10% of the expected incidence in the absence of screening. The combined estimate of over-diagnosis for screened women, from European studies correctly adjusted for lead time and underlying trend, was 6.5%. For women undergoing 10 biennial screening tests, the estimated cumulative risk of a FPR followed by non-invasive assessment was 17%, and 3% having an invasive assessment. For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50-51 until age 68-69 and followed up to age 79, an estimated seven to nine lives are saved, four cases are over-diagnosed, 170 women have at least one recall followed by non-invasive assessment with a negative result and 30 women have at least one recall followed by invasive procedures yielding a negative result. Conclusions: The chance of saving a woman's life by population-based mammographic screening of appropriate quality is greater than that of over-diagnosis. Service screening in Europe achieves a mortality benefit at least as great as the randomized controlled trials. These outcomes should be communicated to women offered service screening in Europe.
    Journal of Medical Screening 11/2012; 19(S1):5. DOI:10.1258/jms.2012.012077 · 3.10 Impact Factor
Show more