The breast cancer screening controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49

Radiology

Volumn 210, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 4-9

  Kopans, Daniel B ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast radiography, utilization; Editorials

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EID: 0032899962     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.210.1.r99ja504     Document Type: Editorial

References (72)

1. Fletcher SW. Whither scientific deliberation in health policy recommendations: Alice in Wonderland of breast-cancer screening. N Engl Med 1997; 336:1180-1183.
2. Mittra I, Naresh KN. Unexpected failures . . . and successes. Lancet 1997; 350(suppl III):17.
3. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Contentious screening decisions: does choice matter? N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1243-1244.
4. Eddy DM. Breast cancer screening in women younger than 50 years of age: what next? Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1035-1036.
5. Ransohoff DF, Harris RP. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:1029-1034.
6. Woolf SH, Lawrence RS. Preserving scientific debate and patient choice: lessons from the Consensus Panel on Mammography Screening. JAMA 1997; 278:2105-2107.
7. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:955-965.
8. National Insititutes of Health. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. Panel Statement, National Insititutes of Health Consensus Development Statement. Press release. January 23, 1997.
9. Consensus statement. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49. Monogr J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:vii-xii.
10. Taubes G. The breast-screening brawl: how one radiologist turns up the heat. Science 1997; 275:1056-1059.
11. Tabar L, Larson LG, Andersson I, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49: report of the organizing committee and collaborators, Falun meeting, Falun, Sweden, 21-22 March 1996. Int J Cancer 1996; 68:693-699.
12. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270:2444-2450.
13. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273:149-153.
14. Kattlove H, Alessandro L, Keeler E, Brook RH. Benefits and costs of screening for early breast cancer: development of a basic benefit package. JAMA 1995; 273: 142-148.
15. Lee DD, Love SM. Mammographic screening. JAMA 1994; 271:152-153.
16. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The breast is close to the heart. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117:969-971.
17. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1644-1656.
18. Baines CJ. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a perspective on criticisms. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:326-334.
19. Sox H. Screening mammography in women younger than 50 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:550-552.
20. Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:539-547.
21. Chalmers TC. Screening for breast cancer: what should national health policy be? J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1619-1621.
22. Peer PG, Holland R, Jan HCL, Hendriks, Mravunac M, Verbeek ALM. Age-specific effectiveness of Nijmegen population-based breast cancer-screening program: assessment of early indicators of screening effectiveness. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:436-441.
23. Harris R. Breast cancer among women in their forties: toward a reasonable research agenda. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:410-412.
24. Kaluzny AD, Rimer B, Harris R. The National Cancer Institute and Guideline Development: lessons from the breast cancer screening controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:901-903.
25. Swanson GM. May we agree to disagree, or how do we develop guidelines for breast cancer screening in women? J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:901-903.
26. Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:720-731.
27. Rimer B. Putting the "informed" in informed consent about mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:703-704.
28. Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1621-1624.
29. Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Mammographic screening for women aged 40-49 years: the primary care practitioner's dilemma. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:534-538.
30. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. JAMA 1995; 274:881-884.
31. Kassirer JP, Angell M. Controversial journal editorials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1460-1461.
32. May DS, Lee NC, Nadel MR, Henson RM, Miller DS. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report of the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women. AJR 1998; 170:97-104.
33. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270:2444-2450.
34. Kopans DB, Halpern E, Hulka CA. Statistical power in breast cancer screening trials and mortality reduction among women 40-49 with particular emphasis on the National Breast Screening Study of Canada. Cancer 1994; 74:1196-1203.
35. Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2:93-113.
36. Moher D, Dulberg C, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272:122-124.
37. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49: current evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Cancer 1995; 75:1619-1626.
38. House Committee on Government Operations. Misused science: the National Cancer Institutes elimination of mammography guidelines for women in their forties. Union Calendar No 480. House Report 103-863. October 20, 1994.
39. Kopans DB. Updated results of the trials of screening mammography. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1996; 6:233-263.
40. Statement approved by the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Board of Scientific Counselors, on October 22, 1993. Press release from the National Cancer Institute.
41. Kopans DB. The National Breast Screening Study of Canada: a critical review of the results for women ages 40-49. Presented to the International Workshop on Screening of Breast Cancer, Bethesda, Md, February 24-25, 1993.
42. Eckhardt S, Badellino F, Murphy GP. UICC meeting on breast-cancer screening in pre-menopausal women in developed countries. Int J Cancer 1994; 56:1-5.
43. Eyre H, Sondik E, Smith RA, Kessler L. Joint meeting on the feasibility of a study of screening premenopausal women (40-49 years) for breast cancer: April 20-21, 1994. Cancer 1995; 75:1391-1403.
44. Shapiro S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancer 1994; 74:231-238.
45. Questions and answers on mammography for women ages 40-49. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute's Press Office, Office of Communications; February 25, 1997.
46. Guidelines for Planning and Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences. National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, Office of Medical Applications of Research, Bethesda, Md, May 13, 1993.
47. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benenfit of screening mammography in women ages 40-49: a new metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87-92.
48. Kolata G. Stand on mammograms greeted by outrage. New York Times, Tuesday, January 28, 1997.
49. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 30-49 at randomization. Cancer 1997; 80:2091-2099.
50. Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under 50: update from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:63-67.
51. Feig SA. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40-49. Cancer 1997; 80: 2035-2039.
52. Boyd NF, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler D, Lockwood G, Zylak CJ. A critical appraisal of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology 1993; 189: 661-663.
53. Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR 1993; 161:755-760.
54. Tarone RE. The excess of patients with advanced breast cancers in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1995; 75:997-1003.
55. Boyd NE. The review of randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: is the debate over? Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156:207-209.
56. Prorok PC, Hankey BF, Bundy BN. Concepts and problems in the evaluation of screening programs. J Chron Dis 1981; 34:159-171.
57. Kopans DB. The case in favor of mammographic screening for women in their forties. In: Jatoi I. Breast cancer screening. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 1997; 9-34.
58. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized, controlled trial. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 27-30.
59. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Chen HH. Re: quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish Breast Cancer Screening Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:52-53.
60. Larson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40-49 at randomization. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:57-61.
61. Lindis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1998. Cancer 1998; 48: 6-29.
62. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay JB, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33-38.
63. Linver MN, Paster SB. Mammography outcomes in a practice setting by age: prognostic factors, sensitivity, and positive biopsy rate. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:113-117.
64. Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. Biasing the interpretation of mammography screening data by age grouping, nothing changes abruptly at age 50. Breast J 1998; 4:139-145.
65. Kopans DB. An overview of the breast cancer screening controversy for the NIH Consensus Development Conference on Screening Women Ages 40-49 for Breast Cancer. JNCI 1997 Monograph No 22; 1-3.
66. Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographically intitated breast biopsy: there is no abrupt change at age 50 years. Radiology 1996; 200:357-360.
67. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN. Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical assessment. Cancer 1996; 77:903-909.
68. Feig SA, Hendrick RE. Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40-49. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:119-124.
69. Minority Report: National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49. Monogr J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:xii-xviii.
70. Mammography screening for women ages 40-49 not supported by data, NIH panel says. Cancer Letter 1997; 23:1-12.
71. Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guide for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. Cancer 1997; 47:150-153.
72. Feig SA, D'Orsi C, Hendrick E, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR 1998; 171: 29-33.