Breast cancer screening: Controversies and future directions

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-8

  Retsky, Michael ^a   Demicheli, Romano ^b   Hrushesky, William ^c  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^c WJB Dorn VA Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Angiogenesis; Breast cancer; Computer simulation; Dormancy; Early detection; Mammography; Screening controversy; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGENESIS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE COURSE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; METASTASIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELAPSE; REVIEW; SURGICAL WOUND; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL RATE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037306745     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001703-200302000-00001     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Yhun M. Cancer Statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51:15-36.
2. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724-1731. Comment in: Cancer 2001; 91:1699-1703; Cancer 2002; 94:578-579, discussion 581-583; Cancer 2002; 94:578, discussion 581-583; Cancer 2002; 94:579-580, discussion 581-583; Cancer 2002; 94:580-581, discussion 581-583.
3. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:305-312. An important, finely detailed review of the Canadian trial for young women. The authors also discuss why there were more patients diagnosed with many nodes in the mammography group compared with the control group. They also address the need to understand the mortality surge at 3 years of screening in young women.
4. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:347-360. An important summary of all trial data and US Preventive Services Task Force conclusions.
5. Sox H. Screening mammography for younger women: back to basics. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:361-362. A discussion of the update on the Canadian trial by Miller et al. [3••] and the report from the US Preventive Services Task Force by Humphry et al. [4••].
6. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-134.
7. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:1340-1342. This is the Olsen and Gotzsche paper as sanctioned by the Cochrane Breast Group. The full review is on the Web as is the original 2000 paper at the Lancet website (lancet.com). The review is available at http://image.thelancet.com/lancet/extra/fullreport.pdf.
8. de Koning HJ. Commentary - assessment of nationwide cancer screening programmes. Lancet 2000; 355:80-81.
9. Rozenberg S, Liebens F, Ham H. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:751-752, discussion 752.
10. Baum M. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:751, discussion 752.
11. Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:750-751, discussion 752.
12. Cates C, Senn S. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:750, discussion 752.
13. Law M, Hackshaw A, Wald N. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:749-750, discussion 752.
14. Hayes C, Fitzpatrick P, Daly L, Buttimer J. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:749, discussion 752.
15. Nystrom L. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:748-749, discussion 752.
16. Moss S, Blanks R, Quinn MJ. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:748, discussion 752.
17. Duffy SW, Tabar L. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:747-748, discussion 752.
18. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet 2000; 355:747, discussion 752.
19. Cady B. Screening mammography: the continuous dilemma. Breast J 2002; 8:185-186.
20. Horton R. Screening mammography - an overview revisited. Lancet 2001; 358:1284-1285.
21. Mammography: what's a woman to do? Johns Hopkins Med Lett Health After 50. 2002; 14:4-5. A good summary of how the different professional and policy groups have responded to the controversial situation.
22. van Veen WA, Knottnerus JA. Screening mammography. Lancet 2002; 359:1701. The Netherlands will continue to screen women older than 50 years of age.
23. Saul H. Mammography: consensus in sight? Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:1035. Thoughtful comments in interviews of Baum and de Wolf.
24. Burton A. Europe continues breast screening despite doubts. Lancet Oncol 2002; 3:258. Various European countries react differently to uncertainty.
25. Baum M. Screening - a cruel deception. Practitioner 2002; 246:293. Baum discusses whether women are provided proper information on the benefits and risks of screening. Surgeon, researcher and social-medical historian, Baum's opinions should not be taken lightly.
26. Lee CH. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40:395-407. The viewpoint of screening controversy from an academic diagnostic radiologist.
27. Hoey J. Does mammography save lives? Can Med Assoc J 2002; 166:1187-1188. The author reviews a paper published in 2002 in the Lancet by Miettinen et al., and makes suggestions for screening women aged 55 years and older.
28. Arnold K. Mammography guidelines in the national spotlight again. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:411-413. A news feature. An interesting background and interviews especially with Barron Lerner on the polarization of viewpoints on controversy.
29. Redger A. Is it worth screening women over 70 for breast cancer - or indeed any women? Med J Aust 2002; 176:247-248. The author on the Cochrane Breast Group discusses the paper by Barratt et al. [30•]
30. Barratt AL, Les Irwig M, Glasziou PP, et al. Benefits, harms and costs of screening mammography in women 70 years and over: a systematic review. Med J Aust 2002; 176:266-271. An interesting comparison of the effectiveness and costs of screening women at different ages in Australia.
31. Gelmon KA, Olivotto I. The mammography screening debate: time to move on. Lancet 2002; 359:904-905. A thoughtful letter suggesting that it is time to move on from screening to questions of molecular diagnosis, optimizing therapies and improving survival of women.
32. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359:909-919. An important update of all Swedish trials excluding Kopparberg - one of the Two County Trials.
33. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA. The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52:68-71. A criticism of the Olsen and Gotzsche thesis. The case for mammography screening is presented by steadfast advocates. Their arguments are not always persuasive in our opinion.
34. Editorial. Confusion over mammography screening intensifies. Lancet Oncol 2002; 3:127. A good summary concluding with a recommendation for new, strictly controlled, high-quality trials.
35. Feig SA. Current status of screening mammography. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002; 29:123-136. In our opinion, this is an overoptimistic viewpoint of the value of screening.
36. Juffs HG, Tannock IF. Screening trials are even more difficult than we thought they were. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:156-157. Editorial comments on the paper by Black et al. [37••].
37. Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:167-173. This important paper discusses problems encountered when screening trials use breast (or other) cancer-specific mortality as an endpoint. On the basis of this analysis, the Edinburgh trial had inadequate randomization as Olsen and Gotzsche claimed.
38. Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Editors. Screening mammography: setting the record straight. Lancet 2002; 359; 439-440, discussion 440-442. A discussion of why there are two slightly different versions of the Gotzsche and Olsen documents.
39. Goodman SN. The mammography dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine? Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:363-365. A very good editorial, especially or: the burden required when eliminating data from consideration.
40. Wells J, Marshall P, Crawley B, Dickersin K. Newspaper reporting of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:1029-1037. A discussion on the influence of newspaper reporting on mammography.
41. Shen Y, Zelen M. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3490-3499. Statisticians compare the importance of physical examination and mammography.
42. Norton L. Letter to editor. New York Times, 3 Feb 2002. In an extraordinary public letter, the President of the American Society for Clinical Oncology urges women to continue following current screening guidelines.
43. Kopans DB. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2002; 94:580-581, discussion 581-583. This author has long been an unwavering and vocal advocate of mammography.
44. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52:8-22.
45. Keith LG, Oleszczuk JJ, Laguens M. Are mammography and palpation sufficient for breast cancer screening? A dissenting opinion. J Womens Health Gender Based Med 2002; 11:17-25. The authors discuss the variability of interpretation and other limitations of mammography, especially for women with dense breasts. They advise including thermal detectors as another modality.
46. von Eschenbach AC. NCI remains committed to current mammography guidelines. Oncologist 2002; 7:170-171. The NCI Director cites Begg [47•] and stays with the recommendation that screening start at the age of 40 years, with mammograms every 1-2 years.
47. Begg CB. The mammography controversy. Oncologist 2002; 7:174-176. A statistician does not find genuine substance in the Olsen and Gotzsche papers.
48. Dixon-Woods M, Baum M, Kurinczuk JJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2166-2167, discussion 2167-2168. The authors are critical of UK informed consent information on screening.
49. Vaidya JS. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2166, discussion 2167-2168. We should stop talking about early detection and instead think about learning how to live with dormant cancers, according to this author.
50. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2166, discussion 2167-2168. The Olsen and Gotzsche paper is riddled with misrepresentation, inconsistency, and errors according to this letter. Gotzsche replies to these comments.
51. Thornton H. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2165, discussion 2167-2168. This letter criticizes the Cochrane Breast Cancer Review group for interfering with the scientific freedom of Olsen and Gotszche.
52. Lee JH, Zuckerman D. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2164-2165, discussion 2167-2168. Concern is expressed about the use of meta-analysis (which has its own biases) to make important health policy decisions.
53. Miller AB. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2164, discussion 2167-2168. The author, a co-Principal Investigator of the Canadian trial and who also worked on the 1964 era HIP trial, defends HIP trial against criticism by Olsen and Gotzsche, stating that HIP is not flawed. On the basis of our previous communications with this author, we accept this information. The original Principal Investigator of HIP, Sam Shapiro, died several years ago.
54. Senn S. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:2165, discussion 2167-2168. The author defends the cluster method of randomization as used in the Edinburgh trial, and is critical of the statistical software package used by the Cochrane Collaboration.
55. Cimons M. Experts at odds over mammography. Nat Med 2002; 8:202.
56. Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, et al. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:1704-1713. Documentation on screening utility.
57. Tabar L, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Update on effects of screening mammography. Lancet 2002; 360:337. An interesting comparison of individual trial results with the percentage of cancers found with node-positive disease.
58. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Update on effects of screening mammography. Lancet 2002; 360:339-340. Authors' reply to Tabar et al [57•].
59. Goodman NW. Screening mammography: but how do women decide? Lancet 2002; 360:171. The author argues to have patience and await clearer answers.
60. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am Fam Physician 2002; 65:2537-2544. The US Preventive Services Task Force statement has changed - now includes women aged 40-49 years, but downgrades evidence from level A to level B.
61. PDQ on the National Cancer Institute website cancer.gov. [accessed August 2002] Reflecting the uncertainty around the world, even organizations within the National Cancer Institute do not agree on guidelines for screening. This useful site is closely associated with Donald Berry, a highly regarded biostatistician and frequently quoted critic of mammography.
62. McTiernan A. Recent controversies in mammography screening for breast cancer. Medscape Womens Health 2002; 7:3.
63. Royak-Schaler R, Klabunde CN, Greene WF, et al. Communicating breast cancer risk: patient perceptions of provider discussions. Medscape Womens Health 2002; 7:2.
64. Wilcken N. Mammography screening. Lancet Oncol 2002; 3:268. A member of the board of the Cochrane Breast Group discusses whether academic freedom was jeopardized when the group decided against publishing the original Olsen and Gotzsche paper.
65. Vacek PM, Geller BM, Weaver DL, Foster Jr RS. Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975-1999. Cancer 2002; 94:2160-2168. Good information on the effect of mammography on the percentage of women detected with small tumors and negative nodes in one state.
66. Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2001; 55:799-803. A survey conducted in Geneva shows perceptions of breast cancer risk and the utility of mammography.
67. Walter LC, Eng C, Covinsky KE. Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens? J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16:779-784. The authors determine the value of mammography in a nursing home setting.
68. Mayor S. Row over breast cancer screening shows that scientists bring 'some subjectivity into their work'. BMJ 2001; 323:956. Internal politics at the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group.
69. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52:8-22. A yearly update of the American Cancer Society screening guidelines.
70. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22. (1997 Consensus Conference) On the web at www3.oup.co.uk/jnci/cancerspectrum/monographs/monograph_22/.
71. Larsson L-G, Anderson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age group 40-49 at randomization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:57-61.
72. Alexander F. The Edinburgh randomized trial of breast cancer screening, NIH consensus conference on breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 31:31-36.
73. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized controlled trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:27-30.
74. Cox B. Variation in the effectiveness of breast screening by year of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:69-72.
75. Demicheli R, Abbattista A, Miceli R, et al. Time distribution of the recurrence risk for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy: further support about the concept of tumor dormancy. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 1996; 41:177-185.
76. Holmberg L, Baum M. Work on your theories! Nat Med 1996; 2:844-846.
77. Baum M, Badwe RA. Does surgery influence the natural history of breast cancer? In: Breast cancer: controversies in management. Wise H, Johnson HJ (editors). Armonk, NY: Futura; 1994. pp. 61-69.
78. Baum M, Chaplain M, Anderson A, et al. Does breast cancer exist in a state of chaos? Eur J Cancer 1999; 35:886-891.
79. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Adjuvant Project for breast cancers (protocol no. 4). Cancer 1984; 53 (Suppl. 3):712-723.
80. Veronesi U, Marubini E, Del Vecchio M, et al. Local recurrences and distant metastases after conservative breast cancer treatments: partly independent events. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:19-27.
81. Fortin A, Larochelle M, Laverdiere J, et al. Local failure is responsible for the decrease in survival for patients with breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:101-109.
82. Bedwinek J. Adjuvant irradiation for early breast cancer. An on-going controversy. Cancer 1984; 53 (Suppl. 3):729-739.
83. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2738-2746.
84. Retsky MW, Demicheli R, Swartzendruber DE, et al. Computer simulation of a breast cancer metastasis model. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 1997; 45:193-202.
85. Demicheli R, Retsky M, Swartzendruber D, Bonadonna G. Proposal for a new model of breast cancer metastatic development. Ann Oncol 1997; 8:1075-1080.
86. Holmgren L, O'Reilly MS, Folkman J. Dormancy of micrometastases: balanced proliferation and apoptosis in the presence of angiogenesis suppression. Nat Med 1995; 1:149-153.
87. Klauber-DeMore N, Van Zee KJ, Linkov I, et al. Biological behavior of human breast cancer micrometasteses. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7:2434-2439. Evidence of dormant micrometastases and growing macrometastases in human breast axilla.
88. Naumov GN, MacDonald IC, Weinmeister PM, et al. Persistence of solitary mammary carcinoma cells in a secondary site: a possible contributor to dormancy. Cancer Res 2002; 62:2162-2168. This paper, featured on the cover of Cancer Research, documents single-cell dormancy in a mouse breast cancer model. We cite this paper as experimental evidence for the role of single-cell dormancy to explain the modest benefit of early detection.
89. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Premenopausal status accelerates relapse in node positive breast cancer: hypothesis links angiogenesis, screening controversy. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2001; 65:217-224. An hypothesis to explain the age 40-49-years mammography controversy is described.
90. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Wounding from biopsy and breast-cancer progression. Lancet 2001; 357:1048. A discussion of excess breast biopsies and possible stage progression. There are small numerical differences between this letter and the review text. The text is accurate.
91. Hofer SO, Molema G, Hermens RA, et al. The effect of surgical wounding on tumour development. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 25:231-243.
92. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years: screening may not be the benign process usually thought. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:1572. The letter summarizes recent findings regarding surgical and biopsy interventions and the possible adverse impact on screening benefit
93. Heer K, Kumar H, Speirs V, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor in premenopausal women - indicator of the best time for breast cancer surgery? Br J Cancer 1998; 78:1203-1207.
94. Hrushesky WJM, Bluming AZ, Gruber SA, Sothern RB. Menstrual influence on surgical cure of breast cancer. Lancet 1989; 338:949-952.
95. Hortobagyi GN. The influence of menstrual cycle phase on surgical treatment of primary breast cancer: have we made any progress over the past 13 years? J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:641-643.
96. Baines CJ, Vidmar M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Tibshirani R. Impact of menstrual phase on false-negative mammograms in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1997; 80:720-724.