Screening for Cancer: When is it Valid?-Lessons from the Mammography Experience

Radiology

Volumn 229, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 319-327

  Kopans, Daniel B ^a   Monsees, Barbara ^b   Feig, Stephen A ^c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast radiography, utilization; Cancer screening; Opinions

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SELECTION BIAS; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 0142179028     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2292021272     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Santayana G. Reason in common sense. In: The life of reason. New York: Scribner's; 1905:284.
2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165-175.
3. Stanley RJ. 2001 ARRS presidential address: inherent dangers in radiologic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:989-992.
4. Obuchowski NA, Ruffin RJ, Baker ME, Powell KA. Ten criteria for effective screening: their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:1357-1362.
5. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-134.
6. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358:1340-1342.
7. Kopans DB. The most recent breast cancer screening controversy about whether mammographic screening benefits women at any age: nonsense and nonscience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:21-26.
8. Jackson VP. Screening mammography: controversies and headlines. Radiology 2002; 225:323-326.
9. Kolata G. Study sets off debate over mammograms' value. The New York Times 2001; Dec 9:sect 1A:1(col 4).
10. Kolata G. Questions grow over usefulness of some routine cancer tests. The New York Times 2001; Dec 16.
11. Gordis L. Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1996; 229-246.
12. Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1973; 50:1111-1118.
13. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Use of predictors of recurrence to plan therapy for DCIS of the breast. Oncology 1997; 11: 393-410.
14. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996; 275:913-918.
15. Feig SA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: implications for screening. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:653-668.
16. Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 755-760.
17. 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.
18. Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1981; 2:93-113.
19. Moher D, Dulberg C, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272:122-124.
20. 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.
21. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women ages 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87-92.
22. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the Health Insurance Plan Project and its sequelae, 1963-1986. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
23. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988; 297: 943-949.
24. 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.
25. 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 2021, 1994. Cancer 1995; 75:1391-1403.
26. Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1997; 58-61.
27. D'Orsi C. Swets JA. Variability in the interpretation of mammograms (letter). N Engl J Med 1994; 332:1172.
28. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-134.
29. Kopans DB, Halpern E. Re: All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening (letter). J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:863.
30. Cuzick, J, Stewart H, Rutquist L, et al. Cause-specific mortality in long term survivors of breast cancer who participated in trials of radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12:447-453.
31. Favourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 355:1757-1770.
32. Miller AB, Lindsay J, Hill GB. Mortality from cancer of the uterus in Canada and its relationship to screening for cancer of the cervix. Int J Cancer 1976; 17:602-612.
33. Johannesson G, Geirsson G, Day N. The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965-1974, on the incidence and mortality of cervical carcinoma. Int J Cancer 1978; 21: 418-425.
34. Tabar LK, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2001; 91: 1724-1731.
35. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen H, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95:458-469.
36. Kopans DB. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality (letter). Cancer 2002; 94:580-581.
37. 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.
38. Feig SA. Age-related accuracy of screening mammography: how should it be measured? Radiology 2000; 214:633-640.
39. Kopans DB. The breast cancer screening controversy: lessons to be learned. J Surg Onc 1998; 67:143-150.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. de Koning HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, Beemsterboer PMM, van der Maas PJ. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:1217-1223.
43. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Chen HH. Re: Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish Breast Cancer-Screening Trials (letter). J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:52-53.
44. Prorok PC, Hankey BF, Bundy BN. Concepts and problems in the evaluation of screening programs. J Chron Dis 1981; 34:159-171.
45. Feig SA. Determination of mammographic screening intervals with surrogate measures for women aged 40-49 years. Radiology 1999; 193:311-314.