Screening for breast cancer

Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 671-697

  Duffy, Stephen W ^a   Smith, Robert A ^b   Gabe, Rhian ^a   Tabár, László ^c   Yen, Amy M F ^d   Chen, Tony H H ^d  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^c FALUN HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DUCT; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 26844533491     PISSN: 10553207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2005.06.001     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. D.M. Parkin, F. Bray, and J. Ferlay Global cancer statistics, 2002 CA Cancer J Clin 55 2 2005 74 108
2. D.M. Parkin Global cancer statistics in the year 2000 Lancet Oncol 2 9 2001 533 543
3. J. Ferlay, P. Bray, and P. Pisani Globocan 2000: cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence worldwide 2001 IARC Press Lyon
4. A. Jemal, T. Murray, and E. Ward Cancer statistics, 2005 CA Cancer J Clin 55 1 2005 10 30
5. American Cancer Society American Cancer Society facts and figures 2005 American Cancer Society Atlanta
6. L. Ries, M. Eisner, and C. Kosary SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2002 2005 National Cancer Institute Bethesda (MD)
7. L. Tabar, B. Vitak, and H.H. Chen The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up Radiol Clin North Am 38 4 2000 625 651
8. th edition 1995 WB Saunders Philadelphia 1 15
9. nd edition 1993 Radiological Society of North America Chicago 9 20
10. S. Shapiro, P. Strax, and L. Venet Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer JAMA 215 1971 1777 1785
11. L. Tabar, C.J. Fagerberg, and A. Gad Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare Lancet 1 8433 1985 829 832
12. Working IARC Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies Breast cancer screening 2002 IARC Press Lyon
13. D.F. Ransohoff, and R.P. Harris Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med 127 11 1997 1029 1034
14. J.C.D. Bailar Mammography: a contrary view Ann Intern Med 84 1 1976 77 84
15. P.C. Gotzsche, and O. Olsen Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355 9198 2000 129 134
16. D.A. Freedman, D.B. Petitti, and J.M. Robins On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer Int J Epidemiol 33 1 2004 43 55
17. European Institute of Oncology. Statement from the chair: global summit on mammographic screening. Available at: http://www.ieo.it/inglese/didattica/ state.htm. Accessed December 12, 2004.
18. US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale Ann Intern Med 137 5 Part 1 2002 344 346
19. Vilka effekter har mammografiscreening: referat av ett expertmöte anordnat av socialstyrelsen och cancerfonden i Stockholm den 15 februari 2002. Available at: http://www.sos.se/sosmenye.htm. Accessed June 1, 2003.
20. R.A. Smith, D. Saslow, and K.A. Sawyer American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003 CA Cancer J Clin 53 3 2003 141 169
21. Health Council of the Netherlands The benefit of population screening for breast cancer with mammography. Report No: 2002/03E 2002 Health Council of the Netherlands The Hague
22. A.B. Miller, C.J. Baines, and T. To Canadian National Breast Screening Study: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years [see comments] Can Med Assoc J 147 10 1992 1459 1476 [erratum appears in Can Med Assoc J 1993;148(5):718]
23. A.B. Miller, C.J. Baines, and T. To Canadian National Breast Screening Study: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years [see comments] Can Med Assoc J 147 10 1992 1477 1488 [erratum appears in Can Med Assoc J 1993;148(5):718]
24. I. Andersson, K. Aspegren, and L. Janzon Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial BMJ 297 6654 1988 943 948
25. N. Bjurstam, L. Bjorneld, and S.W. Duffy The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization [see comments] Cancer 80 11 1997 2091 2099
26. J. Frisell, G. Eklund, and L. Hellstrom The Stockholm breast cancer screening trial: 5-year results and stage at discovery Breast Cancer Res Treat 13 1 1989 79 87
27. M.M. Roberts, F.E. Alexander, and T.J. Anderson Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years [see comments] Lancet 335 8684 1990 241 246
28. I. Andersson, and L. Janzon Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo mammographic screening program J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 63 67
29. J. Frisell, E. Lidbrink, and L. Hellstrom Follow-up after 11 years: update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial Breast Cancer Res Treat 45 3 1997 263 270
30. F.E. Alexander, T.J. Anderson, and H.K. Brown 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening [see comments] Lancet 353 9168 1999 1903 1908
31. A.B. Miller, T. To, and C.J. Baines Canadian national breast screening study. 2. 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years J Natl Cancer Inst 92 18 2000 1490 1499
32. A.B. Miller, T. To, and C.J. Baines 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 137 5 Part 1 2002 305 312
33. R.E. Hendrick, R.A. Smith, and J.H. Rutledge III Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 87 92
34. L.L. Humphrey, M. Helfand, and B.K. Chan Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med 137 5 Part 1 2002 347 360
35. L. Tabar, S.W. Duffy, and B. Vitak The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86 3 1999 449 462
36. O. Olsen, and P.C. Gotzsche Screening for breast cancer with mammography Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4 2001 CD001877
37. D. Berry Commentary: screening mammography: a decision analysis Int J Epidemiol 33 1 2004 68 [discussion 9-73]
38. L. Nystrom, I. Andersson, and N. Bjurstam Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials Lancet 359 9310 2002 909 919
39. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49 J Natl Cancer Inst 89 14 1997 1015 1026
40. O. Olsen, and P.C. Gotzsche Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography Lancet 358 9290 2001 1340 1342
41. R. Horton Screening mammography: an overview revisited Lancet 358 9290 2001 1284 1285
42. N. Wald Populist instead of professional J Med Screen 7 1 2000 1
43. L. Tabar, G. Fagerberg, and S.W. Duffy The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit J Epidemiol Community Health 43 2 1989 107 114
44. R. Nixon, T.C. Prevost, and S.W. Duffy Some random-effects models for the analysis of matched-cluster randomised trials: application to the Swedish two-county trial of breast-cancer screening J Epidemiol Biostat 5 6 2000 349 358
45. S.W. Duffy, L. Tabar, and R.A. Smith The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche CA Cancer J Clin 52 2 2002 68 71
46. H.J. de Koning, G.J. van Oortmarssen, and B.M. van Ineveld Breast cancer screening: its impact on clinical medicine Br J Cancer 61 2 1990 292 297
47. R.S. Foster Jr., M.E. Farwell, and M.C. Costanza Breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: patterns of care in a geographic region and estimation of potential applicability Ann Surg Oncol 2 3 1995 275 280
48. E. Paci, S.W. Duffy, and D. Giorgi Are breast cancer screening programmes increasing rates of mastectomy? Observational study BMJ 325 7361 2002 418
49. J. Overgaard, and H. Bartelink Breast cancer survival advantage with radiotherapy Lancet 356 9237 2000 1269 1270 [discussion 1271]
50. J. Ragaz, J.J. Spinelli, and A.J. Coldman Breast cancer survival advantage with radiotherapy Lancet 356 9237 2000 1270 [discussion 1271]
51. M.H. Gail, and H.A. Katki Regarding: all-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening J Natl Cancer Inst 94 11 2002 862 [discussion 865 - 6]
52. L. Tabar, S.W. Duffy, and M.F. Yen All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point J Med Screen 9 4 2002 159 162
53. L. Nystrom, L.E. Rutqvist, and S. Wall Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials [see comments] [published erratum appears in Lancet 1993;342(8883):1372] Lancet 341 8851 1993 973 978
54. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Mammography screening can reduce deaths from breast cancer. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002.
55. L. Tabar, R.A. Smith, and S.W. Duffy Update on effects of screening mammography Lancet 360 9329 2002 337 [discussion 339-40]
56. S.W. Duffy Interpretation of breast screening trials: a commentary on the recent paper by Gotzsche and Olsen Breast 10 2001 209 212
57. R.A. Smith, S.W. Duffy, and R. Gabe The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42 5 2004 793 806
58. A. Morrison Screening in chronic disease 1992 Oxford University Press New York
59. S.A. Feig Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years Cancer 75 10 1995 2412 2419
60. D.B. Kopans An overview of the breast cancer screening controversy J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 1 3
61. Organizing Committee and Collaborators Breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: report of the organizing committee and collaborators, Falun meeting, Falun, Sweden (21and 22 March, 1996) Int J Cancer 68 1996 693 699
62. H.H. Chen, S.W. Duffy, and L. Tabar Markov chain models for progression of breast cancer, part 2: prediction of outcomes for different screening regimens J Epidemiol Biostat 2 1997 25 35
63. H.H. Chen, S.W. Duffy, and L. Tabar Markov chain models for progression of breast cancer, part 1: tumour attributes and the preclinical screen-detectable phase J Epidemiol Biostat 2 1997 9 23
64. G. Sjonell, and L. Stahle Mammographic screening does not reduce breast cancer mortality Lakartidningen 96 8 1999 904 905 908-13
65. L. Tabar, B. Vitak, and H.H. Tony Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality Cancer 91 9 2001 1724 1731
66. S.W. Duffy, L. Tabar, and H.H. Chen The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties Cancer 95 3 2002 458 469
67. D.A. Berry The utility of mammography for women aged 40 to 50 years (con) V.T. De Vita S. Hellman S.A. Rosenberg Progress in oncology, 2002 2003 Jones and Bartlett Publishers Boston 346 372
68. P.C. Gotzsche Mammography service screening and mortality Lancet 362 9380 2003 329 330 author reply, 330
69. R.A. Smith, S.W. Duffy, and L. Tabar Screening and early detection S.E. Singletary G.L. Robb G.H. Hortobagyi Advanced therapy of breast disease 2004 BC Decker, Inc. Ontario 213 223
70. S.W. Fletcher, W. Black, and R. Harris Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer [see comments] J Natl Cancer Inst 85 20 1993 1644 1656
71. H.J. de Koning, R. Boer, and P.G. Warmerdam Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials [see comments] J Natl Cancer Inst 87 16 1995 1217 1223
72. S.W. Duffy, N.E. Day, and L. Tabar Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 93 97
73. H. Sox Screening mammography for younger women: back to basics Ann Intern Med 137 5 Part 1 2002 361 362
74. L. Tabar, H.H. Chen, and G. Fagerberg Recent results from the Swedish two-county trial: the effects of age, histologic type, and mode of detection on the efficacy of breast cancer screening J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 43 47
75. L. Tabar, G. Faberberg, and N.E. Day What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial Br J Cancer 55 5 1987 547 551
76. S.W. Duffy, H.H. Chen, and L. Tabar Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry to and exit from the preclinical detectable phase Stat Med 14 14 1995 1531 1543
77. L. Tabar, M.F. Yen, and B. Vitak Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening Lancet 361 9367 2003 1405 1410
78. V.L. Ernster, R. Ballard-Barbash, and W.E. Barlow Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography J Natl Cancer Inst 94 20 2002 1546 1554
79. V.L. Ernster, J. Barclay, and K. Kerlikowske Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast [see comments] JAMA 275 12 1996 913 918
80. D.L. Page, W.D. Dupont, and L.W. Rogers Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15-25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy Cancer 76 7 1995 1197 1200
81. M.F. Yen, L. Tabar, and B. Vitak Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening Eur J Cancer 39 12 2003 1746 1754
82. L.M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, and H.C. Sox US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey BMJ 320 7250 2000 1635 1640
83. E.D. Anderson, B.B. Muir, and J.S. Walsh The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening [see comments] Clin Radiol 49 4 1994 248 251
84. S.A. Feig Strategies for improving sensitivity of screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years [editorial; comment] JAMA 276 1 1996 73 74
85. K. Kerlikowske, D. Grady, and J. Barclay Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography [see comments] JAMA 276 1 1996 33 38
86. M.B. Laya, E.B. Larson, and S.H. Taplin Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography [see comments] J Natl Cancer Inst 88 10 1996 643 649
87. M.N. Linver, S.B. Paster, and R.D. Rosenberg Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases Radiology 184 1 1992 39 43 [erratum appears in Radiology 1992;184(3):878]
88. M.T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, and P.L. Porter Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers J Natl Cancer Inst 92 13 2000 1081 1087
89. J. Michaelson, S. Satija, and R. Moore The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences Cancer 94 1 2002 37 43
90. E.A. Sickles Breast cancer screening outcomes in women ages 40-49: clinical experience with service screening using modern mammography J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 99 104
91. K. Kerlikowske, D. Grady, and J. Barclay Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer JAMA 270 20 1993 2444 2450
92. J.G. Elmore, M.B. Barton, and V.M. Moceri Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations [see comments] N Engl J Med 338 16 1998 1089 1096
93. B.K. Rimer, and L.G. Bluman The psychological consequences of mammography J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22 1997 131 138
94. J. McCann, D. Stockton, and S. Godward Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer Breast Cancer Res 4 5 2002 R11
95. T.G. Hislop, S.R. Harris, and J. Jackson Satisfaction and anxiety for women during investigation of an abnormal screening mammogram Breast Cancer Res Treat 76 3 2002 245 254
96. N.S. Consedine, C. Magai, and Y.S. Krivoshekova Fear, anxiety, worry, and breast cancer screening behavior: a critical review Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13 4 2004 501 510
97. L. Tabar, H.H. Tony Chen, and M.F. Amy Yen Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1- to 14-mm invasive breast carcinoma Cancer 101 8 2004 1745 1759
98. A. Miles, J. Cockburn, and R.A. Smith A perspective from countries using organized screening programs Cancer 101 5 Suppl 2004 1201 1213
99. S.H. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, and M.U. Yood Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up? J Natl Cancer Inst 96 20 2004 1518 1527
100. B. Cady, and J.S. Michaelson The life-sparing potential of mammographic screening Cancer 91 9 2001 1699 1703
101. B. Cady, and M. Chung Mammographic screening: no longer controversial Am J Clin Oncol 28 1 2005 1 4