Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: Overdiagnosis in the Malmö trial was considerably underestimated [2]

British Medical Journal

Volumn 332, Issue 7543, 2006, Pages 727-

  Gøtzsche, Peter C ^a  

^a Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HORMONE SUBSTITUTION; HUMAN; LETTER; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; MASS SCREENING; NOTE; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; SWEDEN;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SWEDEN;

EID: 33645504484     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 2006;332:689-92. (25 March.) doi:10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C (published 3 March 2006).
2. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943-8.
3. Miller AB. The costs and benefits of breast cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 1993;9:175-80.
4. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-2.
5. Gøtzsche PC. On the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:56-64.