Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 133, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 705-712

  Falk, Ragnhild Sørum ^a   Hofvind, Solveig ^a,b   Skaane, Per ^c   Haldorsen, Tor ^a  

^a Cancer Registry of Norway ^*  (Norway)

^b OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^c ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

cohort study; ductal carcinoma in situ; lead time; mammography screening; overdiagnosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LIFESPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OVERDIAGNOSIS; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS;

EID: 84875621036     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28052     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Glass AG, Lacey JV, Jr, Carreon JD, et al. Breast cancer incidence, 1980-2006: combined roles of menopausal hormone therapy, screening mammography, and estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1152-61.
2. Sorum R, Hofvind S, Skaane P, et al. Trends in incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ: the effect of a population-based screening programme. Breast 2010; 19: 499-505.
3. Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Breast cancer screening, vol 7. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002 229 p.
4. Virnig BA, Wang SY, Shamilyan T, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors and impact of screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010; 2010: 113-6.
5. Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M, et al. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 491-9.
6. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC,. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009; 339: b2587.
7. Paci E, Warwick J, Falini P, et al. Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern? J Med Screen 2004; 11: 23-7.
8. Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, et al. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 1129-38.
9. Day NE,. Overdiagnosis and breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: 228-9.
10. Peeters PH, Verbeek AL, Straatman H, et al. Evaluation of overdiagnosis of breast cancer in screening with mammography: results of the Nijmegen programme. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 295-9.
11. Duffy SW,. Some current issues in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen 2005; 12: 128-33.
12. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, et al. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011; 33: 111-21.
13. Olsen AH, Njor SH, Lynge E,. Estimating the benefits of mammography screening: the impact of study design. Epidemiology 2007; 18: 487-92.
14. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, et al. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007; 22: 447-55.
15. Larsen IK, Smastuen M, Johannesen TB, et al. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1218-31.
16. Boer R, Warmerdam P, de Koning H, et al. Extra incidence caused by mammographic screening. Lancet 1994; 343: 979.
17. Moller B, Weedon-Fekjaer H, Hakulinen T, et al. The influence of mammographic screening on national trends in breast cancer incidence. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005; 14: 117-28.
18. Waller M, Moss S, Watson J, et al. The effect of mammographic screening and hormone replacement therapy use on breast cancer incidence in England and Wales. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16: 2257-61.
19. Statistics Norway. Available at: http://www.ssb.no (accessed January 2012).
20. Weedon-Fekjaer H, Bakken K, Vatten LJ, et al. Understanding recent trends in incidence of invasive breast cancer in Norway: age-period-cohort analysis based on registry data on mammography screening and hormone treatment use. BMJ 2012; 344: e299.
21. Paci E, Miccinesi G, Puliti D, et al. Estimate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography after adjustment for lead time. A service screening study in Italy. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R68.
22. Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: 258-65.
23. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, et al. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 2006; 332: 689-92.
24. Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J,. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2004; 328: 921-4.
25. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C,et al, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 416 p.
26. Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Paci E,. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer: design and methods of estimation in observational studies. Prev Med 2011; 53: 131-3.
27. Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Zappa M, et al. Balancing harms and benefits of service mammography screening programs: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R9.
28. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, et al. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J 2006; 12: 338-42.
29. Moller B, Hofvind S, Weedon-Fekjaer H,. Unjustified conclusion on overdiagnosis. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7445/921?page= 1&tab=responses (accessed June 2012).
30. Haldorsen T, Tretli S, Ursin G,. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 220.
31. Welch HG, Black WC,. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease «reservoir» for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1023-8.
32. Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, et al. Second events following ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a register-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 129: 929-38.
33. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, et al. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 2005; 103: 2481-4.
34. Hofvind S, Sanderud A, eds. Use of mammography in Norway in 2005 and 2008. Oslo; Oslo University College, 2010 (In Norwegian) 74 p.
35. Skaane P,. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 3-14.
36. de Gelder R, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, et al. Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Prev Med 2011; 53: 134-40.