Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 138, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 2003-2012

  Bleyer, Archie ^a   Baines, Cornelia ^b   Miller, Anthony B ^b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

breast cancer; mortality benefit; screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CHRONOLOGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EUROPE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; NORTH AMERICA; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; SELF REPORT; UNITED STATES; AGE DISTRIBUTION; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER REGISTRY; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; SEER PROGRAM;

EID: 84958942230     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29925     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, et al., Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ 2011; 343: d4411 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4411.
2. Bleyer A., US breast cancer mortality is consistent with European data. BMJ 2011; 343: d5630. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5630 (Published 6 September 2011). Available at: www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5630.full?ijkey= KsUxBqNyqzR80rK&keytype=ref.
3. Canadian Cancer Statistics, 2007, p. 70. Available at: http://www.cancer.ca/~/media/cancer.ca/CW/cancer%20information/cancer%20101/Canadian%20cancer%20statistics/Canadian-Cancer-Statistics-2007-EN.pdf. (Accessed on July 22, 2015).
4. Organized breast cancer screening programs in Canada. Report on program performance in 2007-2008. Available at: http://www.cancerview.ca/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/organized-breast-cancer.pdf. (Accessed on July 22, 2015).
5. The impact of mammography and adjuvant therapy on U.S. breast cancer mortality (1975-2000): Collective results from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Jnci. 2006; 36: 1-126. Available at: http://jncimono.oxfordjournals.org/content/2006/36.toc. (Accessed on March 26, 2015).
6. Berlin L, Hall FM., More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization. Radiology 2010; 255: 2010
7. Khuri FR., What we know and what we think we know: An editor's perspective on a charged debate. Cancer 2015; 121: 4-5.
8. Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D, et al., Breast cancer screening, incidence, and mortality across U.S. counties. JAMA Int Med, in press. Published online July 6.
9. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L., Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology (Williston Park). 2012; 26: 471-5, 479-81, 485-6. http://www.cancernetwork.com/oncology-journal/breast-cancer-screening-evolving-evidence/page/0/2#sthash.TRzSPh6M.dpuf.
10. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al., IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Volume 15: Breast Cancer Screening. In preparation, 2015; also Volume 7. Available at: http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?codlan=1&codcol=76&codcch=13. (Accessed March 31, 2015).
11. Use of mammography among women 40 years of age and over. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health-policy/mammography.htm.
12. Use of mammography among women 40 years of age and over, by selected characteristics: United States, selected years 1987-2008. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/086.pdf.
13. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al., American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA: Cancer J Clinicians. 2003; 53: 141-69.
14. Dodd GD., American Cancer Society guidelines from the past to the present. Cancer. 1993; 72: 1429-32.
15. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER∗Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 9 Regs Research Data, Nov 2013 Sub (1973-2011) -Linked To County Attributes-Total U.S., 1969-2012 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2014, based on the November 2013 submission.
16. Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, et al., Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med 2000; 19: 335-51. correction: 2001;20:655).
17. Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.1.1. August 2014; Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint. (Accessed on January 15, 2015).
18. Henley J, King JB, German RG, et al., Surveillance of screening-detected cancers (colon and rectum, breast, and cervix)-United States, 2004-2006. CDC Surveillance Summaries, November 26, 2010/59(SS09); 1-25.
19. Paci E, Duffy SW., Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975 -1986). Int J Epidemiol 1991; 20: 852-8.
20. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, van der Maas PJ, et al., A model for breast cancer screening. Cancer. 1990; 66: 1601-12.
21. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al., The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38: 625-51.
22. Cong XJ, Shen Y, Miller AB., Estimation of age-specific sensitivity and sojourn time in breast cancer screening studies. Stat Med 2005; 24: 3123-38.
23. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, et al., Overdiagnosis, sojourn time and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Breast J 2006; 12: 338-42.
24. Weedon-Fekjaer H, Vatten LJ, Aalen OO, et al., Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results. J Med Screen 2005; 12: 172-8.
25. Zahl PH, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC., Overestimated lead times in cancer screening has led to substantial underestimation of overdiagnosis. Br J Cancer 2013; 109: 2014-9.
26. Etzioni R, Xia J, Hubbard R, et al., A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106:dju315.
27. Baker SG, Prorok PC, Kramer BS., Lead time and overdiagnosis. NCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106:dju346.
28. Bleyer A, DiPardo B, Thomas CR., Breast cancer mortality reduction in the U.S. during 1969-2010 was independent of screening mammography in its nine geographically disperse SEER regions: More evidence for less benefit of screening mammography. Amer Soc Radiat Oncol. 55th Annual Meeting Abstr 2761, 2013. Available at: http://astro2013.abstractsnet.com/aposter.wcs?entryid=010903. Available at: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/radiation-medicine/presentations-publications/upload/ASTRO-Breast-Cancer-Mortality-Reduction-in-the-United-States-during-1969-2010.pdf. (Accessed on October 7, 2013).
29. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, et al., Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 1: CD004720. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3.
30. Lin K, Croswell JM, Koenig H, et al., Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: An evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011.
31. Badalament RA, Drago JR., Prostate cancer. Promising advances that may alter survival rates. Postgrad Med. 1990; 87: 65-67, 70-2.
32. Kumar PP, Good RR, Bartone FF., Iodine 125 interstitial irradiation for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Med Assoc. 1990; 82: 181-93.
33. Arbuck SG, Christian MC, Fisherman JS, et al., Clinical development of Taxol. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1993; 11-24.
34. Jubelirer SJ, Hogan T., High dose ketoconazole for the treatment of hormone refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma: 16 cases and review of the literature. J Urol 1989; 142: 89-91.
35. Bleyer A., Were our estimates of overdiagnosis with mammography screening in the United States "based on faulty science"? Oncologist 2014; 19: 113-26.
36. Bleyer A., Screening mammography: Update and review of publications since our report in the New England Journal of Medicine on the magnitude of the problem in the United States. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 949-60.
37. Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, et al., The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. Nejm 2007; 356: 1670-4.
38. De P, Neutel I, Olivotto I, et al., Breast cancer incidence and hormone replacement therapy in Canada. Jnci 2010; 102: 1489-95.
39. Berry DA, Inoue L, Shen Y, et al., Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: A bayesian approach. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006; 30-363. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgj006.
40. Helvie MA, Chang JT, Hendrick RE, et al., Reply to flawed assumptions used to defend screening mammography. Cancer 2015; 121: 321-3. First published online, Month 00, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29020.
41. Clarke LD, Plevritis SK, Boer R, et al., Comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. Jnci 2006; 36: 99-105.
42. Kopans DB., Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science. Oncologist 2014; 19: 107-12. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0184. Also at http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/19/2/107. Accessed March 26, 2015.
43. Howard J., Using mammography for cancer control: an unrealized potential. CA Cancer J Clin 1987; 37: 33-48.
44. Lilienfeld DE., Harold Fred Dorn and the First National Cancer Survey (1937-1939): The foundingof modern cancer epidemiology. Am J Public Health 2008; 98: 2150-8.
45. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2013-2014, American Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content /@research/documents/document/acspc-042725.pdf. (Accessed on April 1, 2015).
46. Johnson RH, Chien FL, Bleyer A., Incidence of breast cancer with distant involvement among women in the United States, 1976 to 2009. JAMA 2013; 309: 800-5.
47. Carbone PP., Adjuvant therapy of stage II breast cancer. Cancer 1990; 65: 2148-54.
48. Fisher B, Redmond C, Wickerham DL, et al., Doxorubicin-containing regimens for the treatment of stage II breast cancer: the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 572-82.
49. Millward MJ, Harris AL, Cantwell BM., Phase II study of doxorubicin plus ifosfamide/mesna in patients with advanced breast cancer. Cancer 1990; 65: 2421-5.
50. Kolaric K, Tomek R., Cis-platinum-based alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer. A phase II study. Tumori 1990; 76: 472-5.
51. Slichenmyer WJ1, Von Hoff DD., Taxol: a new and effective anti-cancer drug. Anticancer Drugs. 1991; 2: 519-30.
52. Levine MN, Gent M, Hryniuk WM, et al., A randomized trial comparing 12 weeks versus 36 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 1217-25.
53. Wilson AJ, Baum M, Brinkley DM, et al., Six-year results of a controlled trial of tamoxifen as single adjuvant agent in management of early breast cancer. World J Surg 1985 9: 756-64.
54. Consensus conference Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. JAMA 1985; 254: 3461-3. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/1985/1985AdjuvantChemoBreastCancer052html.htm. (Accessed on April 1, 2015).
55. Jordan VC., Tamoxifen: a most unlikely pioneering medicine. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2: 205-13.
56. Friedman M., Tamoxifen. Congressional testimony, 1998. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115118.htm. (Accessed on March 24, 2015).
57. Jönsson B, Wilking N., New cancer drugs in Sweden: Assessment, implementation and access. J Cancer Policy 2014; 2: 45-62. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcpo.2014.01.003. Available at http://www.journalcancerpolicy.net/article/S2213-5383 (14)00004-6/abstract. (Accessed on March 30, 2015).
58. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al., Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 395-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. Epub 2011 Jun 29.
59. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP., Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? Systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 264-77. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu140. Epub 2015 Jan 15.
60. Welch HG., Does screening save lives? In Less Medicine, More Health. Boston: Beacon Press, 2015. 62-64.