Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 375, Issue 15, 2016, Pages 1438-1447

  Welch, H Gilbert ^a,b   Prorok, Philip C ^c   O'Malley, A James ^a,b   Kramer, Barnett S ^c  

^a DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CASE FATALITY RATE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HEALTH SERVICE; INCIDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; SEER PROGRAM;

EID: 84991200643     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600249     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kramer BS, Elmore JG. Projecting the benefits and harms of mammography using statistical models: proof or proofiness? J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107(7).
2. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1784-92.
3. 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 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/086.pdf).
4. SEER∗Stat Database: (1975-2012). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute Surveillance Research Program, 2015 (http://www.seer.cancer.gov).
5. Merrill RM, Dearden KA. How representative are the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program cancer data of the United States? Cancer Causes Control 2004; 15: 1027-34.
6. Zippin C, Lum D, Hankey BF. Completeness of hospital cancer case reporting from the SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer 1995; 76: 2343-50.
7. Hudis CA. Biology before anatomy in early breast cancer - precisely the point. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2079-80.
8. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2005-14.
9. Carlson RH. Lymph node status losing importance in breast cancer? Oncology Times 2011; 33: 31.
10. Rauscher GH, Murphy AM, Orsi JM, Dupuy DM, Grabler PM, Weldon CB. Beyond the mammography quality standards act: measuring the quality of breast cancer screening programs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 145-51.
11. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009; 302: 1685-92.
12. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1998-2005.
13. Lousdal ML, Kristiansen IS, Muller B, St?vring H. Effect of organised mammography screening on stage-specific incidence in Norway: population study. Br J Cancer 2016; 114: 590-6.
14. Lannin DR. Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 678.
15. Blanks RG, Moss SM, McGahan CE, Quinn MJ, Babb PJ. Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. BMJ 2000; 321: 665-9.
16. Paci E, Duffy SW, Giorgi D, et al. Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990-96. Br J Cancer 2002; 87: 65-9.
17. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami H-O. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1203-10.
18. Park JH, Anderson WF, Gail MH. Improvements in US breast cancer survival and proportion explained by tumor size and estrogen-receptor status. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2870-6.
19. Bleyer A, Baines C, Miller AB. Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality. Int J Cancer 2016; 138: 2003-12.
20. Baré M, Torà N, Salas D, et al. Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 154: 403-15.
21. Rostgaard K, Vaeth M, Rootzén H, Lynge E. Why did the breast cancer lymph node status distribution improve in Denmark in the pre-mammography screening period of 1978-1994? Acta Oncol 2010; 49: 313-21.
22. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Miller AB. Why have breast cancer mortality rates declined? J Cancer Policy 2015; 5: 8-17.
23. Wennberg JE, Staiger DO, Sharp SM, et al. Observational intensity bias associated with illness adjustment: cross sectional analysis of insurance claims. BMJ 2013; 346: f549.
24. Kopans DB. Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science. Oncologist 2014; 19: 107-12.
25. Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer - lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1685-7.
26. Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D, Welch HG, Abebe R, Wilson R. Breast cancer screening, incidence, and mortality across US counties. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 1483-9.
27. Baker SG, Prorok PC, Kramer BS. Lead time and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106(12).
28. Zahl P-H, Jorgensen KJ, G?tzsche PC. Lead-time models should not be used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29: 1283-6.
29. Zahl PH, Maehlen J, Welch HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 2311-6.
30. Carter JL, Coletti RJ, Harris RP. Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods. BMJ 2015; 350: g7773.