Effect of mammography screening on mortality by histological grade

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 154-157

  Tabar, Laszlo ^a   Chen, Tony Hsiu Hsi ^b   Yen, Amy Ming Fang ^c   Chen, Sam Li Sheng ^c   Fann, Jean Ching Yuan ^d   Chiu, Sherry Yueh Hsia ^e   Ku, May M S ^b   Wu, Wendy Yi Ying ^f   Hsu, Chen Yang ^b   Chen, Yu Ying ^g   Beckmann, Kerri ^h   Smith, Robert A ⁱ   Duffy, Stephen W ^j  

^a FALUN HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c TAIPEI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d KAINAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^e CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^f UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^g TAIPEI CITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

ⁱ AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^j QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLEASON SCORE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SWEDEN; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SWEDEN;

EID: 85041414625     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0487     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260:658–63.
2. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380: 1778–86.
3. Broeders M, Moss S, Nystrom L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 2012;19Suppl 1:14–25.
4. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies. Breast cancer screening, Volume 15. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2016.
5. Autier P, Esserman LJ, Flowers CI, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening: the questions answered. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:599–605.
6. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009;302:1685–92.
7. Shieh Y, Eklund M, Sawaya GF, Black WC, Kramer BS, Esserman LJ. Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:550–65.
8. Welch HG. Screening mammography-a long run for a short slide? N Engl J Med 2010;363:1276–8.
9. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1438–47.
10. Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Loi S, Culhane AC, Bontempi G, Quackenbush J, et al. A three-gene model to robustly identify breast cancer molecular subtypes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:311–25.
11. Arpino G, Milano M, De Placido S. Features of aggressive breast cancer. Breast 2015;24:594–600.
12. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187–210.
13. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Gad A, Grontoft € O, South MC, et al. Breast screening, prognostic factors and survival–results from the Swedish two county study. Br J Cancer 1991;64:1133–8.
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II–The design and analysis of cohort studies. Lyon, France: IARC Sci Publ; 1987. p. 1–406.
15. Esserman LJ. Breast cancer recurrence is dictated by high-risk biology, not choice of surgery. Oncology 2012;26:pii:168239.
16. Nielsen TO, Parker JS. Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T, et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:5222–32.
17. Sweeney C, Bernard PS, Factor RE, Kwan ML, Habel LA, Quesenberry CP Jr, et al. Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:714–24.
18. Chen H, Duffy S, Tabar L. A mover-stayer mixture of Markov chain models for the assessment of dedifferentiation and tumour progression in breast cancer. J Appl Stat 1997;24:265–78.
19. Anderson TJ, Waller M, Ellis IO, Bobrow L, Moss S. Influence of annual mammography from age 40 on breast cancer pathology. Hum Pathol 2004;35:1252–9.
20. Schymik B, Buerger H, Kr€amer A, Voss U, van der Groep P, Meinerz W, et al. Is there 'progression through grade' in ductal invasive breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:693–703.
21. Weigelt B, Glas AM, Wessels LF, Witteveen AT, Peterse JL, van't Veer LJ. Gene expression profiles of primary breast tumors maintained in distant metastases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:15901–5.
22. Duffy SW, Smith RA. A note on the design of cancer screening trials. J Med Screen 2015;22:65–8.
23. Duffy S, Day N, Tabar L, Chen H, Smith T. Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22: 93–7.
24. Miglioretti DL, Zhu W, Kerlikowske K, Sprague BL, Onega T, Buist DS, et al. Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs. annual mammography, age, and menopausal status. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:1069–77.
25. Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Sheppard AJ, Mirea L, Chong N, Paszat L, et al. Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50–69. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:499–506.
26. Nagtegaal ID, Allgood PC, Duffy SW, Kearins O, Sullivan EO, Tappenden N, et al. Prognosis and pathology of screen-detected carcinomas: how different are they? Cancer 2011;117:1360–8.
27. Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer 2005;92:955–60.
28. Coburn NG, Cady B, Fulton JP, Law C, Chung MA. Improving size, lymph node metastatic rate, breast conservation, and mortality of invasive breast cancer in Rhode Island women, a well-screened population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:831–7.
29. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Burrell HC, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Detecting which invasive cancers at mammographic screening saves lives? J Med Screen 2001;8:86–90.
30. Puliti D, Bucchi L, Mancini S, Paci E, Baracco S, Campari C, et al. Advanced breast cancer rates in the epoch of service screening: The 400,000 women cohort study from Italy. Eur J Cancer 2017;75:109–16.