No abstract

No abstract

Estimates of overdiagnosis in mammography screening range from 1% to 54%. This review explains such variations using gradual implementation of mammography screening in the Netherlands as an example. Breast cancer incidence without screening was predicted with a micro-simulation model. Observed breast cancer incidence (including ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer) was modeled and compared with predicted incidence without screening during various phases of screening program implementation. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between the modeled number of breast cancers with and the predicted number of breast cancers without screening. Estimating overdiagnosis annually between 1990 and 2006 illustrated the importance of the time at which overdiagnosis is measured. Overdiagnosis was also calculated using several estimators identified from the literature. The estimated overdiagnosis rate peaked during the implementation phase of screening, at 11.4% of all predicted cancers in women aged 0–100 years in the absence of screening. At steady-state screening, in 2006, this estimate had decreased to 2.8%. When different estimators were used, the overdiagnosis rate in 2006 ranged from 3.6% (screening age or older) to 9.7% (screening age only). The authors concluded that the estimated overdiagnosis rate in 2006 could vary by a factor of 3.5 when different denominators were used. Calculations based on earlier screening program phases may overestimate overdiagnosis by a factor 4. Sufficient follow-up and agreement regarding the chosen estimator are needed to obtain reliable estimates.

The effect of the implementation of the Dutch breast cancer screening programme during 1990 -1997 on the incidence rates of breast cancer, particularly advanced breast cancer, was analysed according to stage at diagnosis in seven regions, where no screening took place before 1990. The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided detailed data on breast cancer incidence in 1989 -1997 by tumour stage, age and region. Annual age-adjusted incidence rates of all breast cancers and advanced cancers, defined as large tumours T2 þ with lymph node and/or distant metastases, were compared with rates in 1989. In general, breast cancer incidence rose strongly in the early 1990s, especially in the age category 50 -69 years (estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) 4.25; 95% CI 1.70, 6.86). The increase was mainly due to the increase in small T1 cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. However, in women aged 50 -69, advanced cancer incidence rates showed a significant decline by 12.1% in 1997 compared with 1989 (EAPC -2.14, 95% CI À3.47, À0.80), followed by a breast cancer mortality reduction of similar size after approximately 2 years. We confirm that breast cancer screening initially leads to a temporary strong increase in the breast cancer incidence, which is followed by a significant decrease in advanced diseases in the women invited for screening. It is evident that breast cancer screening contributes to a reduction in advanced breast cancers and breast cancer mortality.

BackgroundThe incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has rapidly increased over time. The malignant potential of DCIS is dependent on its differentiation grade.MethodsOur aim is to determine the distribution of different grades of DCIS among women screened in the mass screening programme, and women not screened in the mass screening programme, and to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis by grade of DCIS. We retrospectively included a population-based sample of 4232 women with a diagnosis of DCIS in the years 2007–2009 from the Nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Excluded were women with concurrent invasive breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ and no DCIS, women recently treated for invasive breast cancer, no grade mentioned in the record, inconclusive record on invasion, and prevalent DCIS. The screening status was obtained via the screening organisations. The distribution of grades was incorporated in the well-established and validated microsimulation model MISCAN.ResultsOverall, 17.7 % of DCIS were low grade, 31.4 % intermediate grade, and 50.9 % high grade. This distribution did not differ by screening status, but did vary by age. Older women were more likely to have low-grade DCIS than younger women. Overdiagnosis as a proportion of all cancers in women of the screening age was 61 % for low-grade, 57 % for intermediate-grade, 45 % for high-grade DCIS. For women age 50–60 years with a high-grade DCIS this overdiagnosis rate was 21–29 %, compared to 50–66 % in women age 60–75 years with high-grade DCIS.ConclusionsAmongst the rapidly increasing numbers of DCIS diagnosed each year is a significant number of overdiagnosed cases. Tailoring treatment to the probability of progression is the next step to preventing overtreatment. The basis of this tailoring could be DCIS grade and age.