Mammography screening for breast cancer is widely available in many countries. Initially praised as a universal achievement to improve women's health and to reduce the burden of breast cancer, the benefits and harms of mammography screening have been debated heatedly in the past years. This review discusses the benefits and harms of mammography screening in light of findings from randomized trials and from more recent observational studies performed in the era of modern diagnostics and treatment. The main benefit of mammography screening is reduction of breast-cancer related death. Relative reductions vary from about 15 to 25% in randomized trials to more recent estimates of 13 to 17% in meta-analyses of observational studies. Using UK population data of 2007, for 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50, 2 to 3 women are prevented from dying of breast cancer. All-cause mortality is unchanged. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer is the main harm of mammography screening. Based on recent estimates from the United States, the relative amount of overdiagnosis (including ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer) is 31%. This results in 15 women overdiagnosed for every 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50. Women should be unpassionately informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening using absolute effect sizes in a comprehensible fashion. In an era of limited health care resources, screening services need to be scrutinized and compared with each other with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and harms.
The instrumental variable method has been employed within economics to infer causality in the presence of unmeasured confounding. Emphasising the parallels to randomisation may increase understanding of the underlying assumptions within epidemiology. An instrument is a variable that predicts exposure, but conditional on exposure shows no independent association with the outcome. The random assignment in trials is an example of what would be expected to be an ideal instrument, but instruments can also be found in observational settings with a naturally varying phenomenon e.g. geographical variation, physical distance to facility or physician’s preference. The fourth identifying assumption has received less attention, but is essential for the generalisability of estimated effects. The instrument identifies the group of compliers in which exposure is pseudo-randomly assigned leading to exchangeability with regard to unmeasured confounders. Underlying assumptions can only partially be tested empirically and require subject-matter knowledge. Future studies employing instruments should carefully seek to validate all four assumptions, possibly drawing on parallels to randomisation.
Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50-69 years old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.
Background:We aimed to estimate the effect of organised mammography screening on breast cancer stage distribution by comparing changes in women eligible for screening, based on birth cohort, to the concurrent changes in younger, ineligible women.Methods:In an open cohort study in Norway, which introduced national mammography screening county-by-county from 1995 to 2004, we identified women (n=49 883) diagnosed with in situ or invasive breast cancer (ICD10 codes: D05 or C50) during the period 1987–2011 and born between 1917 and 1980. We estimated relative incidence rate ratios (rIRRs) comparing the development in the screening vs historic group to the younger vs younger historic group.Results:Including the compensatory drop, eligible women experienced a 68% higher increase in localised cancers (rIRR=1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51–1.87) than younger women, while the increase in incidence of advanced cancers was similar (rIRR=1.11, 95% CI: 0.90–1.36). Excluding the prevalence round, eligible women experienced a 60% higher increase in localised cancers (rIRR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.42–1.79), while the increase in incidence of advanced cancers remained similar (rIRR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.86–1.35).Conclusions:Introduction of organised mammography screening was followed by a significant increase in localised and no change in advanced-stage cancers in women eligible for screening relative to younger, ineligible women.
We aimed to estimate the effect of organized mammography screening on incidence-based breast cancer mortality by comparing changes in mortality among women eligible for screening to concurrent changes in younger and older ineligible women. In a county-wise balanced, open-cohort study, we used birth cohorts (1896-1982) to construct three age groups in both the historical and screening period: women eligible for screening, and younger or older women ineligible for screening. We included women diagnosed with breast cancer who died within the same age-period group during 1987-2010 (n = 4,903). We estimated relative incidence-based mortality rate ratios (relative MRR) comparing temporal changes in eligible women to concurrent changes in ineligible women. Additionally, we conducted analyses comparing the change in eligible women to younger, ineligible women with either continued accrual and follow-up period (eligible women only) or continued follow-up period. All three age groups experienced a reduction in mortality, but the decrease among eligible women was about the same among ineligible women (relative MRR = 1.05, 95% CI: (0.94-1.18)). Varying the definition of follow-up yielded similar results. Mammography screening was not associated with a larger breast cancer mortality reduction in women eligible relative to ineligible women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.