Breast Cancer Risk from Different Mammography Screening Practices

Bijwaard, Harmen; Brenner, Alina; Dekkers, Fieke; Dillen, T. van; Land, Charles E.; Boice, John D.

doi:10.1667/rr2067.1

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of radiation exposure was calculated by modeling and this predicted the incidence and mortality of radiation-induced cancer (45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52).…”

Section: Harms Of Mammographic Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Japanese Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening

Hamashima¹,

C²,

Hattori³

et al. 2016

Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The incidence of breast cancer has progressively increased, making it the leading cause of cancer deaths in Japan. Breast cancer accounts for 20.4% of all new cancers with a reported agestandardized rate of 63.6 per 100 000 women. Methods: The Japanese Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening were developed based on a previously established method. The efficacies of mammography with and without clinical breast examination, clinical breast examination and ultrasonography with and without mammography were evaluated. Based on the balance of the benefits and harms, recommendations for populationbased and opportunistic screenings were formulated. Results: Five randomized controlled trials of mammographic screening without clinical breast examination were identified for mortality reduction from breast cancer. The overall relative risk for women aged 40-74 years was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.83). Three randomized controlled trials of mammographic screening with clinical breast examination served as eligible evidence for mortality reduction from breast cancer. The overall relative risk for women aged 40-64 years was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.98). The major harms of mammographic screening were radiation exposure, false-positive cases and overdiagnosis. Although two case-control studies evaluating mortality reduction from breast cancer were found for clinical breast examination, there was no study assessing the effectiveness of ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Conclusions: Mammographic screening without clinical breast examination for women aged 40-74 years and with clinical breast examination for women aged 40-64 years is recommended for population-based and opportunistic screenings. Clinical breast examination and ultrasonography are not recommended for population-based screening because of insufficient evidence regarding their effectiveness.

show abstract

“…The risk of radiation exposure was calculated by modeling and this predicted the incidence and mortality of radiation-induced cancer (45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52).…”

Section: Harms Of Mammographic Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Japanese Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening

Hamashima¹,

C²,

Hattori³

et al. 2016

Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A slow sequence of several mutations may be the dominant process here (Sjöblom et al 2006). Bijwaard et al (2010) added a linear decline by a factor of five from age 30 to 80 to the logistic function of Moolgavkar et al (1980). This relation together with a direct dose response in initiation was rejected here due to a much higher deviance of forty points compared to model M1.…”

Section: Mechanistic Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors from multi-model inference with incidence data 1958–1998

Kaiser

Jacob

Meckbach

et al. 2011

Radiat Environ Biophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer risk from radiation exposure has been analyzed in the cohort of Japanese a-bomb survivors using empirical models and mechanistic two-step clonal expansion (TSCE) models with incidence data from 1958 to 1998. TSCE models rely on a phenomenological representation of cell transition processes on the path to cancer. They describe the data as good as empirical models and this fact has been exploited for risk assessment. Adequate models of both types have been selected with a statistical protocol based on parsimonious parameter deployment and their risk estimates have been combined using multi-model inference techniques. TSCE models relate the radiation risk to cell processes which are controlled by age-increasing rates of initiating mutations and by changes in hormone levels due to menopause. For exposure at young age, they predict an enhanced excess relative risk (ERR) whereas the preferred empirical model shows no dependence on age at exposure. At attained age 70, the multi-model median of the ERR at 1 Gy decreases moderately from 1.2 Gy(-1) (90% CI 0.72; 2.1) for exposure at age 25 to a 30% lower value for exposure at age 55. For cohort strata with few cases, where model predictions diverge, uncertainty intervals from multi-model inference are enhanced by up to a factor of 1.6 compared to the preferred empirical model. Multi-model inference provides a joint risk estimate from several plausible models rather than relying on a single model of choice. It produces more reliable point estimates and improves the characterization of uncertainties. The method is recommended for risk assessment in practical radiation protection.

show abstract

“…However, the sensitivity of this modality is lower in women with small or dense breasts (Berg 2004). Moreover, ionizing radiation may slightly increase the risk of breast cancer in women undergoing mammography (Bijwaard et al 2010). An inexpensive, non-invasive and non-ionizing imaging modality, ultrasonography (US), has been established as the most important adjunct to mammography in the diagnosis of breast disease (McCavert et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%