41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

      research-article
      1 , , 2
      BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We analyzed the claim "mammography saves lives" by calculating the life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality in women ages 40 to 65.

          Methods

          To calculate the absolute benefit, we first estimated the screen-free absolute death risk from breast cancer by adjusting the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program 15-year cumulative breast cancer mortality to account for the separate effects of screening mammography and improved therapy. We calculated the absolute risk reduction (reduction in absolute death risk), the number needed to screen assuming repeated screening, and the survival percentages without and with screening. We varied the relative risk reduction from 10%–30% based on the randomized trials of screening mammography. We developed additional variations of the absolute risk reduction for a screening intervention, including the average benefit of a single screen, as well as the life-saving proportion among patients with earlier cancer detection.

          Results

          Because the screen-free absolute death risk is approximately 1% overall but rises with age, the relative risk reduction from repeated screening mammography is about 100 times the absolute risk reduction between the starting ages of 50 and 60. Assuming a base case 20% relative risk reduction, repeated screening starting at age 50 saves about 1.8 (overall range, 0.9–2.7) lives over 15 years for every 1000 women screened. The number needed to screen repeatedly is 1000/1.8, or 570. The survival percentage is 99.12% without and 99.29% with screening. The average benefit of a single screening mammogram is 0.034%, or 2970 women must be screened once to save one life. Mammography saves 4.3% of screen-detectable cancer patients' lives starting at age 50. This means 23 cancers must be found starting at age 50, or 27 cancers at age 40 and 21 cancers at age 65, to save one life.

          Conclusion

          The life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography increases with age as the absolute death risk increases. The number of events needed to save one life varies depending on the prospective screening subset or reference class. Less than 5% of women with screen-detectable cancers have their lives saved.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

            The efficacy of screening by mammography has been shown in randomised controlled trials in women aged 50 years and older, but is less clear in younger women. A meta-analysis of all previous trials showed a 15% mortality reduction in invited women aged 40-49 years at study entry, but this finding could be due in part to screening of women after age 50 years. The Age trial was designed to study the effect on mortality of inviting women for annual mammography from age 40 years. 160,921 women aged 39-41 years were randomly assigned in the ratio 1:2 to an intervention group of annual mammography to age 48 years or to a control group of usual medical care. The trial was undertaken in 23 NHS breast-screening units in England, Wales, and Scotland. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle and compared mortality rates in the two groups at 10 years' follow-up. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151. At a mean follow-up of 10.7 years there was a reduction in breast-cancer mortality in the intervention group, in relative and absolute terms, which did not reach statistical significance (relative risk 0.83 [95% CI 0.66-1.04], p=0.11; absolute risk reduction 0.40 per 1000 women invited to screening [95% CI -0.07 to 0.87]). Mortality reduction adjusted for non-compliance in women actually screened was estimated as 24% (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.01). Although the reduction in breast-cancer mortality observed in this trial is not significant, it is consistent with results of other trials of mammography alone in this age-group. Future decisions on screening policy should be informed by further follow-up from this trial and should take account of possible costs and harms as well as benefits.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

              A sensitive and acceptable screening regimen for women at high risk for breast cancer is essential. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for diagnosis of breast cancer but has variable specificity. To summarize the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and posttest probability associated with adding MRI to annual mammography screening of women at very high risk for breast cancer. English-language literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1995 to September 2007, supplemented by hand searches of pertinent articles. Prospective studies published after 1994 in which MRI and mammography (with or without additional tests) were used to screen women at very high risk for breast cancer. Methods and potential biases of studies were assessed by 2 reviewers, and data were extracted and entered into 2 x 2 tables that compared American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores of MRI plus mammography, mammography alone, or MRI alone with results of breast tissue biopsies. Eleven relevant, prospective, nonrandomized studies that ranged from small single-center studies with only 1 round of patient screening to large multicenter studies with repeated rounds of annual screening were identified. Characteristics of women that varied across study samples included age range, history of breast cancer, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status. Studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with axial or coronal plane images (European studies) or sagittal images (North American studies) that were usually interpreted without knowledge of mammography results. The summary negative likelihood ratio and the probability of a BI-RADS-suspicious lesion (given negative test findings and assuming a 2% pretest probability of disease) were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82) and 1.4% (CI, 1.2% to 1.6%) for mammography alone and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.42) and 0.3% (CI, 0.1% to 0.8%) for the combination of MRI plus mammography, using a BI-RADS score of 4 or higher as the definition of positive. Differences in patient population, center experience, and criteria for positive screening results led to between-study heterogeneity. Data on patients with nonfamilial high risk were limited, and no data were available on recurrence or survival. Screening with both MRI and mammography might rule out cancerous lesions better than mammography alone in women who are known or likely to have an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
                BioMed Central
                1472-6947
                2009
                2 April 2009
                : 9
                : 18
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiology, John H Stroger Jr Hospital of Cook County, 1901 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612-9985, USA
                [2 ]Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Nebraska, PO Box 148, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA
                Article
                1472-6947-9-18
                10.1186/1472-6947-9-18
                2670293
                19341448
                3547078b-6693-4d65-928d-cd4938f6cc0d
                Copyright ©2009 Keen and Keen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 May 2008
                : 2 April 2009
                Categories
                Research Article

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                Bioinformatics & Computational biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article