37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 2 , 5 , 4 , Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) Group
      The British Journal of Surgery
      John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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:

          The long-term effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening were investigated in extended follow-up from the UK Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial.

          Methods:

          A population-based sample of men aged 65–74 years were randomized individually to invitation to ultrasound screening (invited group) or to a control group not offered screening. Patients with an AAA (3·0 cm or larger) detected at screening underwent surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria had been met. Cause-specific mortality data were analysed using Cox regression.

          Results:

          Some 67 770 men were enrolled in the study. Over 13 years, there were 224 AAA-related deaths in the invited group and 381 in the control group, a 42 (95 per cent confidence interval 31 to 51) per cent reduction. There was no evidence of effect on other causes of death, but there was an overall reduction in all-cause mortality of 3 (1 to 5) per cent. The degree of benefit seen in earlier years of follow-up was slightly diminished by the occurrence of AAA ruptures in those with an aorta originally screened normal. About half of these ruptures had a baseline aortic diameter in the range 2·5–2·9 cm. It was estimated that 216 men need to be invited to screening to save one death over the next 13 years.

          Conclusion:

          Screening resulted in a reduction in all-cause mortality, and the benefit in AAA-related mortality continued to accumulate throughout follow-up. Registration number: ISRCTN37381646 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

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

          Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

          (2009)
          Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial.

            Opposing views have been published on the importance of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study was designed to assess whether or not such screening is beneficial. A population-based sample of men (n=67800) aged 65-74 years was enrolled, and each individual randomly allocated to either receive an invitation for an abdominal ultrasound scan (invited group, n=33839) or not (control group, n=33961). Men in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or =3 cm in diameter) were detected were followed-up with repeat ultrasound scans for a mean of 4.1 years. Surgery was considered on specific criteria (diameter > or =5.5 cm, expansion > or =1 cm per year, symptoms). Mortality data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, and an intention-to-treat analysis was based on cause of death. Quality of life was assessed with four standardised scales. The primary outcome measure was mortality related to abdominal aortic aneurysm. 27147 of 33839 (80%) men in the invited group accepted the invitation to screening, and 1333 aneurysms were detected. There were 65 aneurysm-related deaths (absolute risk 0.19%) in the invited group, and 113 (0.33%) in the control group (risk reduction 42%, 95% CI 22-58; p=0.0002), with a 53% reduction (95% CI 30-64) in those who attended screening. 30-day mortality was 6% (24 of 414) after elective surgery for an aneurysm, and 37% (30 of 81) after emergency surgery. Our results provide reliable evidence of benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion: risk factors and time intervals for surveillance.

              Intervention to reduce abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) expansion and optimization of screening intervals would improve current surveillance programs. The aim of this study was to characterize AAA growth in a national cohort of patients with AAA both overall and by cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, 1743 patients were monitored for changes in AAA diameter by ultrasonography over a mean follow-up of 1.9 years. Mean initial AAA diameter and growth rate were 43 mm (range 28 to 85 mm) and 2.6 mm/year (95% range, -1.0 to 6.1 mm/year), respectively. Baseline diameter was strongly associated with growth, suggesting that AAA growth accelerates as the aneurysm enlarges. AAA growth rate was lower in those with low ankle/brachial pressure index and diabetes but higher for current smokers (all P<0.001). No other factor (including lipids and blood pressure) was associated with AAA growth. Intervals of 36, 24, 12, and 3 months for aneurysms of 35, 40, 45, and 50 mm, respectively, would restrict the probability of breaching the 55-mm limit at rescreening to below 1%. Annual, or less frequent, surveillance intervals are safe for all AAAs < or =45 mm in diameter. Smoking increases AAA growth, but atherosclerosis plays a minor role.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Surg
                Br J Surg
                bjs
                The British Journal of Surgery
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Chichester, UK )
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                December 2012
                03 December 2012
                : 99
                : 12
                : 1649-1656
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge UK
                [2 ]Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit Cambridge, UK
                [3 ]Sussex Community NHS Trust, St Richard's Hospital Chichester, UK
                [4 ]Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, St Richard's Hospital Chichester, UK
                [5 ]Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University Uxbridge, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
                Article
                10.1002/bjs.8897
                3569614
                23034729
                e80bafea-90fc-4f59-8783-c10e1f829b18
                Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

                Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.

                History
                : 25 June 2012
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log