Breast-Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group

Lauby‐Secretan, Béatrice; Scoccianti, Chiara; Loomis, Dana; Benbrahim‐Tallaa, Lamia; Bouvard, Véronique; Bianchini, Franca; Straif, Kurt

doi:10.1056/nejmsr1504363

Cited by 780 publications

(570 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

532

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several publications 11,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] which have estimated mortality reduction due to breast screening, which are summarized in Table 2. Since the mortality reduction in the population invited to screening found in the literature was mainly 20% with a range of 15-30% in the invited population, this value and range have been used in this work.…”

Section: Published Risk Factors For Risk Of Radiationinduced Cancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography

Warren¹,

Dance²,

Young³

2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To estimate the risks and benefits of breast screening in terms of number of deaths due to radiationinduced cancers and the number of lives saved owing to modern screening in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) in England. Methods: Radiation risk model, patient dose data and data from national screening statistics were used to estimate the number of deaths due to radiation-induced breast cancers in the NHSBSP in England. Dose and dose effectiveness factors (DDREFs) equal to one and two were assumed. The breast cancer mortality reduction in the invited population due to screening and the percentage of females diagnosed with symptomatic breast cancer, who die from breast cancer, were collated from the literature. The number of lives saved owing to screening was calculated. Results: Assuming, a total of 1,770,436 females between the ages of 50-70 years were screened each year, and a breast cancer mortality reduction of 20% due to screening in the invited population, the number of screen-detected cancers were 14,872 annually, resulting in 1071 lives saved.

show abstract

Section: Published Risk Factors For Risk Of Radiationinduced Cancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography

Warren¹,

Dance²,

Young³

2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The International Agency for Research on Cancer conducted a review of all published peer-reviewed literature through which they concluded that mammography screening is still effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. 5 Mammography efficacy in detecting breast cancer in early stages comes with a small but nonnegligible risk of radiationinduced cancer to the fibroglandular tissues of the breast 6 and possibly other exposed organs. 7 Monitoring the breast-absorbed dose is thus vital to ensure unnecessarily high doses do not occur; therefore, many quality assurance (QA) protocols have included breast dose assessments to govern the diagnostic adequacy of the imaging techniques in mammography.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and regression were used to study the agreement and correlation between organ and calculated doses. BlandAltman showed statistically significant bias between organ and calculated doses. The bias differed for different unit makes and models; Philips had the lowest bias, overestimating Dance method by 0.03 mGy, while general electric had the highest bias, overestimating Wu method by 0.20 mGy, the Hologic organ dose underestimated Boone method by 0.07 mGy, and the Fujifilm organ dose underestimated Dance method by 0.09 mGy. Organ dose was found to disagree with our calculated dose, yet organ dose is potentially beneficial for rapid dose audits. Conclusions drawn based on the organ dose alone come with a risk of over or underestimating the calculated dose to the patient and this error should be considered in any reported results.

show abstract

“…Biennial mammographic screening in women ages 50 to 69 years was the basis, which is shown to reduce mortality from breast cancer (20). Furthermore, we assumed an attendance rate of 100%, which probably overestimate the outcome of interest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening because of Competing Risk of Death

Falk

Hofvind

2016

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Different definitions and estimates of overdiagnosis in mammographic screening reflect a substantial need to investigate and understand the complexity of the issue. This modeling study aims to estimate the number of overdiagnosed women, defined as those diagnosed with breast cancer who die from any cause within the lead-time period.Methods: We used numbers from incidence and death statistics available online and published estimates of lead-time. Postulated cohorts of screened and not screened women ages 50 to 51 were followed for a period corresponding to 10 biennial screening exams during 20 years, and a further 10 years, to ages 78 to 79. The increase in breast cancer incidence because of screening was estimated based on lead-time. The proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer who died within the lead-time period

show abstract

Breast-Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group

Cited by 780 publications

References 36 publications

Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography

Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography

Mean glandular dose in digital mammography: a dose calculation method comparison

Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening because of Competing Risk of Death

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About