Effect of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality

Riva, C Ruga; Biollaz, J.; Foucras, Philippe; Junod, Bernard; Nicot, Philippe C.; Spinosa, Jean-Pierre

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60548-0

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Even though journals have conflict of interest reporting policies, the conflicts of interest reported are not always reliable. 22 All the general medical journals included are members of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME); however, this is only the case for 22% (4/18) of the specialty journals included. WAME aims to improve the editorial standards and, among other things, to ensure a balanced debate on controversial issues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn 2001, a Cochrane review of mammography screening questioned whether screening reduces breast cancer mortality, and a more comprehensive review in Lancet, also in 2001, reported considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This led to a heated debate and a recent review of the evidence by UK experts intended to be independent.ObjectiveTo explore if general medical and specialty journals differed in accepting the results and methods of three Cochrane reviews on mammography screening.MethodsWe identified articles citing the Lancet review from 2001 or updated versions of the Cochrane review (last search 20 April 2012). We explored which results were quoted, whether the methods and results were accepted (explicit agreement or quoted without caveats), differences between general and specialty journals, and change over time.ResultsWe included 171 articles. The results for overdiagnosis were not quoted in 87% (148/171) of included articles and the results for breast cancer mortality were not quoted in 53% (91/171) of articles. 11% (7/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the results for overdiagnosis compared with 3% (3/108) in specialty journals (p=0.05). 14% (9/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the methods of the review compared with 1% (1/108) in specialty journals (p=0.001). Specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject the estimated effect on breast cancer mortality 26% (28/108), compared with 8% (5/63) in general medical journals, p=0.02.ConclusionsArticles in specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject results from the Cochrane reviews, and less likely to accept the results and methods, than articles in general medical journals. Several specialty journals are published by interest groups and some authors have vested interests in mammography screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 We never stated that our study "proves" that screening saves lives; proof is derived from randomized controlled trials, including those beginning at age 40 years, and is confirmed by numerous observational studies. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There is no scientific rationale for the use of age 50 years as a threshold. 14 No parameters of screening change abruptly at age 50 years or at any other age.…”

Section: Reply To a Failure Analysis Of Invasive Breast Cancer: Most mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Daniel Kopans, for example, is the inventor of several devices and systems in the field of breast imaging and tumor location, 5 and is currently the owner or co-owner of 8 patents 6 and also serves as member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the company Dexela, 7 which is involved in breast cancer diagnosis. 8 This is a serious issue: a previous article defending mammography screening 9 was flawed because of conflicts of interest that were not formally declared. It appears possible, if not probable, that apparent survival from disease among screened women might be due to multiple and uncontrollable bias and overdiagnosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: Most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened

Spinosa

Riva²,

Autier

et al. 2013

Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organized breast screening: Answers to recurring controversies

Ceugnart¹,

Deghaye²,

Vennin³

et al. 2014

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reduction in mortality specifically from breast cancer, demonstrated in the major meta-analyses in the 1980s resulted in public health breast cancer screening programs being set up in many countries, including France. Recent publications have challenged the usefulness of screening, by insisting in particular on the negative effects of overdiagnosis and the lack of any significant impact on mortality. From analysis of the literature and particularly independent reviews published in 2012, we provide some answers for doctors faced with the legitimate concerns of women. These studies confirm that screening in the right age group reduces specific mortality by at least 20% at a cost of overdiagnosis estimated at between 1 and 15%.

show abstract

Effect of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: Most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened

Organized breast screening: Answers to recurring controversies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About