Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005;7(6):258-65.
doi: 10.1186/bcr1354. Epub 2005 Nov 10.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer

Affiliations

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer

Stephen W Duffy et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2005.

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials have shown that the policy of mammographic screening confers a substantial and significant reduction in breast cancer mortality. This has often been accompanied, however, by an increase in breast cancer incidence, particularly during the early years of a screening programme, which has led to concerns about overdiagnosis, that is to say, the diagnosis of disease that, if left undetected and therefore untreated, would not become symptomatic. We used incidence data from two randomised controlled trials of mammographic screening, the Swedish Two-county Trial and the Gothenburg Trial, to establish the timing and magnitude of any excess incidence of invasive disease and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the study groups, to ascertain whether the excess incidence of DCIS reported early in a screening trial is balanced by a later deficit in invasive disease and provide explicit estimates of the rate of 'real' and non-progressive 'overdiagnosed' tumours from the study groups of the trials. We used a multistate model for overdiagnosis and used Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate the parameters. After taking into account the effect of lead time, we estimated that less than 5% of cases diagnosed at prevalence screen and less than 1% of cases diagnosed at incidence screens are being overdiagnosed. Overall, we estimate overdiagnosis to be around 1% of all cases diagnosed in screened populations. These estimates are, however, subject to considerable uncertainty. Our results suggest that overdiagnosis in mammography screening is a minor phenomenon, but further studies with very large numbers are required for more precise estimation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative incidence of breast cancers in study and control groups of the Swedish Two-county Trial. (a) Invasive cancers. (b) In situ cancers. (c) All cancers.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative excess incidence (study versus control) of breast cancers in the Swedish Two-county Trial. (a) Invasive cancers. (b) In situ cancers. (c) All cancers.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative incidence of breast cancers in study and control groups of the Gothenburg Trial. (a) Invasive cancers. (b) In situ cancers. (c) All cancers.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cumulative excess incidence (study versus control) of breast cancers in the Gothenburg Trial. (a) Invasive cancers. (b) In situ cancers. (c) All cancers.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smith RA. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long term follow-up. Radiol Clin Nth Am. 2000;38:625–651. doi: 10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70191-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen HHT. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin Nth Am. 2004;42:793–806. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08020-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paci E, Warwick J, Falini P, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis in service screening: should the increase in breast cancer incidence rates necessarily be a cause for concern? J Med Screen. 2004;11:23–27. doi: 10.1258/096914104772950718. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anttila A, Koskela J, Hakama M. Programme sensitivity and effectiveness of mammography service screening in Helsinki, Finland. J Med Screen. 2002;9:153–158. doi: 10.1136/jms.9.4.153. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms