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):266-70.
doi: 10.1186/bcr1339. Epub 2005 Nov 10.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis and overtreatment in service screening

Affiliations

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis and overtreatment in service screening

Eugenio Paci et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2005.

Abstract

Screening mammography has been shown to be effective for reducing breast cancer mortality. According to screening theory, the first expected consequence of mammography screening is the detection of the disease at earlier stages and this diagnostic anticipation changes the population incidence curve, with an observed increase in incidence rates at earlier ages. It is unreasonable to expect that the age-specific incidence will ever return to pre-screening levels or to anticipate a significant reduction of incidence at older ages immediately after the first screening round. The interpretation of incidence trends, especially in the short term, is difficult. Methodology for quantification of overdiagnosis and statistical modelling based on service screening data is not well developed and few population-based studies are available. The overtreatment issue is discussed in terms of appropriateness of effective treatment considering the question of chemotherapy in very early stages and the use of breast conserving surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Breast cancer incidence rates in the city of Florence by calendar period.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Breast conserving surgery and tumour size (

References

    1. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trails of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42:793–806. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nystrom 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;359:909–919. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08020-0. Erratum: Lancet 2002, 360:724. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ballard-Barbash R, Klabunde C, Paci E, Broeders M, Coleman EA, Fracheboud J, Bouchard F, Rennert G, Shapiro S. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1999;8:417–426. - PubMed
    1. Cuzick J. Breast cancer screening – time to move forward. Breast. 2002;11:209–210. doi: 10.1054/brst.2002.0439. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. Br Med J. 2004;328:921–924. - PMC - PubMed