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
Comparative Study
. 2010 Mar 23:340:c1241.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241.

Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study

Karsten Juhl Jørgensen et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the previously observed 25% reduction in breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen following the introduction of mammography screening was indeed due to screening, by using an additional screening region and five years additional follow-up.

Design: We used Poisson regression analyses adjusted for changes in age distribution to compare the annual percentage change in breast cancer mortality in areas where screening was used with the change in areas where it was not used during 10 years before screening was introduced and for 10 years after screening was in practice (starting five years after introduction of screening).

Setting: Copenhagen, where mammography screening started in 1991, and Funen county, where screening was introduced in 1993. The rest of Denmark (about 80% of the population) served as an unscreened control group.

Participants: All Danish women recorded in the Cause of Death Register and Statistics Denmark for 1971-2006.

Main outcome measure: Annual percentage change in breast cancer mortality in regions offering mammography screening and those not offering screening.

Results: In women who could benefit from screening (ages 55-74 years), we found a mortality decline of 1% per year in the screening areas (relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.01) during the 10 year period when screening could have had an effect (1997-2006). In women of the same age in the non-screening areas, there was a decline of 2% in mortality per year (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) in the same 10 year period. In women who were too young to benefit from screening (ages 35-55 years), breast cancer mortality during 1997-2006 declined 5% per year (RR 0.95, CI 0.92 to 0.98) in the screened areas and 6% per year (RR 0.94, CI 0.92 to 0.95) in the non-screened areas. For the older age groups (75-84 years), there was little change in breast cancer mortality over time in both screened and non-screened areas. Trends were less clear during the 10 year period before screening was introduced, with a possible increase in mortality in women aged less than 75 years in the non-screened regions.

Conclusions: We were unable to find an effect of the Danish screening programme on breast cancer mortality. The reductions in breast cancer mortality we observed in screening regions were similar or less than those in non-screened areas and in age groups too young to benefit from screening, and are more likely explained by changes in risk factors and improved treatment than by screening mammography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare (1) No financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer; (2) No financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (3) No spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (4) No non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Unadjusted breast cancer mortality rates for screened and non-screened areas in Denmark
None
Fig 2 Age adjusted breast cancer mortality rates in the United Kingdom for screened and non-screened age groups. Data from Cancer Research UK
None
Fig 3 Unadjusted breast cancer mortality rates in Sweden for screened and non-screened age groups. Data from Statistics Sweden (http://www.scb.se/default____2154.aspx)

Comment in

References

    1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chen BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-60. - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;4:CD001877. - PubMed
    1. Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention vol 7: breast cancer screening. IARC Press, 2002.
    1. Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Dalgaard P, Jensen MB, et al. Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 2005;330:220-4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Thornton H, Jørgensen KJ. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer: presentation of benefits and harms needs to be balanced. BMJ 2005;330:1024. - PMC - PubMed