Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk
- PMID: 22547470
- PMCID: PMC3520058
- DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00002
Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk
Abstract
Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States.
Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years.
Design: Comparative modeling study.
Data sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature.
Target population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening.
Time horizon: Lifetime.
Perspective: Societal.
Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial).
Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, false-positive findings/deaths averted.
Results of base-case analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate.
Results of sensitivity analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions.
Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance.
Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure.
Primary funding source: National Cancer Institute.
Figures
Comment in
-
Risk-based mammography screening: an effort to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms.Ann Intern Med. 2012 May 1;156(9):662-3. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00012. Ann Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22547477 No abstract available.
References
-
- 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(9310):909–19. - PubMed
-
- Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):625–51. - PubMed
-
- Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, Broeders MJ, Boer R, Hendriks JH, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet. 2003;361(9367):1411–7. - PubMed
-
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26. W-236. - PubMed
-
- Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Nygren P, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force [Internet] Preventive Services Task Force. 2009 Nov; Report No.: 10–05142-EF-1. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U01 CA152958/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063740/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA070040/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA70013/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- P01 CA154292/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- KO5CA96940/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA86082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA086076-10S1/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- K05 CA096940/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA152958/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA088283/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA70040/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63740/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA88283/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA69976/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA069976/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA86076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA070013/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials