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
. 2017 Mar;24(1):27-33.
doi: 10.1177/0969141316631375. Epub 2016 Jun 23.

Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening: An historical review

Affiliations

Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening: An historical review

Laszlo Tabar et al. J Med Screen. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives To summarize debate and research in the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening on key issues of trial design, endpoint evaluation, and overdiagnosis, and from these to infer promising directions for the future. Methods A cluster-randomized controlled trial of the offer of breast cancer screening in Sweden, with a single screen of the control group at the end of the screening phase forms the setting for a historical review of investigations and debate on issues of design, analysis, and interpretation of results of the trial. Results There has been considerable commentary on the closure screen of the control group, ascertainment of cause of death, and cluster randomization. The issues raised were researched in detail and the main questions answered in publications between 1989 and 2003. Overdiagnosis issues still remain, but methods of estimation taking full account of lead time and of non-screening influences on incidence (taking place mainly before 2005) suggest that it is a minor phenomenon. Conclusion Despite resolution of issues relating to this trial in peer-reviewed publications dating from years, or even decades ago, issues that already have been addressed continue to be raised. We suggest that it would be more profitable to concentrate efforts on current research issues in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

Keywords: Breast cancer screening; mammography; randomised trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin N Am 1992; 30: 187–210. - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985; i: 829–832. - PubMed
    1. Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2004; 328: 921–924. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified? Lancet 2000; 355: 129–134. - PubMed
    1. Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 1431–1439. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources