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
. 2018 Dec 17;20(1):153.
doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-1082-z.

Overdiagnosis in the population-based organized breast cancer screening program estimated by a non-homogeneous multi-state model: a cohort study using individual data with long-term follow-up

Affiliations

Overdiagnosis in the population-based organized breast cancer screening program estimated by a non-homogeneous multi-state model: a cohort study using individual data with long-term follow-up

Wendy Yi-Ying Wu et al. Breast Cancer Res. .

Abstract

Background: Overdiagnosis, defined as the detection of a cancer that would not become clinically apparent in a woman's lifetime without screening, has become a growing concern. Similar underlying risk of breast cancer in the screened and control groups is a prerequisite for unbiased estimates of overdiagnosis, but a contemporary control group is usually not available in organized screening programs.

Methods: We estimated the frequency of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to screening in women 50-69 years old by using individual screening data from the population-based organized screening program in Stockholm County 1989-2014. A hidden Markov model with four latent states and three observed states was constructed to estimate the natural progression of breast cancer and the test sensitivity. Piecewise transition rates were used to consider the time-varying transition rates. The expected number of detected non-progressive breast cancer cases was calculated.

Results: During the study period, 2,333,153 invitations were sent out; on average, the participation rate in the screening program was 72.7% and the average recall rate was 2.48%. In total, 14,648 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed; among the 8305 screen-detected cases, the expected number of non-progressive breast cancer cases was 35.9, which is equivalent to 0.43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10%-2.2%) overdiagnosis. The corresponding estimates for the prevalent and subsequent rounds were 15.6 (0.87%, 95% CI 0.20%-4.3%) and 20.3 (0.31%, 95% CI 0.07%-1.6%), respectively. The likelihood ratio test showed that the non-homogeneous model fitted the data better than an age-homogeneous model (P <0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that overdiagnosis in the organized biennial mammographic screening for women 50-69 in Stockholm County is a minor phenomenon. The frequency of overdiagnosis in the prevalent screening round was higher than that in subsequent rounds. The non-homogeneous model performed better than the simpler, traditional homogeneous model.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Mammography; Multi-state model; Organized screening program; Overdiagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the ethics committee in Umeå, Sweden (Dnr 2015/57–31 and Dnr 2017–166-32 M).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The latent four-state Markov model and the observed states. The possible latent state transition is denoted by arrows, and the probability of being detected in the observed state is denoted by dashed arrows. Abbreviations: BC breast cancer, PCDP preclinical screen-detectable phase, S sensitivity, λ12(t) the transition rate from state 1 to state 2 at time t, λ23(t) the transition rate from state 2 to state 3 at time t, λ14(t) the transition rate from state 1 to state 4 at time t
Fig 2
Fig 2
The observed and expected cumulative incidence rate in the homogeneous (HMM) and the non-homogeneous multi-state (NHMM) models. (a) Ages 50–59. (b) Ages above 60

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0349. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Mallinger L, Mandelblatt J. Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:831–838. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ripping TM, Verbeek AL, Ten Haaf K, van Ravesteyn NT, Broeders MJ. Extrapolation of pre-screening trends: Impact of assumptions on overdiagnosis estimates by mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;42:147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.04.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, Vitak B, Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:258–265. doi: 10.1186/bcr1354. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J. 2006;12:338–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00272.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms