112
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Volume 7: Breast Cancer Screening

      book-review
      1 ,
      Breast Cancer Research
      BioMed Central
      Breast neoplasm, screening, mammography, radiography, early detection

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The latest publication in the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) series of Handbooks of Cancer Prevention is focused on breast cancer screening. The monograph is the outcome of a weeklong meeting of the Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies that took place in Lyon, France, March 5–12, 2002. The decision to produce a handbook on breast cancer screening was timely for several reasons. First, only a few monographs exist that focus exclusively on breast cancer screening, none of which represent a comprehensive treatment of the subject, and all were published before 1990 [1-4]. Second, the value of breast cancer screening recently had been challenged by a Cochrane Review [5] on screening for breast cancer with mammography, and a number of independent expert groups had been assembled to evaluate that analysis and the authors' provocative conclusions. Thus, in the presence of another expert group's conclusion that there was no scientific evidence to support the value of mammography, the IARC Working Group's evaluation of the world's literature on the efficacy of breast cancer screening had an extra dimension of drama. Contrary to the Cochrane Review, the IARC Working Group affirmed the value of mammography for women aged 50–69. Anyone interested in breast cancer control, or screening in general, will find this volume a valuable addition to their library. The book is well organized, and proceeds through the evaluation of the scientific evidence in the context of the classic criteria for principles and practices of screening for disease established by Wilson and Junger in 1968 [6]. Chapters one through three describe the global burden and the natural history of breast cancer, conceptual considerations related to screening performance, various methods of early detection, including conventional and experimental imaging techniques as well as physical exams, and use of screening and behavioral issues related to screening uptake. Chapters four through six review conceptual issues and the existing evidence on efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of screening. The monograph concludes with a summary chapter, an additional chapter with a brief description of the conclusions, and another on recommendations for future research. Thus, the monograph provides the most extensive treatment available of the issues pertaining to breast cancer screening. It concludes that mammography is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but like other screening tests, has a number of limitations. Undoubtedly, those who are familiar with the literature will see some topics that are treated with a degree of certainty that belies the limitations of the existing data, or the presence of alternative interpretations. If one accepts the results from the trials uncritically it is reasonable to conclude that there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of screening women aged 40–49. However, the poor performance of screening in the trials in this age group must be seen as the result of screening intervals that were too wide to achieve a measurably reduced incidence rate of advanced disease. Considerable inferential evidence from the trials [7], meta-analyses [8,9], and evaluations of service screening [10-12] support the conclusion that, when women in their forties are screened at a 12–18 month interval, mortality reductions are equivalent to those that can be expected in women aged 50+ screened every 24 months. Another example of a conclusion that has limited supporting evidence is the assertion that 5–25% of cancers detected by mammography represent over-diagnosis. While it has been estimated that some over-diagnosis exists, the overall proportion likely is less than 5%, of which most occurs during a prevalent screen. In subsequent incident screens the rate is very small to nonexistent [13,14]. Like many areas of research, experts can and will differ in the conclusions they draw from existing evidence. Still, the IARC Handbook on Breast Cancer Screening has much to offer, and will be required reading for anyone with an interest in screening, and especially an interest in breast cancer screening. Competing interests None declared. Abbreviations IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening.

          The long term effect of mammographic service screening is not well established. We aimed to assess the long-term effect of mammographic screening on death from breast cancer, taking into account potential biases from self-selection, changes in breast cancer incidence, and classification of cause of death. We compared deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before screening was introduced (1958-77) with those from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years after the introduction of screening (1978-97) in two Swedish counties, in 210000 women aged 20-69 years. We also compared deaths from all cancers and from all causes in patients diagnosed with breast cancer in the 20 years before and after screening was introduced. In the analysis, data were stratified into age-groups invited for screening (40-69 years) and not invited (20-39 years), and by whether or not the women had actually received screening. We also analysed mortality for the 40-49-year age-group separately. The unadjusted risk of death from breast cancer dropped significantly in the second screening period compared with the first in women aged 40-69 years (relative risk [RR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.7-0.85]; p<0.0001). No such decline was seen in 20-39 year olds. After adjustment for age, self-selection bias, and changes in breast-cancer incidence in the 40-69 years age-group, breast-cancer mortality was reduced in women who were screened (0.56; 0.49-0.64 p<0.0001), in those who were not screened (0.84 [0.71-0.99]; p=0.03), and in screened and unscreened women combined (0.59 [0.53-0.66]; p<0.0001). After adjustment for age, self-selection bias, and changes in incidence in the 40-49-year age-group, deaths from breast cancer fell significantly in those who were screened (0.52 [0.4-0.67]; p<0.0001); and in all women, screened and unscreened combined (0.55 [0.44-0.7] p<0.0001) but not in unscreened women (p=0.2). In both 40-69-year and 40-49-year age-groups, reductions in deaths from all cancers and from all-causes in women with breast cancer were consistent with these results. Taking account of potential biases, changes in clinical practice and changes in the incidence of breast cancer, mammography screening is contributing to substantial reductions in breast cancer mortality in these two Swedish counties.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality.

            The efficacy of mammographic screening in the reduction of breast carcinoma mortality has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. However, the evaluation of organized screening outside of research settings (so-called "service screening") faces unique methodologic and conceptual challenges. The current study describes the evaluation of organized mammography screening in a clinical setting and demonstrates the benefit obtained from service screening in two Swedish counties. In the group of subjects ages 20--69 years, there were 6807 women diagnosed with breast carcinoma over a 29-year period in 2 counties in Sweden and 1863 breast carcinoma deaths. All patients were classified from patient charts based on their screening status (i.e., whether they had been invited to undergo screening and whether they actually had undergone screening). The number of women who lived in the 2 counties during the 29-year study period was provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics. Breast carcinoma-specific mortality was compared across three time periods: 1) 1968--1977, when no screening was taking place because mammography had not been introduced; 2) 1978--1987, the approximate period of the Two-County randomized controlled trial of screening in women ages 40--74 years; and 3) 1988--1996, when all women in the 2 counties ages 40--69 years were invited to undergo screening (service screening). When comparing breast carcinoma mortality in screened women with that in women diagnosed before screening was introduced, a correction for self-selection bias was incorporated to prevent overestimation of the benefit of screening. The mortality from incident breast carcinoma diagnosed in women ages 40-69 years who actually were screened during the service screening period (1988--1996) declined significantly by 63% (relative risk [RR] = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30--0.46) compared with breast carcinoma mortality during the time period when no screening was available (1968--1977). The mortality decline was 50% (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41--0.60) when breast carcinoma mortality among all women who were invited to undergo screening (nonattendees included) was compared with breast cancer mortality during the time period when no screening was available (1968--1977). The reduction in mortality observed during the service screening period, adjusted for selection bias, was 48% (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43--0.63). No significant change in breast carcinoma mortality was observed over the three time periods in women who did not undergo screening. This group included women ages 20--39 years because these individuals were never invited to undergo screening, and women ages 40--69 years who did not undergo screening (not invited during the randomized trial or invited during the second and third time periods but declined). Regular mammographic screening resulted in a 63% reduction in breast carcinoma death among women who actually underwent screening. The policy of invitation to organized screening with mammography appears to have reduced breast carcinoma mortality by 50% in these 2 counties. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990–96

              Breast cancer cases diagnosed in women aged 50–69 since 1990 to 1996 in the City of Florence were partitioned into those who had been invited to screening prior to diagnosis and those who had not. All cases were followed up for vital status until 31 December 1999. The cumulative number of breast cancer deaths among the cases were divided by screening and invitation status, to give the rates of cancers proving fatal within a period of 8 years of observation (incidence-based mortality). We used the incidence-based mortality rates for two periods (1985–86, 1990–96), pre and during screening. The incidence-based mortality ratio comparing 1990–96 and 1985–86 was 0.50 (95% CI : 0.38–0.66), a significant 50% reduction. For noninvited women, compared to 1985-86, there was a 41% significant mortality reduction (RR=0.59, 95% CI : 0.42–0.82). The comparable reduction in those invited was a significant 55% (RR=0.45, 95% CI : 0.32–0.61). The incidence ratio of rates of cancers stage II or worse was close to one when the noninvited in 1990–96 were compared with 1985–86 (RR=0.97, 95% CI : 0.78–1.21). Excluding prevalent cases, the rate of stage II+ breast cancer cases was 42% lower in Screened women compared with the noninvited (RR=0.58, 95% CI : 0.45–0.74). This study confirmed that new treatments and the first rounds of the screening programme contributed to reducing mortality from breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer (2002) 87, 65–69. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600301 www.bjcancer.com © 2002 Cancer Research UK
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Breast Cancer Res
                Breast Cancer Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-5411
                1465-542X
                2003
                5 June 2003
                : 5
                : 4
                : 216-217
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Director of Cancer Screening, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
                Article
                bcr616
                10.1186/bcr616
                165025
                7e6d6cd1-032a-4b98-a7ae-2f615c92828b
                Copyright © 2003 BioMed Central Ltd
                History
                Categories
                Book Report

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                screening,mammography,early detection,breast neoplasm,radiography
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                screening, mammography, early detection, breast neoplasm, radiography

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content120

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors83