28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Breast cancer screening in developing countries

      review-article

      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

          Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare system, which affects the diagnosis of the tumor. Thus, the indicators observed in developed countries cannot be directly compared with those observed in developing countries because the healthcare infrastructures in developing countries are deficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate breast cancer screening strategies and indicators in developing countries.

          A systematic review and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting methodology were performed to identify possible indicators of presentation at diagnosis and the methodologies used in developing countries. We searched PubMed for the terms “Breast Cancer” or “Breast Cancer Screening” and “Developing Country” or “Developing Countries”.

          In all, 1,149 articles were identified. Of these articles, 45 full articles were selected, which allowed us to identify indicators related to epidemiology, diagnostic intervention (diagnostic strategy, diagnostic infrastructure, percentage of women undergoing mammography), quality of intervention (presentation of symptoms at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early stage disease), comparisons (trend curves, subpopulations at risk) and survival among different countries.

          The identification of these indicators will improve the reporting of methodologies used in developing countries and will allow us to evaluate improvements in public health related to breast cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

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

          Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

          (2009)
          Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

            To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests. (c) RSNA, 2004.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document.

              Breast cancer is a major cause of suffering and death and is of significant concern to many women. Early detection of breast cancer by systematic mammography screening can find lesions for which treatment is more effective and generally more favourable for quality of life. The potential harm caused by mammography includes the creation of unnecessary anxiety and morbidity, inappropriate economic cost and the use of ionising radiation. It is for this reason that the strongest possible emphasis on quality control and quality assurance is required. Development of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis has been an initiative within the Europe Against Cancer Programme. The fourth edition of the multidisciplinary guidelines was published in 2006 and comprises approximately 400 pages divided into 12 chapters prepared by >200 authors and contributors. The multidisciplinary editorial board has prepared a summary document to provide an overview of the fundamental points and principles that should support any quality screening or diagnostic service. This document includes a summary table of key performance indicators and is presented here in order to make these principles and standards known to a wider scientific community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinics (Sao Paulo)
                Clinics (Sao Paulo)
                Clinics
                Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
                1807-5932
                1980-5322
                April 2017
                April 2017
                : 72
                : 4
                : 244-253
                Affiliations
                [I ]Programa de Pós-Graduação em Oncologia, Hospital de Câncer de Barretos, Barretos, SP, BR
                [II ]Programa de Pós-graduação em Obstetricia, Ginecologia e Mastologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu – UNESP, Botucatu, SP, BR
                [III ]Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR
                [IV ]International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author. E-mail: posgrad@ 123456hcancerbarretos.com.br
                Article
                cln_72p244
                10.6061/clinics/2017(04)09
                5401614
                28492725
                c896c5cf-2d3d-46a3-a86c-948be28b2d7e
                Copyright © 2017 CLINICS

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 September 2016
                : 16 November 2016
                : 20 December 2016
                Categories
                Review

                Medicine
                breast neoplasms,epidemiology,prevention & control,mammography,mass screening,developing country

                Comments

                Comment on this article