Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening

Data from randomised controlled trials of mammographic screening can be used to determine the extent of any overdiagnosis, as soon as either a time equivalent to the lead-time has elapsed after the final screen, or the control arm has been offered screening. This paper reviews those randomised trials for which breast cancer incidence data are available. In recent trials in which the control group has not been offered screening, an excess incidence of breast cancer remains after many years of follow-up. In those trials in which the control arm has been offered screening, although there is a possible shift from invasive to in situ disease, there is no evidence of overdiagnosis as a result of incident screens

Approaches to improving breast screening uptake: evidence and experience from Tower Hamlets

This paper reports on an innovative whole-systems approach to improving uptake of breast screening in Tower Hamlets, a deprived borough in the East End of London with a large minority ethnic population. The approach, developed by the public health team at NHS Tower Hamlets, draws on analysis of needs and existing literature about effective interventions to promote breast screening. Social marketing research led to a campaign targeted at Bangladeshi women, together with a range of initiatives to promote breast screening through primary care services and community outreach through local well-known organisations. The breast screening service itself was upgraded and a new service specification is being introduced from April 2009

Prediction of higher mortality reduction for the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial: A model-based approach on screening intervals

Background: The optimal interval between two consecutive mammograms is uncertain. The UK Frequency Trial did not show a significant difference in breast cancer mortality between screening every year (study group) and screening every 3 years (control group). In this study, the trial is simulated in order to gain insight into the results of the trial and to predict the effect of different screening intervals on breast cancer mortality. Methods: UK incidence, life tables and information from the trial were used in the microsimulation model MISCAN-Fadia to simulate the trial and predict the number of breast ca

Women's mammography experience and its impact on screening adherence

Objectives : Although rates for first-time and recent mammography screening have increased for women in the US in the past decade, rates for repeat mammography remain low. This study aimed to conduct an analysis of women's mammography experience, to examine the rates of repeat mammography and to identify the significant predictors of repeat mammography within 12 and 18 months of the index mammogram. Methods : Participants were 397 women obtaining a screening mammogram (i.e. index) at three university-affiliated radiology clinics. Following the index mammogram, women completed the measures assessing demographic background, health history, breast cancer knowledge, risk, and screening history, and aspects of the mammography experience. Eighteen months following the index mammogram, 296 women were contacted via telephone to assess repeat mammography behavior. Results : Factor analysis of a mammography experience survey yielded four major components including satisfaction with clinic services, physical experience, psychological experience, and communication with clinic staff. Twelve-month and 18-month repeat mammography rates were 37 and 68%, respectively. Logistic regression models found lifetime number of mammograms to predict repeat mammography at 12 and 18 months. In addition, the number of clinical breast exams obtained in the past 5 years predicted repeat mammography at 12 months, while having scheduled a mammography appointment predicted repeat mammography at 18 months. Conclusions : Based on these findings, strategies to increase mammography adherence include implementing a formal reminder system that prompts patients (e.g. postcard, automated telephone call) to schedule an annual mammogram or training clinic staff to automatically schedule an annual mammogram at the time of the current screening appointment. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63566/1/1463_ftp.pd

Annual or biennial mammography screening for women at a higher risk with a family history of breast cancer: prognostic indicators of screen-detected cancers in New South Wales, Australia

Objective: This study examined whether offering annual mammography screening for women with the risk factor of a family history of breast cancer resulted in more favorable prognostic indicators of diagnosed cancers than the usual approach of biennial screening. Methods: The study involved women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer, defined as having ≥1 first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer, who were diagnosed with a screen-detected invasive breast cancer between 1998 and 2004 in BreastScreen New South Wales (n = 590). The women were grouped according to whether they screened in an area offering annual screening to women with a family history, or were offered the standard biennial screening. The odds of having favorable tumor size, grade, and nodal status prognosis were compared between these screening groups using logistic regression. A comparison group of women without a family history, all offered biennial screening, was also evaluated based on the same area groupings to examine whether any differences were due to the area, rather than the screening interval policy. Results: Women with a family history who were offered annual screening at BreastScreen NSW were significantly more likely than those who were offered biennial screening to be diagnosed with a tumor ≤20 mm in size (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.21-3.02), and to have a node-negative tumor (AOR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03-2.50). There were also significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with tumors ≤15 mm (p < 0.001) and ≤10 mm in size (p = 0.011) in women offered annual screening. There was no significant difference in the odds of a Grade 1 tumor being detected (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.87-1.81), although the direction of the effect was consistent with that seen for size and nodal status. No significant differences were found in the comparison group of women without a family history. Conclusions: Offering annual screening for women aged 50-69 years with a family history of breast cancer significantly increased the odds of being diagnosed with a smaller, node-negative tumors. Further investigation is required to assess whether the improved prognostic indicators translate into significantly better mortality outcomes for women with a family history offered annually screening