Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in Denmark. A comparative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Overdiagnosis in cancer screening is the detection of cancer lesions that would otherwise not have been detected. It is arguably the most important harm. We quantified overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening programme, which is uniquely suited for this purpose, as only 20% of the Danish population has been offered organised mammography screening over a long time-period.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We collected incidence rates of carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in areas with and without screening over 13 years with screening (1991-2003), and 20 years before its introduction (1971-1990). We explored the incidence increase comparing unadjusted incidence rates and used Poisson regression analysis to compensate for the background incidence trend, variation in age distribution and geographical variation in incidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For the screened age group, 50 to 69 years, we found an overdiagnosis of 35% when we compared unadjusted incidence rates for the screened and non-screened areas, but after compensating for a small decline in incidence in older, previously screened women. Our adjusted Poisson regression analysis indicated a relative risk of 1.40 (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) for the whole screening period, and a potential compensatory drop in older women of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96), yielding an overdiagnosis of 33%, which we consider the most reliable estimate. The drop in previously screened women was only present in one of the two screened regions and was small in absolute numbers.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>One in four breast cancers diagnosed in the screened age group in the Danish screening programme is overdiagnosed. Our estimate for Denmark is lower than that for comparable countries, likely because of lower uptake, lower recall rates and lower detection rates of carcinoma in situ.</p

Amniotic fluid embolism incidence, risk factors and outcomes: a review and recommendations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is a rare but severe complication of pregnancy. A recent systematic review highlighted apparent differences in the incidence, with studies estimating the incidence of AFE to be more than three times higher in North America than Europe. The aim of this study was to examine population-based regional or national data from five high-resource countries in order to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes of AFE and to investigate whether any variation identified could be ascribed to methodological differences between the studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed available data sources on the incidence of AFE in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the USA. Where information was available, the risk factors and outcomes of AFE were examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The reported incidence of AFE ranged from 1.9 cases per 100 000 maternities (UK) to 6.1 per 100 000 maternities (Australia). There was a clear distinction between rates estimated using different methodologies. The lowest estimated incidence rates were obtained through validated case identification (range 1.9-2.5 cases per 100 000 maternities); rates obtained from retrospective analysis of population discharge databases were significantly higher (range 5.5-6.1 per 100 000 admissions with delivery diagnosis). Older maternal age and induction of labour were consistently associated with AFE.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Recommendation 1: Comparisons of AFE incidence estimates should be restricted to studies using similar methodology. The recommended approaches would be either population-based database studies using additional criteria to exclude false positive cases, or tailored data collection using existing specific population-based systems.</p> <p>Recommendation 2: Comparisons of AFE incidence between and within countries would be facilitated by development of an agreed case definition and an agreed set of criteria to minimise inclusion of false positive cases for database studies.</p> <p>Recommendation 3: Groups conducting detailed population-based studies on AFE should develop an agreed strategy to allow combined analysis of data obtained using consistent methodologies in order to identify potentially modifiable risk factors.</p> <p>Recommendation 4: Future specific studies on AFE should aim to collect information on management and longer-term outcomes for both mothers and infants in order to guide best practice, counselling and service planning.</p

Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The CONSORT statement specifies the need for a balanced presentation of both benefits and harms of medical interventions in trial reports. However, invitations to screening and newspaper articles often emphasize benefits and downplay or omit harms, and it is known that scientific articles can be influenced by conflicts of interest. We wanted to determine if a similar imbalance occurs in scientific articles on mammography screening and if it is related to author affiliation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed in April 2005 for articles on mammography screening that mentioned a benefit or a harm and that were published in 2004 in English. Data extraction was performed by three independent investigators, two unblinded and one blinded for article contents, and author names and affiliation, as appropriate. The extracted data were compared and discrepancies resolved by two investigators in a combined analysis. We defined three groups of authors: (1) authors in specialties unrelated to mammography screening, (2) authors in screening-affiliated specialties (radiology or breast cancer surgery) who were not working with screening, or authors funded by cancer charities, and (3) authors (at least one) working directly with mammography screening programmes. We used a data extraction sheet with 17 items described as important benefits and harms in the 2002 WHO/IARC-report on breast cancer screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 854 articles, and 143 were eligible for the study. Most were original research. Benefits were mentioned more often than harms (96% vs 62%, P < 0.001). Fifty-five (38%) articles mentioned only benefits, whereas seven (5%) mentioned only harms (P < 0.001). Overdiagnosis was mentioned in 35 articles (24%), but was more often downplayed or rejected in articles that had authors working with screening, (6/15; 40%) compared with authors affiliated by specialty or funding (1/6; 17%), or authors unrelated with screening (1/14; 7%) (P = 0.03). Benefits in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality were mentioned in 109 (76%) articles, and was more often provided as a relative risk reduction than an absolute risk reduction, where quantified (45 articles (31%) versus 6 articles (3%) (P < 0.001)).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Scientific articles tend to emphasize the major benefits of mammography screening over its major harms. This imbalance is related to the authors' affiliation.</p