CEBP CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Cancer Health Disparities Conference 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 15, 45-51, January 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Reduction in Breast Cancer Mortality from Organized Service Screening with Mammography: 1. Further Confirmation with Extended Data

The Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group

Requests for reprints: Stephen W. Duffy, Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics, and Statistics, Wolfson Institute for Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-20-7014-0252; Fax: 44-20-7014-0252. E-mail: stephen.duffy{at}cancer.org.uk

Background: In an earlier publication, our evaluation of data from breast cancer screening programs in seven Swedish counties suggested a 40% reduction in incidence-based breast cancer mortality among women actually screened. In the current study, we expand the previous analysis from seven counties to 13 large areas within nine counties, including six of the original counties and seven additional areas, examine a longer period of follow-up (20-44 years), apply new analytic methods for the evaluation of incidence-based breast cancer mortality, and estimate the number needed to screen to save one life.

Methods: Data from six of the original counties (one being excluded as it does not yet have 10 years of follow-up after the initiation of screening), with increased follow-up, and seven additional large areas, within three counties, representing ~45% of Swedish women, provide information about age at diagnosis, age at death, and screening history for 542,187 women in the prescreening and 566,423 women in the screening epochs. Regardless of year of diagnosis, there were a total of 6,231 deaths due to breast cancer in the period of study as a whole. Of these, 4,778 were incidence-based deaths in the two epochs, i.e., death among cases diagnosed within either the prescreening or screening period. Data were analyzed using Poisson regression and adjusted, when necessary, for self-selection bias, contemporaneous changes in incidence, and changes in mortality independent of screening.

Results: Attendance was uniformly high, averaging 75% in the screening epochs. Recall rates for assessment varied from 4% to 5% at the first round of screening and ~3% at later rounds. Detection rates averaged five breast cancers per 1,000 women screened in the first round, and four breast cancers per 1,000 women screened in subsequent rounds. There was a significant 45% reduction in incidence-based breast cancer mortality among screened women in the screening epoch relative to incidence-based breast cancer mortality in the prescreening epoch (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence intervals, 0.51-0.59). After adjusting for self-selection bias, there still was a significant 43% reduction in incidence-based breast cancer mortality associated with screening (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence intervals, 0.53-0.62).

Conclusions: These results indicate a reduction in breast cancer mortality of between 40% and 45% in association with screening, after adjustment for self-selection bias. These results were obtained with modest human costs: the number needed to screen to save one life was estimated as 472. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(1):45–51)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JCOHome page
L. Holmberg, H. Garmo, B. Granstrand, A. Ringberg, L.-G. Arnesson, K. Sandelin, P. Karlsson, H. Anderson, and S. Emdin
Absolute Risk Reductions for Local Recurrence After Postoperative Radiotherapy After Sector Resection for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2008; 26(8): 1247 - 1252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Med ScreenHome page
K. Bihrmann, A. Jensen, A. H. Olsen, S. Njor, W. Schwartz, I. Vejborg, and E. Lynge
Performance of systematic and non-systematic ('opportunistic') screening mammography: a comparative study from Denmark
J Med Screen, March 1, 2008; 15(1): 23 - 26.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
N. S. Weiss, T. D. Koepsell, and B. M. Psaty
Generalizability of the Results of Randomized Trials
Arch Intern Med, January 28, 2008; 168(2): 133 - 135.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
INT J SURG PATHOLHome page
T. Tot
The Theory of the Sick Breast Lobe and the Possible Consequences
International Journal of Surgical Pathology, October 1, 2007; 15(4): 369 - 375.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association for Cancer Research.