Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    Ann Intern Med. 2012 May 1;156(9):609-17. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00002.

    Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.

    Source

    Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. n.vanravesteyn@erasmusmc.nl

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:

    Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States.

    OBJECTIVE:

    To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years.

    DESIGN:

    Comparative modeling study.

    DATA SOURCES:

    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature.

    TARGET POPULATION:

    A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening.

    TIME HORIZON:

    Lifetime.

    PERSPECTIVE:

    Societal.

    INTERVENTION:

    Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial).

    OUTCOME MEASURES:

    Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, false-positive findings/deaths averted.

    RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS:

    Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate.

    RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:

    The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions.

    LIMITATION:

    Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance.

    CONCLUSION:

    Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure.

    PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

    National Cancer Institute.

    Comment in

    PMID:
    22547470
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    PMCID:
    PMC3520058
    Free PMC Article

    Images from this publication.See all images (1)Free text

    Figure 1

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk