Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer (original) (raw)
Related papers
Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern?
Journal of medical screening, 2004
To estimate the degree of overdiagnosis of breast cancer in a mammographic screening programme. A mammography service screening programme in Florence, Italy. We studied the incidence of breast cancer in Florence between 1990 and 1999, following the introduction of screening in 1990. Incidence of breast cancer in this period was compared with incidence between 1985 and 1989, before the introduction of screening. It was necessary to estimate the number of cancers that would have arisen in the absence of screening, but after the end of followup (31 December 1999), so that these were not misclassified as overdiagnosed tumours. Around 60,000 women aged 50-69 were invited for screening during the period of study. There were 2780 breast cancers diagnosed during the period of study (2626 were invasive). There was no significant evidence of overdiagnosis of invasive cancers. When invasive and in situ cancers were considered together, around 5% of cases were overdiagnosed. There is a small am...
An exploration for quantification of overdiagnosis and its effect for breast cancer screening
Chinese Journal of Cancer Research, 2020
Objective: To redefine overdiagnosis and reestimate the proportion of overdiagnosis of breast cancer caused by screening based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER, 1973−2015) Program data. Methods: The breast cancer diagnosed before 1977 was defined as the no-screening cohort since America had initiated breast cancer screening from 1977. The breast cancer diagnosed in 1999 was defined as the screening cohort due to no increases in both the proportion of early-stage breast cancer until 1999 and the overall survival of early-stage breast cancer diagnosed over the three years since 1999. The magnitude of overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference in the proportions of early-stage breast cancer patients with long-time (15-year) survival to all breast cancer patients between two cohorts. Results: Over 23 years before and after widespread screening in America, the proportion of early-stage breast cancer patients increased from 52.1% (16,891/32,443) to 72.7% (16,021/22,025) (P<0.001). The 15-year survival rate of early-stage breast cancer patients increased from 51.1% to 61.5% (P<0.001), while the proportions of earlystage breast cancer patients with long-time survival to all breast cancer patients increased from 26.6% (52.1%×51.1%) to 44.7% (72.7%×61.5%). Assuming no improvements in cancer screening technology and treatment technology, 18.1% (44.7%−26.6%) of breast cancer patients were overdiagnosed associated with screening. The age-specific overdiagnosis rates were 18.
Estimation of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis in a U.S. Breast Screening Cohort
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2022
Background: Mammography screening can lead to overdiagnosis-that is, screen-detected breast cancer that would not have caused symptoms or signs in the remaining lifetime. There is no consensus about the frequency of breast cancer overdiagnosis. Objective: To estimate the rate of breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary mammography practice accounting for the detection of nonprogressive cancer. Design: Bayesian inference of the natural history of breast cancer using individual screening and diagnosis records, allowing for nonprogressive preclinical cancer. Combination of fitted natural history model with life-table data to predict the rate of overdiagnosis among screen-detected cancer under biennial screening. Setting: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities. Participants: Women aged 50 to 74 years at first mammography screen between 2000 and 2018. Measurements: Screening mammograms and screen-detected or interval breast cancer. Results: The cohort included 35 986 women, 82 677 mammograms, and 718 breast cancer diagnoses. Among all preclinical cancer cases, 4.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.1% to 14.8%) were estimated to be nonprogressive. In a program of biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years, 15.4% (UI, 9.4% to 26.5%) of screen-detected cancer cases were estimated to be overdiagnosed, with 6.1% (UI, 0.2% to 20.1%) due to detecting indolent preclinical cancer and 9.3% (UI, 5.5% to 13.5%) due to detecting progressive preclinical cancer in women who would have died of an unrelated cause before clinical diagnosis. Limitations: Exclusion of women with first mammography screen outside BCSC. Conclusion: Based on an authoritative U.S. population data set, the analysis projected that among biennially screened women aged 50 to 74 years, about 1 in 7 cases of screen-detected cancer is overdiagnosed. This information clarifies the risk for breast cancer overdiagnosis in contemporary screening practice and should facilitate shared and informed decision making about mammography screening.
Interpreting Overdiagnosis Estimates in Population-based Mammography Screening
Epidemiologic Reviews, 2011
Estimates of overdiagnosis in mammography screening range from 1% to 54%. This review explains such variations using gradual implementation of mammography screening in the Netherlands as an example. Breast cancer incidence without screening was predicted with a micro-simulation model. Observed breast cancer incidence (including ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer) was modeled and compared with predicted incidence without screening during various phases of screening program implementation. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between the modeled number of breast cancers with and the predicted number of breast cancers without screening. Estimating overdiagnosis annually between 1990 and 2006 illustrated the importance of the time at which overdiagnosis is measured. Overdiagnosis was also calculated using several estimators identified from the literature. The estimated overdiagnosis rate peaked during the implementation phase of screening, at 11.4% of all predicted cancers in women aged 0-100 years in the absence of screening. At steadystate screening, in 2006, this estimate had decreased to 2.8%. When different estimators were used, the overdiagnosis rate in 2006 ranged from 3.6% (screening age or older) to 9.7% (screening age only). The authors concluded that the estimated overdiagnosis rate in 2006 could vary by a factor of 3.5 when different denominators were used. Calculations based on earlier screening program phases may overestimate overdiagnosis by a factor 4. Sufficient follow-up and agreement regarding the chosen estimator are needed to obtain reliable estimates. breast neoplasms; early detection of cancer; incidence; mammography; mass screening; overdiagnosis; risk Abbreviation: DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ.
Complexities in the estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening
British journal of cancer, 2008
There is interest in estimating and attributing temporal changes in incidence of breast cancer in relation to the initiation of screening programmes, in particular to estimation of overdiagnosis of breast cancer as a result of screening. In this paper, we show how screening introduces complexities of analysis and interpretation of incidence data. For example, lead time brings forward time- and age-related increases in incidence. In addition, risk factors such as hormone replacement therapy use have been changing contemporaneously with the introduction of screening. Although we do not indicate exactly how such complexities should be corrected for, we use some simple informal adjustments to show how they may account for a substantial proportion of increased incidence, which might otherwise erroneously have been attributed to overdiagnosis. We illustrate this using an example of analysis of breast cancer incidence data from Sweden.
Obligate Overdiagnosis Due to Mammographic Screening: A Direct Estimate for U.S. Women
Radiology, 2018
To determine obligate overdiagnosis rates, defined as the percentage of women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer who die of causes other than breast cancer prior to clinical presentation of that cancer, for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers. Materials and Methods: Age-specific all-cause mortality rates from the Human Mortality Database, age-specific breast cancer incidence and mortality rates from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and estimates of mean lead times and lead time distributions from breast cancer screening trials are used to estimate obligate (or type 1) overdiagnosis rates for DCIS, invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers (DCIS plus invasive) for U.S. women undergoing screening mammography. Mortality rates by age are used to estimate the number of women who die of causes other than breast cancer during the lead time afforded by screening mammography. Resulting age-dependent overdiagnosis rates, along with screen-detected breast cancer incidence by age, are used to estimate type 1 overdiagnosis rates for the U.S. screening population. Results: Obligate overdiagnosis rates depend strongly on the age at which a woman is screened, ranging from less than 1% at age 40 years to 30%, 21%, and 22.5% at age 80 years for DCIS, invasive breast cancer, and all breast cancers, respectively. Type 1 overdiagnosis rates among screened women in the United States are estimated to be 9% for DCIS and approximately 7% for both invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers. Screening of women ages 40-49 years (or premenopausal women, as determined from patient history, starting at age 40 years) adds little to obligate overdiagnosis rates (0.15% for DCIS and less than 0.1% for invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers). Conclusion: Type 1 overdiagnosis rates increase rapidly with age at screening. Obligate overdiagnosis occurs in 9% of DCIS and approximately 7% of both invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers in the U.S. mammographic screening population, with screening of women ages 40-49 years (or premenopausal women starting at age 40 years) making a negligible contribution of 0.15% to obligate overdiagnosis of DCIS and a contribution of less than 0.1% to the obligate overdiagnosis rates of invasive breast cancer and all breast cancers.
Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program
International Journal of Cancer, 2013
Increased incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC) after introduction of organized screening has prompted debate about overdiagnosis. The aim was to examine the excess in incidence of DCIS and IBC during the screening period and the deficit after women left the program, and thereby to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosis. Women invited to the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program were analyzed for DCIS or IBC during the period 1995-2009. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for attended vs. never attended women. The IRRs were adjusted by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method and applied to a set of reference rates and a reference population to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosis during the women's lifespan after the age of 50 years. A total of 702,131 women were invited to the program. An excess of DCIS and IBC was observed among women who attended screening during the screening period; prevalently invited women aged 50-51 years had a MH IRR of 1.86 (95% CI 1.65-2.09) and subsequently invited women aged 52-69 years had a MH IRR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.45-1.68). In women aged 70-79 years, a deficit of 30% (MH IRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.80) was observed 1-10 years after they left the screening program. The estimated proportion of overdiagnosis varied from 10 to 20% depending on outcome and whether the women were invited or actually screened. The results highlight the need for individual data with longitudinal screening history and long-term follow-up as a basis for estimating overdiagnosis.
Overdiagnosis in the Dutch and Norwegian breast cancer screening program
2016
The aim of the thesis is to evaluate overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in well established national screening programs. To achieve this we addressed the following research questions: The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) seems to be associated with a higher risk of overdiagnosis. What is the impact of the transition to digital mammography on the amount of DCIS diagnosed with screening? Overdiagnosis is a well debated issue in breast cancer screening, but not in screening for cervical cancer screening. Is there overdiagnosis in cervical cancer screening, and how does this relate to the overdiagnosis rate in breast cancer screening? What is the impact of DCIS on overdiagnosis estimates in breast cancer screening? Is the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program generating overdiagnosis, and at what level? Is the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program effective in reducing breast cancer mortality despite the occurrence of overdiagnosis?
Breast Cancer Research, 2006
Introduction Excess of incidence rates is the expected consequence of service screening. The aim of this paper is to estimate the quota attributable to overdiagnosis in the breast cancer screening programmes in Northern and Central Italy. Methods All patients with breast cancer diagnosed between 50 and 74 years who were resident in screening areas in the six years before and five years after the start of the screening programme were included. We calculated a corrected-for-lead-time number of observed cases for each calendar year. The number of observed incident cases was reduced by the number of screen-detected cases in that year and incremented by the estimated number of screen-detected cases that would have arisen clinically in that year. Results In total we included 13,519 and 13,999 breast cancer cases diagnosed in the pre-screening and screening years, respectively. In total, the excess ratio of observed to predicted in situ and invasive cases was 36.2%. After correction for lead time the excess ratio was 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2 to 7%) and for invasive cases only it was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 1 to 6%). Conclusion The remaining excess of cancers after individual correction for lead time was lower than 5%.