evidence and outcomes of breast cancer screening
Last edited 02/2022 and last reviewed 06/2022
In 2001 a Cochrane meta-analysis of randomised trials reported that mammography screening reduces breast cancer related mortality by 15% and that one in three cancers are overdiagnosed (1)
No randomised trials have been performed since then, except an update of a Canadian trial that found no effect of mammography screening on breast cancer mortality at a cost of 22% overdiagnosis of cancer (2)
In an observatonal study Autier et al analysing data from the Dutch screening programme (3)
- found at most a 5% reduction in breast cancer related mortality and overdiagnosis in one out of three cancers detected
- overdiagnosis has steadily increased over time with the extension of screening
to women aged 70-75 and with the introduction of digital mammography
- after deduction of clinical lead time cancers, 33% of cancers found in women invited to screening in 2010-12 and 59% of screen detected cancers would be overdiagnosed
However a more recent review is much more positive about breast cancer screening (4):
- states for women 40-74 years of age who actually participate in screening
every 1-2 years, breast cancer mortality is reduced by 40%
- with appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer
breast cancers
- 'overdiagnosis' is the diagnosis, as a result of screening,
of a cancer (either invasive or in situ) that would never have been
identified clinically or caused a problem in the individual's lifetime
- to obtain an accurate estimate for overdiagnosis, it is important
that the screened and unscreened populations studied have similar
risk factors for breast cancerand that adjustments be made for
any confounders
- lead-time bias - the time between detection of the disease
as a result of screening and the time at which the diagnosis
would normally have been made when the patient presented with
symptoms- must be accounted for. Because of lead time, an
excess incidence of breast cancer is expected when screening
starts. After the end of screening, a reduction in the incidence
of breast cancer should occur because of the earlier diagnosis
of cancers during screening
- if no overdiagnosis occurs, then the initial increase in breast cancer in screened women should be fully compensated by a similar decline in breast cancer in older women who no longer screen, called the 'compensatory drop.' An interval of at least 5 years of follow-up is required to observe that drop. If follow-up is insufficient, then the compensatory drop will overestimate any overdiagnosis. If no adjustment is made for the compensatory drop, then estimates of overdiagnosis are much higher, on the order of 57% for in situ and invasive cancers (5)
- lead-time bias - the time between detection of the disease
as a result of screening and the time at which the diagnosis
would normally have been made when the patient presented with
symptoms- must be accounted for. Because of lead time, an
excess incidence of breast cancer is expected when screening
starts. After the end of screening, a reduction in the incidence
of breast cancer should occur because of the earlier diagnosis
of cancers during screening
- ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
- before the widespread use of screening mammography in the United States, 6 cases of DCIS were detected annually per 100,000 women; after the introduction of screening, 37 cases of DCIS were detected per 100,000 women
- significance of detecting DCIS - a UK retrospective study
(6):
- a significant negative association was observed for screen-detected DCIS and the rate of invasive interval cancers; for every 3 screen-detected cases of DCIS, 1 fewer invasive interval cancer occurred in the subsequent 3 years. The study concluded that detection and treatment of DCIS was worthwhile for the prevention of future invasive disease
- to obtain an accurate estimate for overdiagnosis, it is important
that the screened and unscreened populations studied have similar
risk factors for breast cancerand that adjustments be made for
any confounders
- false positives occur in about 10% of screened women, 80% of which are resolved with additional imaging, and 10%, with breast biopsy
- an important limitation of screening is the false negatives (15%-20%). The technologic advances of digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging counter the false negatives of screening mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue
- 'overdiagnosis' is the diagnosis, as a result of screening,
of a cancer (either invasive or in situ) that would never have been
identified clinically or caused a problem in the individual's lifetime
- with appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer
breast cancers
NHS Breast Screening Programme defines an "acceptable level" of screening as 70% (5)
- the detection rate was 8.1 per 1,000 women screened (2017-18)
Reference:
- GotzschePC, Jorgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013;6:CD001877.23737396
- MillerAB et al. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ2014;348:366.
- Autier P et al. Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study.BMJ. 2017 Dec 5;359:j5224
- Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?Curr Oncol. 2018 Jun; 25(Suppl 1): S115-S124
- Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, et al. on behalf of the euroscreen working group. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 2012;19(suppl 1):42-56.
- Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:109-14.
- NHS Digital (February 2019). Breast Screening Programme England, 2017-18