McMasterLogo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.



  • Myers ER
  • Moorman P
  • Gierisch JM
  • Havrilesky LJ
  • Grimm LJ
  • Ghate S, et al.
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1615-34. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183. (Review)
PMID: 26501537
Read abstract Read evidence summary
Disciplines
  • Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Internal Medicine
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Public Health
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Oncology - Breast
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 3/7

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews.

FINDINGS: Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.


Clinical Comments

Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)

Nothing terribly novel here. I doubt this will be news for any primary care practitioners in this country. Worryingly, the guidelines are based far too much on observational data. Still, at least the American Cancer Society has retreated from its stance of supporting clinical examination screening.

General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)

The editorial distills the information nicely. The article has all the data, but has no summary statistics because of uncertainty about the estimates. The article will help readers understand how the guidelines were formulated, but without summary statistics, it is not particularly rewarding to read.

General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)

A very high-quality systematic review on a topic of relevance to primary care clinicians and gynecologists.

Oncology - Breast

Not news for medical oncologists, but important and great to have the most current and rigorous review.

Oncology - Breast

This article is very much written from the perspective of the US situation, and highlights the lack of guidelines/protocol in the US in this area.

Public Health

Restricting analysis of benefit to breast cancer specific mortality fails to consider other potential harms. Restricting assessment of harm to false positive result also biases toward underestimation of total harms of screening strategies.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register