Breast health
Mammograms and breast screening techniques — References & further reading
References
1 Mandelblatt, J., et al. 2009. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann. Int. Med., 151 (10), 738–747. URL: http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/738.full (accessed 11.17.2009).
2 Nelson, H., et al. 2009. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med., 151 (1), 727–737, W237–W242. URL: http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/727.long (accessed 01.15.2010).
3 Stefanek, M., et al. 2010. Mammography and women under 50: Déjà vu all over again? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 19 (3), 639. URL (paid access only): http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/3/635.long (accessed 03.10.2010).
“Major cancer organizations and advocacy groups should offer material to women that provides the benefits and costs in a ‘transparent’ manner. ‘Transparency’ in this case means describing the benefits and risk in terms women can understand.… An example of such transparency for a single screening might be as follows [Nelson, H., et al. 2009]…:
“Imagine 1,000 women ages 40-49 having a single mammogram. Of these 1000 women, about 900 (or about 90%) will not have breast cancer and the mammogram will be ‘negative,’ accurately showing that they do not (i.e., true negatives). About 100 of these 1000 women (or about 10%) will not have breast cancer, but the mammogram will be read as ‘positive’ for breast cancer (i.e., false positives). About 2 of these 1000 women (or about 0.2%) will have mammograms that accurately show they have invasive breast cancer and 1 of these women (or about 0.1%) will have a mammogram that accurately shows that they have a noninvasive type of breast cancer (i.e., true positives). Finally, 1 of 1000 (or about 0.1%) of these women will have breast cancer, but the mammogram will miss it (i.e., a false negative).”
Miller, A., et al. 1992. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ, 147 (10), 1459–1476. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336543/?tool=pubmed (accessed 03.03.2010).
Miller, A., et al. 1992. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ, 147 (10), 1477–1488. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336544/?tool=pubmed (accessed 03.03.2010).
4 Mandelblatt, J., et al. 2009. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann. Int. Med., 151 (10), 738–747. URL: http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/738.full (accessed 11.17.2009).
5 Morrell, S., et al. 2009. Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control. [Epub ahead of print.] URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19894130 (accessed 11.16.2009).
“RESULTS: Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer among 50–69 year NSW women was estimated to be 42 and 30% using the interpolation and extrapolation methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer attributable to mammography screening appears to be substantial. Our estimates are similar to recent estimates from other screening programmes. Overdiagnosis merits greater attention in research and in clinical and public health policy making.”
Gøtzsche, P., & Nielsen, M. 2009. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4), CD001877. URL (abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19879455 (accessed 11.16.2009).
“Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.”
Gøtzsche, P. 2006. Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: Overdiagnosis in the Malmö trial was considerably underestimated. BMJ, 332 (7543), 727. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410834/?tool=pubmed (accessed 02.19.2010).
Zackrisson, S., et al. 2006. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ, 332 (7543), 689-692. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410836/?tool=pubmed (accessed 02.19.2010).
Zahl, P-H, & Maehlen, J. 2006. Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: Definition of overdiagnosis is confusing in follow-up of Malmö trial. BMJ, 332 (7543), 727-728. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410879/?tool=pubmed (accessed 02.19.2010).
Miller, A. 2003. Is mammography screening for breast cancer really not justifiable? Recent Results Cancer Res., 163, 115–128; 264–266. URL (abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12903848 (accessed 02.19.2010).
Gøtzsche, P., & Olsen, O. 2000. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? The Lancet, 355 (9198), 129-134. URL (abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10675181 (accessed 02.19.2010).
Mayor, S. 1999. Swedish study questions mammography screening programmes. BMJ, 318, 621. URL: http://biblioteca.sp.san.gva.es/biblioteca/publicaciones/MATERIAL/METABUSQUEDAS/CANCER_MAMA/10066185.PDF (accessed 02.19.2010).
6 Medical News Today. 2010. Breast imaging groups issue guidelines calling for mammograms at age 40. URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175221.php (accessed 01.06.2010).
Bialik, C. 2009. The imprecision behind mammogram guidance. Wall Street Journal. URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126031689043682715.html (accessed 01.06.2010).
7 Elmore, J., et al. 2005. Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. JNCI, 97 (14), 1035–1043. URL: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/14/1035 (accessed 01.15.2010).
8 Elmore, J., et al. 2005.
Fletcher, S., & Elmore, J. 2003. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. NEJM, 348 (17), 1672–1680. URL (paid access): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/348/17/1672 (accessed 03.10.2010).
9 Mandelblatt, J., et al. 2009.
See also:
Bialik, C. 2009. The imprecision behind mammogram guidance. Recent research on breast-cancer screening incorporates wide margins of error; scientists defence “Qualitative Assessment.” Wall Street Journal. URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126031689043682715.html (accessed 12.09.2009).
10 Love, S. 2009. Weighing the benefits of mammography. Opinion. LA Times. URL: http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-love23-2009nov23,0,4027104.story (accessed 01.15.2010).
Berrington de González, A., & Reeves, G. 2005. Mammographic screening before age 50 years in the UK: Comparison of the radiation risks with the mortality benefits. Br. J. Cancer, 93 (5), 590–596. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361593/?tool=pubmed (accessed 01.15.2010).
Mattsson, A., et al. 2000. Radiation risk and mammographic screening of women from 40 to 49 years of age: Effect on breast cancer rates and years of life. Br. J. Cancer, 82 (1), 220–226. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363188/?tool=pubmed (accessed 01.15.2010).
Mattson, A., et al. 1993. Radiation-induced breast cancer: Long-term follow-up of radiation therapy for benign breast disease. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 85 (20), 1679–1685. URL (abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1423087 (accessed 03.03.2010).
11 Esserman, L., et al. 2009. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA, 302 (15), 1685–1692. URL (abstract): http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/302/15/1685 (accessed 11.17.2009).
Zahl, P-H., et al. 2008. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch. Intern. Med., 168 (21), 2311–2316. URL (abstract): http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/21/2311 (accessed 12.01.2008).
12 Dershaw, D. 2005. Film or digital mammographic screening? NEJM, 353 (17), 1846–1847. URL (paid access): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/353/17/1846 (accessed 03.10.2010).
Pisano, E., et al. 2005. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. The results of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). NEJM, 353 (17), 1773-1783. URL: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/353/17/1773 (accessed 01.13.2010).
Spurgeon, D. 2005. Digital mammography is more accurate only for certain groups of women. BMJ, 331 (7518), 653. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226236/ (accessed 03.10.2010).
Additional resources
Dr. Susan Love | Research Foundation — Resources, information, and links from the “mother” of the breast cancer movement. Dr. Mills is currently conducting breast cancer research in association with Dr. Susan Love at her Research Foundation in California.
Return to:
Mammograms
Original Publication Date: 09/29/2006
Last Modified: 03/10/2010
Principal Authors: Dixie Mills, MD & Marcella Sweet