Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 9/2007

01-11-2007 | Original Paper

Protection of mammography screening against death from breast cancer in women aged 40–64 years

Authors: Sandra A. Norman, A. Russell Localio, Anita L. Weber, Ralph J. Coates, Lan Zhou, Leslie Bernstein, Kathleen E. Malone, Polly A. Marchbanks, Linda K. Weiss, Nancy C. Lee, Marion R. Nadel

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 9/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

This study assessed the efficacy of community-based screening mammography in protecting against breast cancer death, asking whether age differences in efficacy persisted in the 1990s.

Methods

In a case–control study with follow-up, odds ratios (OR) were used to estimate the relative mortality rates from invasive breast cancer among women with at least one screening mammogram in the two years prior to a baseline reference date compared to non-screened women, adjusting for potential confounding. The multicenter population-based study included 553 black and white women diagnosed during 1994–1998 who died in the following five years, and 4016 controls without breast cancer.

Results

Efficacy for reducing the rate of breast cancer death within five years after diagnosis was greater at ages 50–64 years (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.63) than at ages 40–49 (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.65–1.23), and greater among postmenopausal (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.33–0.62) than premenopausal women (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.53–1.04). Estimates of efficacy were conservative, as shown by sensitivity analyses addressing whether cancer was discovered by a screening mammogram, age at which screening was received, the length of the screening observation window, and years of follow-up after diagnosis.

Conclusions

Despite the persistence of age differences in efficacy of mammography screening, with greater observed benefit for women aged 50–64 years, these findings support current screening recommendations for women 40–64 years old.
Footnotes
1
ORs and 95% CIs for late-stage disease differ slightly from those in Norman et al. [15] because 11 cases aged 40–49 years and eight cases aged 50–64 years with diagnosis of late-stage disease were added to the data set.
 
Literature
1.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMed
2.
Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Feig S, D’Orsi C, Hendrik R et al (1998) American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. Am J Roentgenol 171:29–33
5.
6.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Primary and preventive care: periodic assessments. ACOG Committee Opinion 246. ACOG, Washington, DC
7.
Smith R, Duffy S, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen A, Chen T (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42:793–806PubMedCrossRef
8.
Moss S, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L (2006) Effect of mammography screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368:2053–2060PubMedCrossRef
9.
Demissie K, Mills O, Rhoads G (1998) Empirical comparison of the results of randomized controlled trials and case–control studies in evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 51:81–91PubMedCrossRef
10.
Eyre H, Sondik E, Smith R, Kessler L (1995) Joint meeting on the feasibility of a study of screening premenopausal women (40–49 years) for breast cancer: April 20–21, 1994. Cancer 75:1391–1403PubMedCrossRef
11.
Elmore J, Reisch L, Barton M et al (2005) Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1035–1043PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hurley S, Kaldor J (1992) The benefits and risks of mammography screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 14:101–130PubMed
13.
Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK (1993) The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. Online J Curr Clin Trials 23:Doc No 32
14.
Weiss N, Lazovich D (1996) Case–control studies of screening efficacy: the use of persons newly diagnosed with cancer who later sustain an unfavorable outcome. Am J Epidemiol 143:319–322PubMed
15.
Norman S, Localio A, Zhou L et al (2006) Benefit of screening mammography in reducing the rate of late-stage breast cancer diagnoses. Cancer Causes Control 17:921–929PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Wee C, McCarthy E, Davis R, Phillips R (2000) Screening for cervical and breast cancer: is obesity an unrecognized barrier to preventive care? Ann Intern Med 132:697–704PubMed
18.
Ostbye T, Taylor DJ, Yancy WJ, Krause K (2005) Associations between obesity and receipt of screening mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and influenza vaccination: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study. Am J Public Health 95:1623–1630PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
21.
Etzioni R, Weiss N (1998) Analysis of case–control studies of screening: Impact of misspecifying the duration of detectable preclinical pathologic changes. Am J Epidemiol 148:292–297PubMed
22.
Hosek R, Flanders W, Sasco A (1996) Bias in case–control studies of screening effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 143:193–201PubMed
23.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin S, Sandrock D, Ernster V (1995) Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 273:149–154PubMedCrossRef
24.
Buist D, Porter P, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1432–1440PubMedCrossRef
25.
Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMed
26.
Stone J, Gunasekara A, Martin L, Yaffe M, Minkin S, Boyd N (2003) The detection of change in mammographic density. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:625–630PubMed
27.
Boyd N, Martin L, Stone J, Little L, Minkin S, Yaffe M (2002) A longitudinal study of the effects of menopause on mammographic features. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:1048–1053PubMed
28.
Simpson S, Eurich D, Majumdar S et al (2006) A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality. BMJ 333:15PubMedCrossRef
29.
American Cancer Society (2005) ACS expert disputes methodology of study questioning mammography benefit. CA Cancer J Clin 55:327–329
30.
Duffy S, Smith R, Tabar L (2005) Re: efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1703PubMed
31.
Elmore J, Weiss N, Barlow W et al (2005) Response Re: efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1704–1705
32.
Harris R (2005) Effectiveness: the next question for breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1021–1023PubMedCrossRef
33.
Harris R (2005) Response Re: efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1703–1704
34.
Paci E, Zappa M (2005) Re: efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1704PubMed
35.
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
36.
37.
Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, Duffy S, Gad A (1995) Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality, and histology. J Med Screen 2:94–98PubMed
38.
Blackman D, Bennett E, Miller D (1999) Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1989–1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991–1997) – Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. MMWR 48:1–22
39.
National Center for Health Statistics (2005) Health, United States, 2005 with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD
40.
Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG et al (2002) The NICHD Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study: methods and operational results. Ann Epidemiol 12:213–221PubMedCrossRef
41.
Norman SA, Localio AR, Zhou L et al (2003) Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 158:264–271PubMedCrossRef
42.
Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabar L, Chen H-H, Smith T (1997) Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 22:93–97PubMed
43.
Shen Y, Zelen M (2001) Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncology 19:3490–3499
44.
Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H-H et al (1995) Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. Cancer 75:2507–2517PubMedCrossRef
45.
Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Longterm effects of mammography screening: updated overview and the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Protection of mammography screening against death from breast cancer in women aged 40–64 years
Authors
Sandra A. Norman
A. Russell Localio
Anita L. Weber
Ralph J. Coates
Lan Zhou
Leslie Bernstein
Kathleen E. Malone
Polly A. Marchbanks
Linda K. Weiss
Nancy C. Lee
Marion R. Nadel
Publication date
01-11-2007
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 9/2007
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-007-9006-8

Other articles of this Issue 9/2007

Cancer Causes & Control 9/2007 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Dietary patterns, Mediterranean diet, and endometrial cancer risk

Original Paper

Endometrial cancer risk in estrogen users after switching to estrogen–progestin therapy

Original Research

Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) study

Original Paper

Prostate cancer mortality in relation to screening by prostate-specific antigen testing and digital rectal examination: a population-based study in middle-aged men

Original Paper

Alcohol dehydrogenase 3 and risk of esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas

Original Paper

Breast density in relation to risk of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women undergoing screening mammography
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits