Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Review

Benefits and harms of mammography screening

Authors: Magnus Løberg, Mette Lise Lousdal, Michael Bretthauer, Mette Kalager

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Mammography screening for breast cancer is widely available in many countries. Initially praised as a universal achievement to improve women's health and to reduce the burden of breast cancer, the benefits and harms of mammography screening have been debated heatedly in the past years. This review discusses the benefits and harms of mammography screening in light of findings from randomized trials and from more recent observational studies performed in the era of modern diagnostics and treatment. The main benefit of mammography screening is reduction of breast-cancer related death. Relative reductions vary from about 15 to 25% in randomized trials to more recent estimates of 13 to 17% in meta-analyses of observational studies. Using UK population data of 2007, for 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50, 2 to 3 women are prevented from dying of breast cancer. All-cause mortality is unchanged. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer is the main harm of mammography screening. Based on recent estimates from the United States, the relative amount of overdiagnosis (including ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer) is 31%. This results in 15 women overdiagnosed for every 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50. Women should be unpassionately informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening using absolute effect sizes in a comprehensible fashion. In an era of limited health care resources, screening services need to be scrutinized and compared with each other with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and harms.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2010 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2010
2.
go back to reference Raffle AE, Gray JAM. Screening: Evidence and Practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007.CrossRef Raffle AE, Gray JAM. Screening: Evidence and Practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Holland WW, Stewart S. Screening in Disease Prevention. What works? Oxford, United Kingdom: The Nuttfield Trust/Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2005. Holland WW, Stewart S. Screening in Disease Prevention. What works? Oxford, United Kingdom: The Nuttfield Trust/Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2005.
4.
go back to reference Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:55–65.CrossRefPubMed Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:55–65.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1968. Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1968.
6.
go back to reference Esserman L, Thompson IM, Reid B, Nelson P, Ransohoff DF, Welch HG, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e234–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Esserman L, Thompson IM, Reid B, Nelson P, Ransohoff DF, Welch HG, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e234–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Aronowitz RA. Unnatural History: Breast Cancer and American Society. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. Aronowitz RA. Unnatural History: Breast Cancer and American Society. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
8.
go back to reference Reynolds H. The Big Squeeze: a Social and Political History of the Controversial Mammogram. New York: Cornell University Press; 2012.CrossRef Reynolds H. The Big Squeeze: a Social and Political History of the Controversial Mammogram. New York: Cornell University Press; 2012.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Gøtzsche P, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6, CD001877. Gøtzsche P, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6, CD001877.
10.
11.
go back to reference Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053–60.CrossRefPubMed Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053–60.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Gøtzsch P, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified? Lancet. 2000;355:129–34.CrossRef Gøtzsch P, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified? Lancet. 2000;355:129–34.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzcshe PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology. 2011;260:621–7.CrossRefPubMed Jørgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gøtzcshe PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology. 2011;260:621–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology. 2011;260:616–20.CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology. 2011;260:616–20.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, Majek O, de Wolf C, Lancucki L, et al. Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:72–82.CrossRefPubMed Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, Majek O, de Wolf C, Lancucki L, et al. Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:72–82.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Bleyer A, Welch H. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed Bleyer A, Welch H. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N, Hofvind S, Anttila A, Sèradour B, et al. A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19:87–93.CrossRefPubMed Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N, Hofvind S, Anttila A, Sèradour B, et al. A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19:87–93.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:57–66.CrossRefPubMed Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:57–66.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRef Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089–96.CrossRefPubMed Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089–96.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ. 1996;312:273–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ. 1996;312:273–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference van der Steeg AFW, Keyzer-Dekker CM, De Vries J, Roukema JA. Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. Br J Surg. 2011;98:537–42.CrossRefPubMed van der Steeg AFW, Keyzer-Dekker CM, De Vries J, Roukema JA. Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. Br J Surg. 2011;98:537–42.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Kalager M, Tamimi R, Bretthauer M, Adami H-O. Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e7536.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kalager M, Tamimi R, Bretthauer M, Adami H-O. Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e7536.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, Wang H, Thoresen S, Eriksen L, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: a retrospect study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2005;237:437–43.CrossRefPubMed Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, Wang H, Thoresen S, Eriksen L, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: a retrospect study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2005;237:437–43.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Hoff SR, Abrahamsen AL, Samset JH, Vigeland E, Klepp O, Hofvind S. Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography - results from a retrospective review. Radiology. 2012;246:378–86.CrossRef Hoff SR, Abrahamsen AL, Samset JH, Vigeland E, Klepp O, Hofvind S. Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography - results from a retrospective review. Radiology. 2012;246:378–86.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Paci E, EUROSCREEN Working Group. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:5–13.CrossRefPubMed Paci E, EUROSCREEN Working Group. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:5–13.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
go back to reference Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention. Volume 7. Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002. Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention. Volume 7. Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
37.
go back to reference Zahl PH, Mælen J, Welch HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2311–6.CrossRefPubMed Zahl PH, Mælen J, Welch HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2311–6.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987–98.CrossRefPubMed Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:987–98.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Yeh ETH, Bickford C. Cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy: incidence, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:2231–47.CrossRefPubMed Yeh ETH, Bickford C. Cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy: incidence, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:2231–47.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Kramer BS, Croswell JM. Cancer screening: the clash of science and intuition. Annu Rev Med. 2009;60:125–37.CrossRefPubMed Kramer BS, Croswell JM. Cancer screening: the clash of science and intuition. Annu Rev Med. 2009;60:125–37.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Kalager M, Adami H-O, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian Screening Program. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:491–9.CrossRefPubMed Kalager M, Adami H-O, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian Screening Program. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:491–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, deKoning H, Lynge E, Zappa M. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:42–56.CrossRefPubMed Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, deKoning H, Lynge E, Zappa M. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:42–56.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Francheboud J, de Bruijn A. Microsimulation modeling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:202.CrossRefPubMed de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Francheboud J, de Bruijn A. Microsimulation modeling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:202.CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Kalager M, Løberg M, Fønnebø VM, Bretthauer M. Failure to account for selection-bias. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:2751–3.PubMed Kalager M, Løberg M, Fønnebø VM, Bretthauer M. Failure to account for selection-bias. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:2751–3.PubMed
45.
go back to reference Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:705–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:705–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
go back to reference Zahl PH, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche P. Lead-time models should not be used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;doi:10.007/s11606-014-2812-2. Zahl PH, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche P. Lead-time models should not be used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;doi:10.007/s11606-014-2812-2.
50.
go back to reference Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organized mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2589.CrossRef Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organized mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2589.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.CrossRefPubMed Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347–60.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Jüni P, Zwahlen M. It is time to initiate another breast cancer screening trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:864–6.CrossRefPubMed Jüni P, Zwahlen M. It is time to initiate another breast cancer screening trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:864–6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
54.
go back to reference Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, Kavanagh AM. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case–control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1479–88.CrossRefPubMed Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, Kavanagh AM. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case–control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1479–88.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Morrison AS. Screening in Chronic Disease. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992 [Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Volume 19]. Morrison AS. Screening in Chronic Disease. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992 [Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Volume 19].
56.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH, Yen MF, et al. Correcting for non-compliance bias in case–control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. Appl Stat. 2002;51:235–43. Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH, Yen MF, et al. Correcting for non-compliance bias in case–control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. Appl Stat. 2002;51:235–43.
57.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Ursin G, Tretli S, Sebuødegård S, Møller B. Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer. 2013;119:3106–12.CrossRefPubMed Hofvind S, Ursin G, Tretli S, Sebuødegård S, Møller B. Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer. 2013;119:3106–12.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Shapiro S. Screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30. Shapiro S. Screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30.
59.
go back to reference Autier P, Boniol M, LaVecchia C, Vatten L, Gavin A, Héry C, et al. Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2010;341:c3620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Autier P, Boniol M, LaVecchia C, Vatten L, Gavin A, Héry C, et al. Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2010;341:c3620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
go back to reference Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2011;343:d4411.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ. 2011;343:d4411.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
go back to reference Smith RA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:e31.CrossRefPubMed Smith RA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Kalager M. Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:e31.CrossRefPubMed
64.
go back to reference Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Information in practice. Presentation on websites of possible benefits for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004;328:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Information in practice. Presentation on websites of possible benefits for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004;328:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Gigerenzer G. Benign breast disease- the risk of communicating risk. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:297–9.CrossRefPubMed Elmore JG, Gigerenzer G. Benign breast disease- the risk of communicating risk. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:297–9.CrossRefPubMed
66.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Patrick DL. Hope or Hype: the Obsession with Medical Advances and the High Cost of False Promises. New York: AMACOM; 2005. Deyo RA, Patrick DL. Hope or Hype: the Obsession with Medical Advances and the High Cost of False Promises. New York: AMACOM; 2005.
67.
go back to reference Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:799–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:799–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
go back to reference Domenighetti G, D'Avanzo B, Egger M, Berrino F, Perneger T, Mosconi P, et al. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:816–8.CrossRefPubMed Domenighetti G, D'Avanzo B, Egger M, Berrino F, Perneger T, Mosconi P, et al. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:816–8.CrossRefPubMed
70.
go back to reference McMenamin M, Barry H, Lennon AM, Purcell H, Baum M, Keegan D, et al. A survey of breast cancer awareness and knowledge in a Western population: lots of light but little illumination. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:393–7.CrossRefPubMed McMenamin M, Barry H, Lennon AM, Purcell H, Baum M, Keegan D, et al. A survey of breast cancer awareness and knowledge in a Western population: lots of light but little illumination. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:393–7.CrossRefPubMed
71.
go back to reference Davey HM, Barratt AL, Davey E, Butow PN, Redman S, Houssami N, et al. Medical tests: women’s reported and preferred decision-making roles and preferences for information on benefits, side-effects and false results. Health Expect. 2002;5:330–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Davey HM, Barratt AL, Davey E, Butow PN, Redman S, Houssami N, et al. Medical tests: women’s reported and preferred decision-making roles and preferences for information on benefits, side-effects and false results. Health Expect. 2002;5:330–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
go back to reference Østerlie W, Solbjør M, Skolbekken JA, Hofvind S, Sætnan AR, Forsmo S. Challenges of informed choice in organized screening. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:e5.CrossRefPubMed Østerlie W, Solbjør M, Skolbekken JA, Hofvind S, Sætnan AR, Forsmo S. Challenges of informed choice in organized screening. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:e5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Benefits and harms of mammography screening
Authors
Magnus Løberg
Mette Lise Lousdal
Michael Bretthauer
Mette Kalager
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0525-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Breast Cancer Research 1/2015 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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