Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Overdiagnosis in the population-based organized breast cancer screening program estimated by a non-homogeneous multi-state model: a cohort study using individual data with long-term follow-up

Authors: Wendy Yi-Ying Wu, Sven Törnberg, Klara Miriam Elfström, Xijia Liu, Lennarth Nyström, Håkan Jonsson

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Overdiagnosis, defined as the detection of a cancer that would not become clinically apparent in a woman’s lifetime without screening, has become a growing concern. Similar underlying risk of breast cancer in the screened and control groups is a prerequisite for unbiased estimates of overdiagnosis, but a contemporary control group is usually not available in organized screening programs.

Methods

We estimated the frequency of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to screening in women 50–69 years old by using individual screening data from the population-based organized screening program in Stockholm County 1989–2014. A hidden Markov model with four latent states and three observed states was constructed to estimate the natural progression of breast cancer and the test sensitivity. Piecewise transition rates were used to consider the time-varying transition rates. The expected number of detected non-progressive breast cancer cases was calculated.

Results

During the study period, 2,333,153 invitations were sent out; on average, the participation rate in the screening program was 72.7% and the average recall rate was 2.48%. In total, 14,648 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed; among the 8305 screen-detected cases, the expected number of non-progressive breast cancer cases was 35.9, which is equivalent to 0.43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10%–2.2%) overdiagnosis. The corresponding estimates for the prevalent and subsequent rounds were 15.6 (0.87%, 95% CI 0.20%–4.3%) and 20.3 (0.31%, 95% CI 0.07%–1.6%), respectively. The likelihood ratio test showed that the non-homogeneous model fitted the data better than an age-homogeneous model (P <0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that overdiagnosis in the organized biennial mammographic screening for women 50–69 in Stockholm County is a minor phenomenon. The frequency of overdiagnosis in the prevalent screening round was higher than that in subsequent rounds. The non-homogeneous model performed better than the simpler, traditional homogeneous model.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51.CrossRef Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:45–51.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Etzioni R, Gulati R, Mallinger L, Mandelblatt J. Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:831–8.CrossRef Etzioni R, Gulati R, Mallinger L, Mandelblatt J. Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:831–8.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ripping TM, Verbeek AL, Ten Haaf K, van Ravesteyn NT, Broeders MJ. Extrapolation of pre-screening trends: Impact of assumptions on overdiagnosis estimates by mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;42:147–53.CrossRef Ripping TM, Verbeek AL, Ten Haaf K, van Ravesteyn NT, Broeders MJ. Extrapolation of pre-screening trends: Impact of assumptions on overdiagnosis estimates by mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;42:147–53.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, Vitak B, Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:258–65.CrossRef Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, Vitak B, Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:258–65.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J. 2006;12:338–42.CrossRef Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J. 2006;12:338–42.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1746–54.CrossRef Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1746–54.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gunsoy NB, Garcia-Closas M, Moss SM. Modelling the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening in women aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R152.CrossRef Gunsoy NB, Garcia-Closas M, Moss SM. Modelling the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening in women aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R152.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference WY-Y W, Nyström L, Jonsson H. Estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening using a non-homogeneous multi-state model: A simulation study. J Med Screen. 2018;25:183–90.CrossRef WY-Y W, Nyström L, Jonsson H. Estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening using a non-homogeneous multi-state model: A simulation study. J Med Screen. 2018;25:183–90.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lind H, Svane G, Kemetli L, Tornberg S. Breast Cancer Screening Program in Stockholm County, Sweden - Aspects of Organization and Quality Assurance. Breast Care (Basel). 2010;5:353–7.CrossRef Lind H, Svane G, Kemetli L, Tornberg S. Breast Cancer Screening Program in Stockholm County, Sweden - Aspects of Organization and Quality Assurance. Breast Care (Basel). 2010;5:353–7.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–22.CrossRef Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–22.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Cox DR, Miller HD. The Theory of Stochastic Processes. London: Chapman & Hall; 1965. p. 146–202. Cox DR, Miller HD. The Theory of Stochastic Processes. London: Chapman & Hall; 1965. p. 146–202.
12.
go back to reference Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG, Duffy SW, Couto E. Multistate Markov models for disease progression with classification error. J Roy Stat Soc D-Sta. 2003;52:193–209.CrossRef Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG, Duffy SW, Couto E. Multistate Markov models for disease progression with classification error. J Roy Stat Soc D-Sta. 2003;52:193–209.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Nash JC. Nonlinear Parameter Optimization Using R Tools. 1st ed. Somerset: Wiley; 2002. Nash JC. Nonlinear Parameter Optimization Using R Tools. 1st ed. Somerset: Wiley; 2002.
16.
go back to reference Titman AC, Sharples LD. Model diagnostics for multi-state models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19:621–51.CrossRef Titman AC, Sharples LD. Model diagnostics for multi-state models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19:621–51.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:111–21.CrossRef de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:111–21.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Aalen OO, Farewell VT, De Angelis D, Day NE, Gill ON. A Markov model for HIV disease progression including the effect of HIV diagnosis and treatment: application to AIDS prediction in England and Wales. Stat Med. 1997;16:2191–210.CrossRef Aalen OO, Farewell VT, De Angelis D, Day NE, Gill ON. A Markov model for HIV disease progression including the effect of HIV diagnosis and treatment: application to AIDS prediction in England and Wales. Stat Med. 1997;16:2191–210.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, Houssami N, Irwig L. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1129–38.CrossRef Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, Houssami N, Irwig L. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1129–38.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):42–56.CrossRef Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):42–56.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Carter JL, Coletti RJ, Harris RP. Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods. BMJ. 2015;350:g7773.CrossRef Carter JL, Coletti RJ, Harris RP. Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods. BMJ. 2015;350:g7773.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Gotzsche PC. On the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:56–64 discussion 69–73.CrossRef Gotzsche PC. On the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:56–64 discussion 69–73.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moss S. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:230–4.CrossRef Moss S. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:230–4.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H. Trial Management Group. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:955–60.CrossRef Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H. Trial Management Group. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:955–60.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Yen AM, Duffy SW, Chen TH, Chen LS, Chiu SY, Fann JC, et al. Long-term incidence of breast cancer by trial arm in one county of the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening. Cancer. 2012;118:5728–32.CrossRef Yen AM, Duffy SW, Chen TH, Chen LS, Chiu SY, Fann JC, et al. Long-term incidence of breast cancer by trial arm in one county of the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening. Cancer. 2012;118:5728–32.CrossRef
27.
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
28.
go back to reference Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ. 2006;332:689–92.CrossRef Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ. 2006;332:689–92.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328:921–4.CrossRef Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328:921–4.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Lynge E, Jonsson H, Ayyaz S, Olsen AH. Complexities in the estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:1176–8.CrossRef Duffy SW, Lynge E, Jonsson H, Ayyaz S, Olsen AH. Complexities in the estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:1176–8.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabar L, Chen HH, Smith TC. Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;1997:93–7.CrossRef Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabar L, Chen HH, Smith TC. Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;1997:93–7.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Beral V. Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet. 2003;362:419–27.CrossRef Beral V. Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet. 2003;362:419–27.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Weedon-Fekjaer H, Vatten LJ, Aalen OO, Lindqvist B, Tretli S. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results. J Med Screen. 2005;12:172–8.CrossRef Weedon-Fekjaer H, Vatten LJ, Aalen OO, Lindqvist B, Tretli S. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results. J Med Screen. 2005;12:172–8.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Suhrke P, Maehlen J, Zahl PH. Hormone therapy use and breast cancer incidence by histological subtypes in Sweden and Norway. Breast J. 2012;18:549–56.CrossRef Suhrke P, Maehlen J, Zahl PH. Hormone therapy use and breast cancer incidence by histological subtypes in Sweden and Norway. Breast J. 2012;18:549–56.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 1999;86:449–62.CrossRef Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 1999;86:449–62.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.CrossRef Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl PH. Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:313–23.CrossRef Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl PH. Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:313–23.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen. 2001;8:149–51.CrossRef Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen. 2001;8:149–51.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Lidbrink EK, Tornberg SA, Azavedo EM, Frisell JO, Hjalmar ML, Leifland KS, et al. The general mammography screening program in Stockholm. Organisation and first-round results. Acta Oncol. 1994;33:353–8.CrossRef Lidbrink EK, Tornberg SA, Azavedo EM, Frisell JO, Hjalmar ML, Leifland KS, et al. The general mammography screening program in Stockholm. Organisation and first-round results. Acta Oncol. 1994;33:353–8.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Olsson S, Andersson I, Karlberg I, Bjurstam N, Frodis E, Hakansson S. Implementation of service screening with mammography in Sweden: from pilot study to nationwide programme. J Med Screen. 2000;7:14–8.CrossRef Olsson S, Andersson I, Karlberg I, Bjurstam N, Frodis E, Hakansson S. Implementation of service screening with mammography in Sweden: from pilot study to nationwide programme. J Med Screen. 2000;7:14–8.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Taghipour S, Caudrelier LN, Miller AB, Harvey B. Using Simulation to Model and Validate Invasive Breast Cancer Progression in Women in the Study and Control Groups of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies I and II. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:212–23.CrossRef Taghipour S, Caudrelier LN, Miller AB, Harvey B. Using Simulation to Model and Validate Invasive Breast Cancer Progression in Women in the Study and Control Groups of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies I and II. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:212–23.CrossRef
43.
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Overdiagnosis in the population-based organized breast cancer screening program estimated by a non-homogeneous multi-state model: a cohort study using individual data with long-term follow-up
Authors
Wendy Yi-Ying Wu
Sven Törnberg
Klara Miriam Elfström
Xijia Liu
Lennarth Nyström
Håkan Jonsson
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1082-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Breast Cancer Research 1/2018 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