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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 4/2016

01-12-2016 | Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Screening Breast Cancer: the Mammography War

Authors: Ashmitha Srinivasan, Tchaiko Parris

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

There is an established consensus in the breast health community that mammography is the mainstay imaging examination for screening breast cancer. However, there are varied national recommendations among stakeholders and major institutions in the topic of breast cancer screening. Lack of consensus in screening criteria includes risk stratification, age to initiate screening, and the interval of screening. The differences in practice guidelines are mainly due to variation in design and interpretation of screening trials over the past decades. As debates for and against the use of screening mammography continue to escalate, both providers and patients are often confused and wrongly perceive the recommendations as directives. The purpose of this article is to review the current guidelines, analyze the reason for the controversies in screening mammography, and shine light on the upcoming trends of future screening guidelines.
Footnotes
1
Rate ratios are closely related to risk ratios, but they are computed as the ratio of the incidence rate in an exposed group divided by the incidence rate in an unexposed (or less exposed) comparison group. Risk ratio, sometimes abbreviated as RR as well, is the ratio of the cumulative incidences in the exposed and unexposed groups. For the purpose of this article, we are only using the “RR” abbreviation for the rate ratios.
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nelson HD et al. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(9):635–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.CrossRef
7.
8.
9.••
Nelson HD et al. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):244–55. This report reviews studies on effectiveness of breast cancer screening in average risk womenand gives the updated version on the USPSTF guidelines.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.•
Block LD et al. Mammography use among women ages 40–49 after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(11):1447–53. This study uses population based survey to assess the effects of 2009 USPSTF recommendations on use of mammogram.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.•
Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1327–35. This study reviews the evidence on the harms and benefit in the decision making process for breast cancer screening.CrossRefPubMed
16.•
Bleyer A, Baines C, Miller AB. Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(8):2003–12. This study compares the impact of screening mammography by comparing eight countries in Europe and North America.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
19.
Tabar L et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63.CrossRefPubMed
20.•
Bjurstam NG, Bjorneld LM, Duffy SW. Updated results of the Gothenburg Trial of Mammographic Screening. Cancer. 2016;122(12):1832–5. This study gives updated results on previously published Gothenburg Trial.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.•
Moss SM et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1123–32. This study gives updated results on previously published Age trial.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Broeders M et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19 Suppl 1:14–25.CrossRefPubMed
23.•
Coldman A, et al. Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11). This study is one of the largest Canadian trials on screening mammography.
24.
Paap E et al. Breast cancer screening case-control study design: impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(4):863–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Nickson C et al. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1479–88.CrossRefPubMed
26.•
Oeffinger KC et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. Jama. 2015;314(15):1599–614. This articles gives updated information on one of the major institutional guidelines.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Jonsson H et al. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality—an update. J Med Screen. 2007;14(2):87–93.CrossRefPubMed
28.•
Miglioretti DL et al. Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(8):1069–77. This study is one of the more recent studies on tumor prognostics and screening intervals.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26. w-236.CrossRef
30.•
Wang AT et al. Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91399. This study shows how the mammography rates of women in general population were affected by the implementation of USPSTF guidelines.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed
32.•
Lauby-Secretan B et al. Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(24):2353–8. This article gives the viewpoint of the International Agency fo Research Center (experts from 16 countries) and assess the risks and benefits of breast cancer screening.CrossRefPubMed
33.•
Francis A et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(16):2296–303. This article describes the orginiation and development of ‘the low risk’ DCIS trial (LORIS).CrossRefPubMed
34.•
Kerlikowske K et al. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):807–16. This study compares the benefits and harms of screening mammopgrahy frequencies with relation to age, breast density and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy. hy.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Moss SM, Blanks RG, Bennett RL. Is radiologists’ volume of mammography reading related to accuracy? A critical review of the literature. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(6):623–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Cornford E et al. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(2):103–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.•
Marcus PM, Freedman AN, Khoury MJ. Targeted cancer screening in average-risk individuals. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(5):765–71. This article advocates for targeted cancer screening approach in average risk population.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Screening Breast Cancer: the Mammography War
Authors
Ashmitha Srinivasan
Tchaiko Parris
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0222-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Current Breast Cancer Reports 4/2016 Go to the issue

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Breast MRI Screening: Benefits and Limitations

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Can Tomosynthesis Replace 2D Mammography as a Future Breast Screening Tool?

Systemic Therapies (M Liu and T Haddad, Section Editors)

Novel Strategies in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: Overcoming Endocrine Resistance

Systemic Therapies (M Liu and T Haddad, Section Editors)

Management of Potential Long-Term Toxicities in Breast Cancer Patients

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Advanced Breast MRI Techniques: Helpful for Screening Breast Cancer?

Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)

Dedicated Breast CT: Screening Technique of the Future
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