Cargando…

The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution

Overdiagnosis (and overtreatment) of cancers not bound to become symptomatic during lifetime is an unavoidable drawback of mammography screening. The magnitude of overdiagnosis has been estimated to be in the range of 5-10%, and thus acceptable in view of screening benefits as to reduced mortality....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Ciatto, Stefano
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20015373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-34
_version_ 1782175927712612352
author Ciatto, Stefano
author_facet Ciatto, Stefano
author_sort Ciatto, Stefano
collection PubMed
description Overdiagnosis (and overtreatment) of cancers not bound to become symptomatic during lifetime is an unavoidable drawback of mammography screening. The magnitude of overdiagnosis has been estimated to be in the range of 5-10%, and thus acceptable in view of screening benefits as to reduced mortality. In a recent research article in BMC Women's Health, Jørgensen, Zahl and Gøtzsche suggest that overdiagnosis may be as high as 33%, based on their analysis of breast cancer incidence in screened and non-screened areas in Denmark. Here we consider how reliable such analyses can be, why it might have been useful to adjust comparisons between screened and non-screened areas for early detection lead time, and what further evidence might be needed to build on or confirm these results.
format Text
id pubmed-2801476
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28014762010-01-05 The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution Ciatto, Stefano BMC Womens Health Commentary Overdiagnosis (and overtreatment) of cancers not bound to become symptomatic during lifetime is an unavoidable drawback of mammography screening. The magnitude of overdiagnosis has been estimated to be in the range of 5-10%, and thus acceptable in view of screening benefits as to reduced mortality. In a recent research article in BMC Women's Health, Jørgensen, Zahl and Gøtzsche suggest that overdiagnosis may be as high as 33%, based on their analysis of breast cancer incidence in screened and non-screened areas in Denmark. Here we consider how reliable such analyses can be, why it might have been useful to adjust comparisons between screened and non-screened areas for early detection lead time, and what further evidence might be needed to build on or confirm these results. BioMed Central 2009-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC2801476/ /pubmed/20015373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-34 Text en Copyright ©2009 Ciatto; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Ciatto, Stefano
The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title_full The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title_fullStr The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title_full_unstemmed The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title_short The overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
title_sort overdiagnosis nightmare: a time for caution
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801476/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20015373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-34
work_keys_str_mv AT ciattostefano theoverdiagnosisnightmareatimeforcaution
AT ciattostefano overdiagnosisnightmareatimeforcaution