Cargando…
Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme
The primary aim of breast cancer screening is to reduce breast cancer mortality, but screening also has negative side‐effects as overdiagnosis. To evaluate a screening programme, both benefits and harms should be considered. Published estimates of the benefit‐to‐harm ratio, the number of breast canc...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5488203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30758 |
_version_ | 1783246616069668864 |
---|---|
author | Beau, Anna‐Belle Lynge, Elsebeth Njor, Sisse Helle Vejborg, Ilse Lophaven, Søren Nymand |
author_facet | Beau, Anna‐Belle Lynge, Elsebeth Njor, Sisse Helle Vejborg, Ilse Lophaven, Søren Nymand |
author_sort | Beau, Anna‐Belle |
collection | PubMed |
description | The primary aim of breast cancer screening is to reduce breast cancer mortality, but screening also has negative side‐effects as overdiagnosis. To evaluate a screening programme, both benefits and harms should be considered. Published estimates of the benefit‐to‐harm ratio, the number of breast cancer deaths prevented divided by the number of overdiagnosed breast cancer cases, varied considerably. The objective of the study was to estimate the benefit‐to‐harm ratio of breast cancer screening in Denmark. The numbers of breast cancer deaths prevented and overdiagnosed cases [invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] were estimated per 1,000 women aged 50–79, using national published estimates for breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis, and national incidence and mortality rates. Estimations were made for both invited and screened women. Among 1,000 women invited to screening from age 50 to age 69 and followed until age 79, we estimated that 5.4 breast cancer deaths would be prevented and 2.1 cases overdiagnosed, under the observed scenario in Denmark of a breast cancer mortality reduction of 23.4% and 2.3% of the breast cancer cases being overdiagnosed. The estimated benefit‐to‐harm ratio was 2.6 for invited women and 2.5 for screened women. Hence, 2–3 women would be prevented from dying from breast cancer for every woman overdiagnosed with invasive breast cancer or DCIS. The difference between the previous published ratios and 2.6 for Denmark is probably more a reflection of the accuracy of the underlying estimates than of the actual screening programmes. Therefore, benefit‐to‐harm ratios should be used cautiously. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5488203 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54882032017-07-13 Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme Beau, Anna‐Belle Lynge, Elsebeth Njor, Sisse Helle Vejborg, Ilse Lophaven, Søren Nymand Int J Cancer Cancer Epidemiology The primary aim of breast cancer screening is to reduce breast cancer mortality, but screening also has negative side‐effects as overdiagnosis. To evaluate a screening programme, both benefits and harms should be considered. Published estimates of the benefit‐to‐harm ratio, the number of breast cancer deaths prevented divided by the number of overdiagnosed breast cancer cases, varied considerably. The objective of the study was to estimate the benefit‐to‐harm ratio of breast cancer screening in Denmark. The numbers of breast cancer deaths prevented and overdiagnosed cases [invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] were estimated per 1,000 women aged 50–79, using national published estimates for breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis, and national incidence and mortality rates. Estimations were made for both invited and screened women. Among 1,000 women invited to screening from age 50 to age 69 and followed until age 79, we estimated that 5.4 breast cancer deaths would be prevented and 2.1 cases overdiagnosed, under the observed scenario in Denmark of a breast cancer mortality reduction of 23.4% and 2.3% of the breast cancer cases being overdiagnosed. The estimated benefit‐to‐harm ratio was 2.6 for invited women and 2.5 for screened women. Hence, 2–3 women would be prevented from dying from breast cancer for every woman overdiagnosed with invasive breast cancer or DCIS. The difference between the previous published ratios and 2.6 for Denmark is probably more a reflection of the accuracy of the underlying estimates than of the actual screening programmes. Therefore, benefit‐to‐harm ratios should be used cautiously. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-10 2017-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5488203/ /pubmed/28470685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30758 Text en © 2017 The Authors International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Cancer Epidemiology Beau, Anna‐Belle Lynge, Elsebeth Njor, Sisse Helle Vejborg, Ilse Lophaven, Søren Nymand Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title | Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title_full | Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title_fullStr | Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title_full_unstemmed | Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title_short | Benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme |
title_sort | benefit‐to‐harm ratio of the danish breast cancer screening programme |
topic | Cancer Epidemiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5488203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30758 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT beauannabelle benefittoharmratioofthedanishbreastcancerscreeningprogramme AT lyngeelsebeth benefittoharmratioofthedanishbreastcancerscreeningprogramme AT njorsissehelle benefittoharmratioofthedanishbreastcancerscreeningprogramme AT vejborgilse benefittoharmratioofthedanishbreastcancerscreeningprogramme AT lophavensørennymand benefittoharmratioofthedanishbreastcancerscreeningprogramme |