Original Article

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate

  1. James S. Michaelson Ph.D.1,2,3,†,*,
  2. Sameer Satija4,
  3. Daniel Kopans M.D.4,5,
  4. Richard Moore4,
  5. Melvin Silverstein M.D.6,
  6. Arthur Comegno M.A.2,
  7. Kevin Hughes M.D.2,7,
  8. Alphonse Taghian M.D.8,9,
  9. Simon Powell M.D., Ph.D.8,9,
  10. Barbara Smith M.D., Ph.D.2,7

Article first published online: 15 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11766

Issue

Cancer

Cancer

Volume 98, Issue 10, pages 2114–2124, 15 November 2003

Additional Information

How to Cite

Michaelson, J. S., Satija, S., Kopans, D., Moore, R., Silverstein, M., Comegno, A., Hughes, K., Taghian, A., Powell, S. and Smith, B. (2003), Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate. Cancer, 98: 2114–2124. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11766

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  2. 2

    Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  3. 3

    Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  4. 4

    Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  5. 5

    Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  6. 6

    The Harold E. and Henrietta C. Lee Breast Center, University of Southern California/Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles California

  7. 7

    Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  8. 8

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  9. 9

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  1. †

    Fax: (508) 457-0763

*Division of Surgical Oncology, Cox Building Room 626, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Blossom Street, Boston, MA 02114

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 30 OCT 2003
  2. Article first published online: 15 OCT 2003
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 24 JUN 2003
  4. Manuscript Revised: 23 JUN 2003
  5. Manuscript Received: 24 APR 2003

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (156K)

REFERENCES

  • 1
    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: 347–360.
  • 2
    Kopans DB. Updated results of the trials of screening mammography. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1997; 6: 233–263.
  • 3
    Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001; 358: 1340–1342.
  • 4
    Sox H. Screening mammography for younger women: back to basics. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 361–362.
  • 5
    Goodman SN. The mammography dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine? Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 363–365.
  • 6
    Knight J. Reviews spark debate over breast screening. Nature. 2002; 415: 567.
  • 7
    Cimons M. Experts at odds over mammography. Nat Med. 2002; 8: 202.
  • 8
    Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 167–173.
  • 9
    Miettinen OS, Henschke CI, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, Libby DM, Yankelevitz DF. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet. 2002; 359: 404–405.
  • 10
    Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002; 359: 909–919.
  • 11
    Gelmon KA, Olivotto I. The mammography screening debate: time to move on. Lancet. 2002; 359: 904–905.
  • 12
    Gotzsche PC. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet. 2002; 359: 706.
  • 13
    Michaelson JS, Kopans DB, Cady B. The breast carcinoma screening interval is important. Cancer. 2000; 88: 1282–1284.
    Direct Link:
  • 14
    Fletcher SW. Why question screening mammography for women in their forties? Radiol Clin North Am. 1995; 33: 1259–1271.
  • 15
    Lee SJ, Zelen M. Scheduling periodic examinations for the early detection of disease: applications to breast cancer. J Am Stat Assoc. 1998; 93: 1271–1281.
  • 16
    Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology. 1999; 212: 551–560.
  • 17
    Michaelson JS. Using information on breast cancer growth, spread, and detectability to find the best ways to use screening to reduce breast cancer death. Womans Imaging. 2001; 3: 54–57.
  • 18
    Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38: 625–651.
  • 19
    Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992; 30: 187–210.
  • 20
    Tabar L, Dean PB, Kaufman CS, Duffy SW, Chen HH. A new era in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2000; 9: 233–277.
  • 21
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 305–312.
  • 22
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 1490–1499.
  • 23
    Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, et al. Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer. 2002; 95: 713–723.
    Direct Link:
  • 24
    Tubiana M, Koscielny S. The natural history of breast cancer: implications for a screening strategy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990; 19: 1117–1120.
  • 25
    Tubiana M, Koscielny S. Natural history of human breast cancer: recent data and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991; 18: 125–140.
  • 26
    Koscielny S, Tubiana M, Le MG, et al. Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination. Br J Cancer. 1984; 49: 709–715.
  • 27
    Tubiana M, Koscielny S. The rationale for early diagnosis of cancer—the example of breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 1999; 38: 295–303.
  • 28
    Karrison TG, Ferguson DJ, Meier P. Dormancy of mammary carcinoma after mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91: 80–85.
  • 29
    Michaelson JS, Satija S, Moore R, Weber G, Garland G, Kopans DB. Observations on invasive breast cancers diagnosed in a service screening and diagnostic breast imaging program. J Womens Imaging. 2001; 3: 99–104.
  • 30
    Kopans DB. Breast imaging (2nd edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1997.
  • 31
    Michaelson J, Satija S, Moore R, et al. The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences. Cancer. 2002; 94: 37–43.
    Direct Link:
  • 32
    Kopans DB, Halpern E, Hulka CA. Statistical power in breast cancer screening trials and mortality reduction among women 40-49 years of age with particular emphasis on the National Breast Screening Study of Canada. Cancer. 1994; 74: 1196–1203.
    Direct Link:
  • 33
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996; 276: 33–38.
  • 34
    Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 1081–1087.
  • 35
    Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology. 1998; 209: 511–518.
  • 36
    Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 167: 1261–1265.
  • 37
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA. 1996; 276: 39–43.
  • 38
    Burhenne HJ, Burhenne LW, Goldberg F, et al. Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994; 162: 1067–1071.
  • 39
    Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, MacMillan JH. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology. 1997; 204: 131–135.
  • 40
    Silverstein MJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Annu Rev Med. 2000; 51: 17–32.
  • 41
    Mokbel K. Towards optimal management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003; 29: 191–197.
  • 42
    Baines CJ, Miller AB, Kopans DB, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: assessment of technical quality by external review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155: 743–747.
  • 43
    Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 161: 755–760.
  • 44
    Kopans DB. The Canadian Screening Program: a different perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155: 748–749.
  • 45
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results [database online]. Available from URL: http://seer.cancer.gov [accessed 2003].
  • 46
    Brenner H. Long-term survival rates of cancer patients achieved by the end of the 20th century: a period analysis. Lancet. 2002; 360: 1131–1135.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (156K)