Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

Author:

Trentham-Dietz Amy1,Chapman Christina Hunter2,Jayasekera Jinani3,Lowry Kathryn P.4,Heckman-Stoddard Brandy M.5,Hampton John M.1,Caswell-Jin Jennifer L.6,Gangnon Ronald E.17,Lu Ying8,Huang Hui9,Stein Sarah10,Sun Liyang8,Gil Quessep Eugenio J.11,Yang Yuanliang12,Lu Yifan13,Song Juhee12,Muñoz Diego F.8,Li Yisheng12,Kurian Allison W.14,Kerlikowske Karla15,O’Meara Ellen S.16,Sprague Brian L.17,Tosteson Anna N. A.18,Feuer Eric J.19,Berry Donald12,Plevritis Sylvia K.20,Huang Xuelin12,de Koning Harry J.11,van Ravesteyn Nicolien T.11,Lee Sandra J.9,Alagoz Oguzhan13,Schechter Clyde B.21,Stout Natasha K.1019,Miglioretti Diana L.1622,Mandelblatt Jeanne S.23

Affiliation:

1. Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison

2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Center for Innovations in Quality, Safety, and Effectiveness, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

3. Health Equity and Decision Sciences (HEADS) Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

4. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle

5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

6. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

7. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison

8. Stanford University, Stanford, California

9. Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

10. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

11. Erasmus MC—University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

12. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

13. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison

14. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California

15. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco

16. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington

17. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington

18. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Departments of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire

19. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

20. Departments of Biomedical Data Science and Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California

21. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York

22. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis

23. Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Institute for Cancer and Aging Research at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC

Abstract

ImportanceThe effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known.ObjectiveTo estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies.Design, Setting, and PopulationComparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses.ExposuresThirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and “real-world” treatment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEstimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women.ResultsBiennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women.ConclusionsThis modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3