4.7 Article

Overdiagnosis among women attending a population-based mammography screening program

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 133, Issue 3, Pages 705-712

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28052

Keywords

cohort study; ductal carcinoma in situ; lead time; mammography screening; overdiagnosis

Categories

Funding

  1. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [3b-110]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increased incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC) after introduction of organized screening has prompted debate about overdiagnosis. The aim was to examine the excess in incidence of DCIS and IBC during the screening period and the deficit after women left the program, and thereby to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosis. Women invited to the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program were analyzed for DCIS or IBC during the period 19952009. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for attended vs. never attended women. The IRRs were adjusted by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method and applied to a set of reference rates and a reference population to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosis during the women's lifespan after the age of 50 years. A total of 702,131 women were invited to the program. An excess of DCIS and IBC was observed among women who attended screening during the screening period; prevalently invited women aged 5051 years had a MH IRR of 1.86 (95% CI 1.652.09) and subsequently invited women aged 5269 years had a MH IRR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.451.68). In women aged 7079 years, a deficit of 30% (MH IRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.620.80) was observed 110 years after they left the screening program. The estimated proportion of overdiagnosis varied from 10 to 20% depending on outcome and whether the women were invited or actually screened. The results highlight the need for individual data with longitudinal screening history and long-term follow-up as a basis for estimating overdiagnosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available