4.6 Article

Screening is associated with lower mastectomy rates in eastern Switzerland beyond stage effects

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07917-2

关键词

Mammography screening programme; Public health; Mastectomy; Epidemiology; Breast cancer; Switzerland

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that organized mammography screening programmes in Switzerland have a positive effect on lowering mastectomy rates. Participants in the screening program are significantly less likely to receive a mastectomy compared to non-participants, leading to a higher quality of life for many patients.
BackgroundA recent study found an influence of organized mammography screening programmes (MSPs) on geographical and temporal variation of mastectomy rates. We aimed to quantify the effect on the example of one of the cantonal programmes in Switzerland.MethodsWe used incidence data for the years 2010-2017 from the cancer registry of Eastern Switzerland. We included women with invasive-non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) in the screening age group 50-69-year-olds in the canton of St.Gallen. We compared mastectomy rates among cancer patients detected through the organised screening programme (MSP) vs. otherwise detected by stage.ResultsMSP-detected patients in St.Gallen presented with lower stages. 95% of MSP-detected had stages I-II vs 76% of Non-MSP-detected. Within all non-metastatic stage, tumour size and nodal status groups, MSP-detected patients had lower mastectomy rates, overall 10% vs 24% in 50-69-year-old non-participants. Their odds of receiving a mastectomy are about half of the Non-MSP-detected (OR=0.48, p =0.002).ConclusionsOur study showed that MSPs have a positive effect on lowering mastectomy rates. Screening participants are significantly less likely to receive a mastectomy compared to non-participants, which must be attributed to additional factors than just lower stages. Lower mastectomy rates lead to a higher quality of life for many patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据