4.3 Article

Protection of mammography screening against death from breast cancer in women aged 40-64 years

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 909-918

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-007-9006-8

关键词

mass screening; mammography; breast neoplasms; breast cancer mortality; age groups; premenopause; postmenopause

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [N01-HD-2-3166, N01-HD-3-3168, N01-HD-3-3174, N01-HD-3-3175, N01-HD-3-3176, Y01-HD-7022] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study assessed the efficacy of community-based screening mammography in protecting against breast cancer death, asking whether age differences in efficacy persisted in the 1990s. Methods In a case-control study with follow-up, odds ratios (OR) were used to estimate the relative mortality rates from invasive breast cancer among women with at least one screening mammogram in the two years prior to a baseline reference date compared to non-screened women, adjusting for potential confounding. The multicenter population-based study included 553 black and white women diagnosed during 1994-1998 who died in the following five years, and 4016 controls without breast cancer. Results Efficacy for reducing the rate of breast cancer death within five years after diagnosis was greater at ages 50-64 years (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.63) than at ages 40-49 (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), and greater among postmenopausal (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.62) than premenopausal women (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.53-1.04). Estimates of efficacy were conservative, as shown by sensitivity analyses addressing whether cancer was discovered by a screening mammogram, age at which screening was received, the length of the screening observation window, and years of follow-up after diagnosis. Conclusions Despite the persistence of age differences in efficacy of mammography screening, with greater observed benefit for women aged 50-64 years, these findings support current screening recommendations for women 40-64 years old.

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

4.3
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