» Articles » PMID: 36404936

Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?

Overview
Date 2022 Nov 21
PMID 36404936
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose Of Review: Breast cancer screening is highly controversial and different agencies have widely varying guidelines. Yet it is currently used extensively in the USA and frequently the thought is "the more, the better." The purpose of this review is to objectively assess the risks and benefits of screening mammography and consider whether there may be areas where it could be de-escalated.

Recent Findings: Over the past few years, there have been several meta-analyses that are concordant, and it is now agreed that the main benefit of screening mammography is about a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This actually benefits about 5% of patients with mammographically detected tumors. We now appreciate that the main harm of screening is overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of a cancer that will not cause the patient any harm and would not have ever been detected without the screening. This currently represents about 20 to 30% of screening detected cancers. Finding extra cancers with more intense screening is not always good, because in this situation, the risk of overdiagnosis increases and the benefit decreases. In some groups, the risk of overdiagnosis approaches 75%.

Summary: Our goal should be not only to find more cancers, but to avoid finding cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm and lead to unnecessary treatment. The authors suggest some situations where it may be reasonable to de-escalate screening.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic Scrutiny and Patterns of Elevated Cancer Risk: Uncovering Overdiagnosis Through Standardized Incidence Ratios.

Chen Y, Gutierrez V, Morris L, Marti J Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e42439.

PMID: 37637595 PMC: 10447997. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42439.


The contribution of prognostic factors to socio-demographic inequalities in breast cancer survival in Victoria, Australia.

Stuart G, Chamberlain J, Te Marvelde L Cancer Med. 2023; 12(14):15371-15383.

PMID: 37458115 PMC: 10417162. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6092.


Genetic Factors in the Screening and Imaging for Breast Cancer.

Kim J, Haffty B Korean J Radiol. 2023; 24(5):378-383.

PMID: 37056158 PMC: 10157325. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2023.0012.

References
1.
Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne J . Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ. 2006; 332(7543):689-92. PMC: 1410836. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C. View

2.
Brodersen J, Siersma V . Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013; 11(2):106-15. PMC: 3601385. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1466. View

3.
Baines C, To T, Miller A . Revised estimates of overdiagnosis from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Prev Med. 2016; 90:66-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.033. View

4.
Schiaffino S, Calabrese M, Melani E, Trimboli R, Cozzi A, Carbonaro L . Upgrade Rate of Percutaneously Diagnosed Pure Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 6458 Lesions. Radiology. 2019; 294(1):76-86. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190748. View

5.
Neal C, Helvie M . Overdiagnosis and Risks of Breast Cancer Screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020; 59(1):19-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.005. View