Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in population-based breast cancer screening: A short- and long-term perspective.

Breast neoplasms Invasive breast cancer Mammography Mass screening Modelling studies Overdiagnosis

Journal

European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
received: 10 03 2022
revised: 30 05 2022
accepted: 12 06 2022
pubmed: 16 7 2022
medline: 1 9 2022
entrez: 15 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer (BC) is a contentious issue. The aim of this paper is to estimate the overdiagnosis rate of invasive BC in an organised BC screening program and to evaluate the impact of age and follow-up time. The micro-simulation model SiMRiSc was calibrated and validated for BC screening in Flanders, where women are screened biennially from age 50 to 69. Overdiagnosis rate was defined as the number of invasive BC that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening per 100,000 screened women during the screening period plus follow-up time (which was set at 5 years and varied from 2 to 15 years). Overdiagnosis rate was calculated overall and stratified by age. The overall overdiagnosis rate for women screened biennially from 50 to 69 was 20.1 (95%CI: 16.9-23.2) per 100,000 women screened at 5-year follow-up from stopping screening. Overdiagnosis at 5-year follow-up time was 12.9 (95%CI: 4.6-21.1) and 74.2 (95%CI: 50.9-97.5) per 100,000 women screened for women who started screening at age 50 and 68, respectively. At 2- and 15-year follow-up time, overdiagnosis rate was 98.5 (95%CI: 75.8-121.3) and 13.4 (95%CI: 4.9-21.9), respectively, for women starting at age 50, and 297.0 (95%CI: 264.5-329.4) and 34.2 (95%CI: 17.5-50.8), respectively, for those starting at age 68. Sufficient follow-up time (≥10 years) after screening stops is key to obtaining unbiased estimates of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis of invasive BC is a larger problem in older compared to younger women.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer (BC) is a contentious issue.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper is to estimate the overdiagnosis rate of invasive BC in an organised BC screening program and to evaluate the impact of age and follow-up time.
METHODS
The micro-simulation model SiMRiSc was calibrated and validated for BC screening in Flanders, where women are screened biennially from age 50 to 69. Overdiagnosis rate was defined as the number of invasive BC that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening per 100,000 screened women during the screening period plus follow-up time (which was set at 5 years and varied from 2 to 15 years). Overdiagnosis rate was calculated overall and stratified by age.
RESULTS
The overall overdiagnosis rate for women screened biennially from 50 to 69 was 20.1 (95%CI: 16.9-23.2) per 100,000 women screened at 5-year follow-up from stopping screening. Overdiagnosis at 5-year follow-up time was 12.9 (95%CI: 4.6-21.1) and 74.2 (95%CI: 50.9-97.5) per 100,000 women screened for women who started screening at age 50 and 68, respectively. At 2- and 15-year follow-up time, overdiagnosis rate was 98.5 (95%CI: 75.8-121.3) and 13.4 (95%CI: 4.9-21.9), respectively, for women starting at age 50, and 297.0 (95%CI: 264.5-329.4) and 34.2 (95%CI: 17.5-50.8), respectively, for those starting at age 68.
CONCLUSIONS
Sufficient follow-up time (≥10 years) after screening stops is key to obtaining unbiased estimates of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis of invasive BC is a larger problem in older compared to younger women.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35839596
pii: S0959-8049(22)00378-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.027
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-9

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Lilu Ding (L)

Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: l.ding@umcg.nl.

Keris Poelhekken (K)

Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: k.poelhekken@umcg.nl.

Marcel J W Greuter (MJW)

Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.j.w.greuter@umcg.nl.

Inge Truyen (I)

Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: inge.truyen@kankerregister.org.

Harlinde De Schutter (H)

Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: Harlinde.DeSchutter@kankerregister.org.

Mathijs Goossens (M)

Center for Cancer Detection (CvKO) in Flanders, Belgium; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: mathieu.goossens@bevolkingsonderzoek.be.

Nehmat Houssami (N)

Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Australia. Electronic address: nehmat.houssami@sydney.edu.au.

Guido Van Hal (G)

Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Center for Cancer Detection (CvKO) in Flanders, Belgium. Electronic address: guido.vanhal@uantwerpen.be.

Geertruida H de Bock (GH)

Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.h.de.bock@umcg.nl.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH