Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40-49 years

Although direct evidence of carcinogenic risk from mammography is lacking, there is a hypothetical risk from screening because excess breast cancers have been demonstrated in women receiving doses of 0.25-20 Gy. These high-level exposures to the breast occurred from the 1930s to the 1950s due to atomic bomb radiation, multiple chest fluoroscopies, and radiation therapy treatments for benign disease. Using a risk estimate provided by the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) V Report of the National Academy of Sciences and a mean breast glandular dose of 4 mGy from a two-view per breast bilateral mammogram, one can estimate that annual mammography of 100,000 women for 10 consecutive years beginning at age 40 will result in at most eight breast cancer deaths during their lifetime. On the other hand, researchers have shown a 24% mortality reduction from biennial screening of women in this age group; this will result in a benefit-to-risk ratio of 48.5 lives saved per life lost and 121.3 years of life saved per year of life lost. An assumed mortality reduction of 36% from annual screening would result in 36.5 lives saved per life lost and 91.3 years of life saved per year of life lost. Thus, the theoretical radiation risk from screening mammography is extremely small compared with the established benefit from this life-saving procedure and should not unduly distract women under age 50 who are considering screening.     

Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit

In randomized controlled trials, screening mammography has been shown to reduce mortality from breast cancer about 25% to 30% among women aged 50 to 69 years after only five to six years from the initiation of screening. Among women aged 40 to 49 years, trials have reported no reduction in breast cancer mortality after seven to nine years from the initiation of screening; after 10 to 14 years there is a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality. Given that the incidence of breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years is lower and the potential benefit from mammography screening smaller and delayed, the absolute number of deaths prevented by screening women aged 40 to 49 years is much less than in screening women aged 50 to 69 years. Because the absolute benefit of screening women aged 40 to 49 years is small and there is concern that the harms are substantial, the focus should be to help these women make informed decisions about screening mammography by educating them of their true risk of breast cancer and the potential benefits and risks of screening.     

Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40-49 at randomization

The purpose of this overview is to estimate more precisely the long-term effect of mammography screening by adding four more years of follow-up to women aged 40-49 years in the four Swedish trials on mammography screening. Data from the four, trials were merged and linked to the Swedish Cancer and Cause of Death Register for 1958-1993 and 1951-1993 respectively to identify date of breast cancer diagnosis and cause and date of death. The invited and control groups comprised 48,569 and 40,247 women respectively. At the December 1993 follow-up, 602 and 482 breast cancer cases were identified in the two groups respectively, of which 104 and 111 had breast cancer as the underlying cause of death. This corresponds to a relative risk (RR) of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59-1.01) for the two groups. In the 40-44 age group at randomization, 94% of breast cancer patients in the study and 89% in the control group were diagnosed before the age of 50; however, among breast cancer deaths in this age group, only two in the invited and five in the control group died after age 50. At follow-up of women 40-44 years at randomization 208 women in the invited and 184 in the control group were reported to the Cancer registry with breast cancer. Out of these 195 (94%) and 163 (89%) respectively were reported before the age of 50. Further, the relative risk for the age group 40-44 years at randomization by age at follow-up was 1.11, 0.51 and 0.46 for the age groups 45-49, 50-54, and 55-59 at follow-up. This study shows a 23% reduction in the breast cancer mortality in women 40-49 years at randomization achieved from a median trial time of 7.0 years, a median follow-up time of 12.8 years, and a screening interval of 18-24 months. Almost all of the effect in the 40-44 year age group at randomization was due to screening before the age of 50.     

Use of screening mammography and its demographic and risk determinants in women 25 to 65 years of age

BACKGROUND: To know the utilization of the screening mammography among women from 25 to 65 years old in an urban health zone, where there is not an specific screening program for breast cancer. To detect the demographic and risk determinants that are involved in the mammography screening use. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A sample of 1,240 women were interviewed consecutively as they visited their physician. Risk factors, sociodemographic variables and use of health services were analyzed. The associated variables with the use of mammography screening were determined by univariant analysis. A multiple logistic regression model was designed to identify the variables independently associated with the use of mammography screening. RESULTS: The percentage of interviewed women who have completed at least one mammography screening in the last three years has been 10.2 +/- 3% (confidence level: 95%), 68.3% of them were under 50 years old. The variables independently associated with the use of mammography screening were: age (OR = 1.08); routine visit to the gynecologist (OR = 8.13); educational level (primary: OR = 2.44, secondary: OR = 3.66, university: OR = 7.43, no schooling: reference level); and knowledge about the benefits of mammography screening (OR = 6.15). Family history of breast cancer and the other risk factors were found not to be associated with the use of mammography screening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mammography screening among women from 25 to 65 years is inadequate according to the age and other risk factors. Mammography screening among women with a family history of breast cancer and those over 50 years old is underused, so it would be recommended and their use increased for these women. But women under 40 years old without family history of breast cancer have to be dissuaded from undertaking such a screening.     

Prevention and screening for breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in both Europe and the U.S. It is the second leading cause of cancer deaths for women in the U.S., but the first in Poland. Age, family history, reproductive factors, proliferative breast disease, and radiation are established risk factors. Diet may account for differences in international incidence rates; however, the majority of women who get breast cancer do not have identifiable risk factors other than age and being female. Primary prevention of breast cancer is unknown. Control relies on secondary prevention aimed at suppression of clinically occult disease, mammographic screening, and early detection of palpable disease through physical examination and breast self-examination. Dietary and medical prevention strategies are being tested in the U.S. Screening mammography has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing mortality in women over 50. The "Partnerships in Healthcare" program aims to enhance the early detection of breast cancer in Poland by providing mammography units, training for technicians and nurses, and incentives to develop multidisciplinary approaches to diagnosis and treatment.     

Screening random asymptomatic women under 50 by annual mammographies: does it make sense?

The effectiveness of screening random asymptomatic women for breast cancer using mammography has been analyzed using a new mathematical-computer technology. The technology is based on a general mathematical theory of screening recently developed by Blumenson combined with a mathematical model for breast cancer developed by Blumenson and Bross over the past decade. The technology makes it relatively simple to try alternative strategies for age at onset of screening, screening interval, etc. and to calculate the relative effectiveness of the strategy. When the benefits of alternative strategies with periodic screening beginning at different ages were compared with the increasing risk of iatrogenic disease from multiple exposure to low levels of radiation, it was concluded that screening of asymptomatic women should begin no earlier than age 50.     

The Gothenburg Breast Cancer Screening Trial: preliminary results on breast cancer mortality for women aged 39-49

We carried out a randomized trial of invitation to screening mammography in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden, to estimate the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality in women under age 50 years. A total of 11,724 women aged 39-49 were randomized to the study group, which was invited to mammographic screening every 18 months; 14,217 women in the same age range were randomized to a control group, which was not invited to screening until the fifth screen of the study group. Breast cancers diagnosed in both groups between randomization and immediately after the first screen of the control group were followed up for death from breast cancer to the end of December 1994. There was a significant 44% reduction in mortality from breast cancer in the study group compared to the control group (relative risk [RR] = 0.56, P = 0.042, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.98). A conservative estimate based on removal of the cancers detected at the first screen of the control group gave an RR = 0.59 (P = 0.069, 95% CI: 0.33-1.05). The true answer is likely to lie between the two estimates. These data suggest that mammographic screening can reduce breast cancer mortality in women under age 50, particularly if high-quality mammography is used and a short interscreening interval is adhered to.     

Trends in breast cancer screening in Missouri from 1987 to 1995, and predictions for the years 2000 and 2010

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and Missouri. In 1992, 3,915 new breast cancer cases were diagnosed and in 1995, 1,006 deaths from breast cancer were reported in Missouri. Although breast cancer incidence has increased in Missouri in the past 20 years, there are indications that early detection has also increased during the same period. Knowledge about which segments of the population have experienced the greatest increase in mammography screening rates helps in planning and implementation of breast cancer control programs at the state level. OBJECTIVES: Examine the prevalence and trends of lifetime mammography and 2-year mammography compliance in Missouri by age, race, and education from 1987 to 1995 and make predictions for the years 2000 and 2010. METHODS: We used data from the Missouri Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 1987 to 1995, to estimate the prevalence of ever having had a mammogram and compliance with mammography screening guidelines within two years by race, age, and education status among Missouri women over age 18. Using linear models, we regressed breast cancer screening prevalence estimates on time to obtain trends and predictions. RESULTS: Overall, African-American women were more likely to have had a lifetime mammogram than white women. However, we found a steady increase in the prevalence of ever having had a mammogram for all groups of women defined by age and education status, except among African Americans. Increase in the prevalence of ever having had a mammogram was much higher in women age 50 and older and slightly higher among women with a high school education or less. The average prevalence of 2-year mammography screening compliance was about 60% for all groups, a rate which did not significantly change between 1987 and 1995. By the year 2000, white women will have mammography rates equal to or higher than African-American women, and the majority of all women age 50 and older (98.3% to 100%) will have had a lifetime mammogram. CONCLUSION: Missouri target populations are predicted to attain Year 2000 National Health Objectives concerning lifetime mammography. Current efforts should be continued in order to maintain levels of mammography, particularly among African-American women.     

Glycation accelerates the oxidation of low density lipoprotein by copper ions

The American Cancer Society recommends periodic mammography, clinical breast examination and breast self-examination beginning at age 40 years for asymptomatic women at average risk of breast cancer. Although there is substantial evidence from meta-analyses and non-randomized studies to support these recommendations, individual randomized clinical trials of breast cancer screening have not demonstrated mortality reduction in women aged 40-49 years. The opportunity to study this issue further in the United States has been diminished by the high prevalence of screening already being conducted in that population of younger women. The International Union Against Cancer, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute of the United States have convened a series of workshops and planning meetings to consider the available data and outline plans for future research. Plans are being developed to conduct a randomized trial of mammography in women younger than 50 years in multiple European sites. Successful completion of this trial may provide critical data on efficacy of breast cancer screening in younger women.     

Mammography screening under 50: a limited perspective on a multifaceted issue

Navarro and Kaplan's article on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening for women under 50 offers a limited perspective on a complex and rapidly evolving issue. They suggest that eliminating mammography benefits for younger women will result in the delivery of other important women's health services, but they provide no data on the cost-effectiveness of these programs compared to mammography. Four other areas of omission significantly limit this article's scope and potential impact. Navarro and Kaplan do not discuss: 1) increasing breast cancer incidence in women under 50, particularly in African-American women; 2) the importance of breast cancer risk in relation to mammography screening; 3) the relevance of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials done by other investigators; and 4) the heterogeneity of mammography screening recommendations in clinical practice.     

Breast cancer screening among women in their forties: an overview of the issues

This article summarizes the issues prompting a recent NIH Consensus Conference on mammography screening for women in their forties. To date, eight randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening have been conducted, and a reduction in breast cancer mortality has emerged after 10 to 15 years of follow-up among women offered screening in their forties. No effect appears for at least eight years, and the reason for the delay, compared to that seen in women aged 50-69, is not clear. Two possibilities include cancer-stage shift due to screening in younger women and the aging of women into their fifties during the course of screening. Possible adverse effects of screening include radiation risk, although this is low, false-negative and false-positive screening tests, and overdiagnosis due to detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In order to make appropriate decisions regarding mammography, women need age-related information about both the benefits and potential risks of screening.     

Cost effectiveness of shortening screening interval or extending age range of NHS breast screening programme: computer simulation study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of two possible modifications to the current UK screening programme: shortening the screening interval from three to two years and extending the age of invitation to a final screen from 64 to 69. DESIGN: Computer simulation model which first simulates life histories for women in the absence of a screening programme for breast cancer and then assesses how these life histories would be changed by introducing different screening policies. The model was informed by screening and cost data from the NHS breast screening programme. SETTING: North West region of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of deaths prevented, life years gained, and costs. RESULTS: Compared with the current breast screening programme both modifications would increase the number of deaths prevented and the number of life years saved. The current screening policy costs 2522 pounds per life year gained; extending the age range of the programme would cost 2612 pounds and shortening the interval 2709 pounds per life year gained. The marginal cost per life year gained of extending the age range of the screening programme is 2990 pounds and of shortening the screening interval is 3545 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: If the budget for the NHS breast screening programme were to allow for two more invitations per woman, substantial mortality reductions would follow from extending the age range screened or reducing the screening interval. The difference between the two policies is so small that either could be chosen.     

Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malm? Mammographic Screening Program

This article provides additional follow-up data of two cohorts from the Malm? Mammographic Screening Trial (MMST). The first cohort, MMST I, contained 7,984 women under age 50 at entry into MMST who were born between 1927 and 1932. Half were assigned to a control group and were not invited for examination until four years after the code was broken in the MMST in 1988. The second cohort, MMST II, contained 17,786 women born between 1933 and 1945. Fifty four percent of these women were randomly invited to screening between 1978 and 1990. The remaining 46%--the control group--was invited to screening between 1991 and 1994. Nine screening rounds were completed in MMST I, and a mean of five rounds were completed in MMST II; the screening interval ranged from 18 to 24 months. The effect of screening on breast cancer mortality was assessed by pooling the two cohorts. At the end of follow-up--December 1993 for MMST I and December 1995 for MMST II--there was a statistically significant 36% reduction in breast cancer mortality in the intervention groups (relative risk = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.89; P = 0.009). A harm-benefit analysis showed, however, that for every two breast cancer deaths prevented, one clinically insignificant cancer was diagnosed; for each breast cancer death prevented, 63 cancer-free women had been called back for further examinations; and for every 20 lives saved, one radiation-induced breast cancer death may have occurred. Recommendations for screening must therefore weigh mortality benefits against these negative effects.     

Long-term survival of experimental calves with a left ventricular assist impeller pump

Screening with mammography in order to detect early curable breast cancer has been widely used during the last 2-3 decades. Especially an overview of 4 randomised trials in Sweden has shown a convincing short-term relative reduction of the breast cancer mortality while the long-term absolute effect on this mortality has been impossible to study due to screening of the control groups after some years. There is, however, rather general consensus about the value of screening in women above 50 years of age whereas screening in the age group 40-49 is still controversial due to the low rate of mammographically demonstrable cancers and the high rate of recalls for supplementary mammography, clinical examinations and biopsies in relation to cancers found. Recent follow-up of the pooled Swedish randomised trials have shown an about 20% almost significant reduction of the breast cancer mortality in women aged 40-49 at randomisation but the design of these trials does not allow an adequate estimation of the extra benefit obtained by starting periodical screening at age 40 instead of at age 50. The author proposes that screening in the age group 40-49 should be regarded as experimental and subject to proper randomised trials of a type on-going in UK and planned within UICC.     

Single view mammography: a simple and efficent approach to breast cancer screening

In 1974 a new approach to breast cancer screening was introduced--the single view mammography method. An urban nonselected population of 6845 women of more than 34 years of age were screened with one roentgenogram of each breast. By this method it has been possible to reduce the radiation dose, while the patient flow is increased and the costs are decreased to an acceptable level. Forty cases of breast carcinoma were detected (6.7/1000). Twenty cases were preclinical.     

Cost-benefit analysis of a mammography screening program extended to all the national territory

A cost-effectiveness analysis has been conducted in order to evaluate effects and costs of a nationwide mammographic breast cancer screening programme compared with no screening in a 30 years period. The analysis includes seven different phases of breast cancer, from the screening programme itself to the treatment of terminal illness. The estimates use italian published data and field studies. The calculations were performed with the Miscan computer simulation package: a programme providing for the screening of women aged 50-69 at two years intervals might be expected to result in a 1,650 deaths prevented and 14,500 years of life gained each year. The overall net costs of the programme were assessed at between 2,893 and 3,212 thousand million lire, the cost per life saved between 59.8 and 66.4 million lire and the cost per life-year gained between 6.6 and 7.3 million lire (between 10.7 and 11.5 million lire with a 5% discount rate, an estimate lower than that of German programme). The analysis produces important information for the Italian policy debate over mammography and it also contributes to the development of economic evaluation in our country.     

Effects of various phosphodiesterase-inhibitors, forskolin, and sodium nitroprusside on porcine detrusor smooth muscle tonic responses to muscarinergic stimulation and cyclic nucleotide levels in vitro

The Gail model is being used increasingly to determine individual breast cancer risk and to tailor preventive health recommendations accordingly. Although widely known to the medical and biostatistical communities, the risk factors included in the model may not be salient to the women to whom the model is being applied. This study explored the relationship of the individual Gail model risk factors to perceived risk of breast cancer and prior breast cancer screening among women with a family history of breast cancer. Data from baseline interviews with 969 women found a striking disparity between the objective risk factors included in the model and the accuracy of perceived risk and screening behaviors of this population, particularly among women over the age of 50 years. Risk perception accuracy was unrelated to all of the Gail model risk factors for all age groups. Reported mammography adherence was only associated with having had a breast biopsy in both age groups. Breast self examination (BSE) practice was independent of all measured factors for both age groups. These findings support the need for further research to identify additional determinants of risk perception and motivators of screening behavior.     

Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening

OBJECTIVES: To develop the number needed to screen, a new statistic to overcome inappropriate national strategies for disease screening. Number needed to screen is defined as the number of people that need to be screened for a given duration to prevent one death or adverse event. DESIGN: Number needed to screen was calculated from clinical trials that directly measured the effect of a screening strategy. From clinical trials that measured treatment benefit, the number needed to screen was estimated as the number needed to treat from the trial divided by the prevalence of heretofore unrecognised or untreated disease. Directly calculated values were then compared with estimate number needed to screen values. SUBJECTS: Standard literature review. RESULTS: For prevention of total mortality the most effective screening test was a lipid profile. The estimated number needed to screen for dyslipidaemia (low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration >4.14 mmol/1) was 418 if detection was followed by pravastatin treatment for 5 years. This indicates that one death in 5 years could be prevented by screening 418 people. The estimated number needed to screen for hypertension was between 274 and 1307 for 5 years (for 10 mm Hg and 6 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively) if detection was followed by treatment based on a diuretic. Screening with haemoccult testing and mammography significantly decreased cancer specific, but not total, mortality. The number needed to screen for haemoccult screening to prevent a death from colon cancer was 1374 for 5 years, and the number needed to screen for mammography to prevent a death from breast cancer was 2451 for 5 years for women aged 50-59. CONCLUSION: These data allow the clinician to prioritise screening strategies. Of the screening strategies evaluated, screening for, and treatment of, dyslipidaemia and hypertension seem to produce the largest clinical benefit.     

Mammography versus clinical examination of the breasts

Using published data from screening trials, this article compares two-modality (mammography and clinical examination) and single-modality (clinical examination alone) screening by evaluating cancer detection rates, program sensitivities, mode of cancer detection in two-modality screening, nodal status at time of detection, survival 10 years post-diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality 10 years after entry. Consistently, two-modality screening achieved higher cancer detection rates and program sensitivity estimates than either modality alone; mammography alone achieved higher rates than clinical examination alone; interval cancer detection rates between screening examinations were higher following clinical examination alone than mammography alone; single-modality screening with mammography failed to detect breast cancers identified by clinical examination alone; the sensitivity of mammography was lower in younger than older women, while the reverse was true for clinical examination; and mammography identified a higher proportion of node-negative breast cancer than clinical examination. We conclude that combining clinical breast examination with mammography is desirable for women age 40-49 because mammography is less sensitive in younger than older women. Careful training and monitoring are, however, as essential with clinical examiners as with mammographers.     

Outcomes of modern screening mammography

The University of California, San Francisco, Mobile Mammography Screening Program is a low-cost, community-based breast cancer screening program that offers mammography to women of diverse ethnic backgrounds (36% nonwhite) in six counties in northern California. Analysis of data collected on approximately 34,000 screening examinations from this program shows that the positive predictive value and sensitivity of modern screening mammography to be lower for women aged 40 to 49 years compared to women aged 50 and older. This lower performance is due to the lower prevalence of invasive breast cancer in younger women and possibly to age differences in breast tumor biology. Because of this lower performance, women in their forties may be subjected to more of the negative consequences of screening, which include additional diagnostic evaluations and the associated morbidity and anxiety, the potential for detecting and surgically treating clinically insignificant breast lesions, and the false reassurance resulting from normal mammographic results. Since the evidence is not compelling that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the known risks for women aged 40 to 49 years, women considering mammography screening should be informed of the risks, potential benefits, and limitations of screening mammography, so that they can make individualized decisions based on their personal risk status and utility for the associated risks and potential benefits of screening.