Harms of breast cancer screening: Systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation

Heidi Nelson, Miranda Pappas, Amy Cantor, Jessica Griffin, Monica Daeges, Linda Humphrey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

124 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years. Purpose: To review studies of screening in average-risk women with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography that reported on false-positive results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through December 2014. Study Selection: English-language systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies of screening. Data Extraction: Investigators extracted and confirmed data from studies and dual-rated study quality. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis: Based on 2 studies of U.S. data, 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual than biennial screening (61% vs. 42% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively) and for women aged 40 to 49 years, those with dense breasts, and those using combination hormone therapy. Twenty-nine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0% to 54%; rates from randomized trials were 11% to 22%. Women with false-positive results reported more anxiety, distress, and breast cancer-specific worry, although results varied across 80 observational studies. Thirtynine observational studies indicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1% to 77%); of these, 11% to 46% declined future screening. Models estimated 2 to 11 screeningrelated deaths from radiation-induced cancer per 100 000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval. Five observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone. Limitations: Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates varied depending on the analytic approach. Studies of anxiety and pain used different outcome measures. Radiation exposure was based on models. Conclusion: False-positive results are common and are higher for annual screening, younger women, and women with dense breasts. Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on individual women are difficult to estimate and vary widely. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)256-267
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume164
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 16 2016

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Early Detection of Cancer
Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Observational Studies
Anxiety
Pain
Breast
Radiation-Induced Neoplasms
Biopsy
Information Storage and Retrieval
Health Services Research
MEDLINE
Ultrasonography
Consensus
Language
Research Personnel
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Harms of breast cancer screening : Systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation. / Nelson, Heidi; Pappas, Miranda; Cantor, Amy; Griffin, Jessica; Daeges, Monica; Humphrey, Linda.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 164, No. 4, 16.02.2016, p. 256-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2518235c2adf43c6b8752fedf9a3506a,
title = "Harms of breast cancer screening: Systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation",
abstract = "Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years. Purpose: To review studies of screening in average-risk women with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography that reported on false-positive results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through December 2014. Study Selection: English-language systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies of screening. Data Extraction: Investigators extracted and confirmed data from studies and dual-rated study quality. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis: Based on 2 studies of U.S. data, 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual than biennial screening (61{\%} vs. 42{\%} and 7{\%} vs. 5{\%}, respectively) and for women aged 40 to 49 years, those with dense breasts, and those using combination hormone therapy. Twenty-nine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0{\%} to 54{\%}; rates from randomized trials were 11{\%} to 22{\%}. Women with false-positive results reported more anxiety, distress, and breast cancer-specific worry, although results varied across 80 observational studies. Thirtynine observational studies indicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1{\%} to 77{\%}); of these, 11{\%} to 46{\%} declined future screening. Models estimated 2 to 11 screeningrelated deaths from radiation-induced cancer per 100 000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval. Five observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone. Limitations: Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates varied depending on the analytic approach. Studies of anxiety and pain used different outcome measures. Radiation exposure was based on models. Conclusion: False-positive results are common and are higher for annual screening, younger women, and women with dense breasts. Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on individual women are difficult to estimate and vary widely. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.",
author = "Heidi Nelson and Miranda Pappas and Amy Cantor and Jessica Griffin and Monica Daeges and Linda Humphrey",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "16",
doi = "10.7326/M15-0970",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "164",
pages = "256--267",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Harms of breast cancer screening

T2 - Systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Pappas, Miranda

AU - Cantor, Amy

AU - Griffin, Jessica

AU - Daeges, Monica

AU - Humphrey, Linda

PY - 2016/2/16

Y1 - 2016/2/16

N2 - Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years. Purpose: To review studies of screening in average-risk women with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography that reported on false-positive results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through December 2014. Study Selection: English-language systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies of screening. Data Extraction: Investigators extracted and confirmed data from studies and dual-rated study quality. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis: Based on 2 studies of U.S. data, 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual than biennial screening (61% vs. 42% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively) and for women aged 40 to 49 years, those with dense breasts, and those using combination hormone therapy. Twenty-nine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0% to 54%; rates from randomized trials were 11% to 22%. Women with false-positive results reported more anxiety, distress, and breast cancer-specific worry, although results varied across 80 observational studies. Thirtynine observational studies indicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1% to 77%); of these, 11% to 46% declined future screening. Models estimated 2 to 11 screeningrelated deaths from radiation-induced cancer per 100 000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval. Five observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone. Limitations: Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates varied depending on the analytic approach. Studies of anxiety and pain used different outcome measures. Radiation exposure was based on models. Conclusion: False-positive results are common and are higher for annual screening, younger women, and women with dense breasts. Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on individual women are difficult to estimate and vary widely. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

AB - Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years. Purpose: To review studies of screening in average-risk women with mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography that reported on false-positive results, overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through December 2014. Study Selection: English-language systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies of screening. Data Extraction: Investigators extracted and confirmed data from studies and dual-rated study quality. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis: Based on 2 studies of U.S. data, 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual than biennial screening (61% vs. 42% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively) and for women aged 40 to 49 years, those with dense breasts, and those using combination hormone therapy. Twenty-nine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0% to 54%; rates from randomized trials were 11% to 22%. Women with false-positive results reported more anxiety, distress, and breast cancer-specific worry, although results varied across 80 observational studies. Thirtynine observational studies indicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1% to 77%); of these, 11% to 46% declined future screening. Models estimated 2 to 11 screeningrelated deaths from radiation-induced cancer per 100 000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval. Five observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone. Limitations: Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates varied depending on the analytic approach. Studies of anxiety and pain used different outcome measures. Radiation exposure was based on models. Conclusion: False-positive results are common and are higher for annual screening, younger women, and women with dense breasts. Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on individual women are difficult to estimate and vary widely. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958787274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958787274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M15-0970

DO - 10.7326/M15-0970

M3 - Article

C2 - 26756737

AN - SCOPUS:84958787274

VL - 164

SP - 256

EP - 267

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 4

ER -