The Breast Cancer Screening Controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49
1999; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 210; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1148/radiology.210.1.r99ja504
ISSN1527-1315
Autores Tópico(s)Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
ResumoHomeRadiologyVol. 210, No. 1 PreviousNext EditorialsThe Breast Cancer Screening Controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49Daniel B. Kopans1Daniel B. Kopans1Author AffiliationsDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Ambulatory Care Bldg, Suite 219, 15 Parkman St, Boston, MA 02114.Daniel B. Kopans1Published Online:Jan 1 1999https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.210.1.r99ja504MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In References 1 Fletcher SW. Whither scientific deliberation in health policy recommendations: Alice in Wonderland of breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1180-1183. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Mittra I, Naresh KN. Unexpected failures . . . and successes. Lancet 1997; 350(suppl III): 17. Crossref, Google Scholar3 Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Contentious screening decisions: does choice matter?. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1243-1244. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Eddy DM. Breast cancer screening in women younger than 50 years of age: what next?. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1035-1036. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Ransohoff DF, Harris RP. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate?. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1029-1034. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Woolf SH, Lawrence RS. Preserving scientific debate and patient choice: lessons from the Consensus Panel on Mammography Screening. JAMA 1997; 278: 2105-2107. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 955-965. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 National Insititutes of Health. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. January 23, 1997; Panel Statement, National Insititutes of Health Consensus Development Statement. Press release.. Google Scholar9 Consensus statement. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40–49. Monogr J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: vii-xii. Google Scholar10 Taubes G. The breast-screening brawl: how one radiologist turns up the heat. Science 1997; 275: 1056-1059. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Tabar L, Larson LG, Andersson I, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40–49: report of the organizing committee and collaborators, Falun meeting, Falun, Sweden, 21–22 March 1996. Int J Cancer 1996; 68: 693-699. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270: 2444-2450. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 149-153. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar14 Kattlove H, Alessandro L, Keeler E, Brook RH. Benefits and costs of screening for early breast cancer: development of a basic benefit package. JAMA 1995; 273: 142-148. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar15 Lee DD, Love SM. Mammographic screening. JAMA 1994; 271: 152-153. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The breast is close to the heart. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 969-971. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1644-1656. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 Baines CJ. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a perspective on criticisms. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 326-334. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Sox H. Screening mammography in women younger than 50 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 550-552. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20 Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 539-547. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21 Chalmers TC. Screening for breast cancer: what should national health policy be?. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1619-1621. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Peer PG, Holland R, Jan HCL, Hendriks , Mravunac M, Verbeek ALM. Age-specific effectiveness of Nijmegen population-based breast cancer–screening program: assessment of early indicators of screening effectiveness. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 436-441. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23 Harris R. Breast cancer among women in their forties: toward a reasonable research agenda. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 410-412. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar24 Kaluzny AD, Rimer B, Harris R. The National Cancer Institute and Guideline Development: lessons from the breast cancer screening controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 901-903. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar25 Swanson GM. May we agree to disagree, or how do we develop guidelines for breast cancer screening in women?. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 901-903. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26 Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 720-731. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar27 Rimer B. Putting the "informed" in informed consent about mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 703-704. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar28 Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1621-1624. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar29 Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Mammographic screening for women aged 40–49 years: the primary care practitioner's dilemma. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 534-538. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar30 Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. JAMA 1995; 274: 881-884. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar31 Kassirer JP, Angell M. Controversial journal editorials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1460-1461. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32 May DS, Lee NC, Nadel MR, Henson RM, Miller DS. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report of the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women. AJR 1998; 170: 97-104. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar33 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270: 2444-2450. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar34 Kopans DB, Halpern E, Hulka CA. Statistical power in breast cancer screening trials and mortality reduction among women 40–49 with particular emphasis on the National Breast Screening Study of Canada. Cancer 1994; 74: 1196-1203. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar35 Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 93-113. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar36 Moher D, Dulberg C, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272: 122-124. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37 Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40–49: current evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Cancer 1995; 75: 1619-1626. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar38 House Committee on Government Operations. Misused science: the National Cancer Institutes elimination of mammography guidelines for women in their forties October 20, 1994; Union Calendar No 480. House Report 103–863.. Google Scholar39 Kopans DB. Updated results of the trials of screening mammography. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1996; 6: 233-263. Google Scholar40 . ; Statement approved by the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Board of Scientific Counselors, on October 22, 1993. Press release from the National Cancer Institute.. Google Scholar41 Kopans DB. The National Breast Screening Study of Canada: a critical review of the results for women ages 40–49. ; Presented to the International Workshop on Screening of Breast Cancer, Bethesda, Md, February 24–25, 1993.. Google Scholar42 Eckhardt S, Badellino F, Murphy GP. UICC meeting on breast-cancer screening in pre-menopausal women in developed countries. Int J Cancer 1994; 56: 1-5. Medline, Google Scholar43 Eyre H, Sondik E, Smith RA, Kessler L. Joint meeting on the feasibility of a study of screening premenopausal women (40–49 years) for breast cancer: April 20–21, 1994. Cancer 1995; 75: 1391-1403. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar44 Shapiro S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancer 1994; 74: 231-238. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar45 . Questions and answers on mammography for women ages 40–49 Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute's Press Office, Office of Communications, February 25, 1997. Google Scholar46 . Guidelines for Planning and Management of NIH Consensus Development Conferences Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, Office of Medical Applications of Research, May 13, 1993. Google Scholar47 Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benenfit of screening mammography in women ages 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 87-92. Google Scholar48 Kolata G. Stand on mammograms greeted by outrage. New York Times Tuesday, January 28, 1997. Google Scholar49 Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 30–49 at randomization. Cancer 1997; 80: 2091-2099. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar50 Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under 50: update from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 63-67. Google Scholar51 Feig SA. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40–49. Cancer 1997; 80: 2035-2039. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar52 Boyd NF, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler D, Lockwood G, Zylak CJ. A critical appraisal of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology 1993; 189: 661-663. Link, Google Scholar53 Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR 1993; 161: 755-760. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar54 Tarone RE. The excess of patients with advanced breast cancers in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1995; 75: 997-1003. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar55 Boyd NE. The review of randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: is the debate over?. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156: 207-209. Google Scholar56 Prorok PC, Hankey BF, Bundy BN. Concepts and problems in the evaluation of screening programs. J Chron Dis 1981; 34: 159-171. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar57 Kopans DB. The case in favor of mammographic screening for women in their forties In: Jatoi I. Breast cancer screening. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 1997; 9-34. Google Scholar58 Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized, controlled trial. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 27-30. Google Scholar59 Tabar L, Duffy SW, Chen HH. Re: quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish Breast Cancer Screening Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 52-53. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar60 Larson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 57-61. Google Scholar61 Lindis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1998. Cancer 1998; 48: 6-29. Google Scholar62 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay JB, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276: 33-38. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar63 Linver MN, Paster SB. Mammography outcomes in a practice setting by age: prognostic factors, sensitivity, and positive biopsy rate. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 113-117. Google Scholar64 Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. Biasing the interpretation of mammography screening data by age grouping: nothing changes abruptly at age 50. Breast J 1998; 4: 139-145. Crossref, Google Scholar65 Kopans DB. An overview of the breast cancer screening controversy for the NIH Consensus Development Conference on Screening Women Ages 40–49 for Breast Cancer. JNCI 1997; 1-3Monograph No 22. Google Scholar66 Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographically intitated breast biopsy: there is no abrupt change at age 50 years. Radiology 1996; 200: 357-360. Link, Google Scholar67 Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN. Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical assessment. Cancer 1996; 77: 903-909. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar68 Feig SA, Hendrick RE. Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40–49. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 119-124. Google Scholar69 . Minority Report: National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40–49. Monogr J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: xii-xviii. Google Scholar70 . Mammography screening for women ages 40–49 not supported by data, NIH panel says. Cancer Letter 1997; 23: 1-12. Google Scholar71 Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guide for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. Cancer 1997; 47: 150-153. Google Scholar72 Feig SA, D'Orsi C, Hendrick E, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR 1998; 171: 29-33. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryAccepted: Sept 28 1998Received: Oct 28 1997Revision received: Dec 19 1997Revision received: Sept 16 1998Published in print: Jan 1999 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByA history of DMIST and its implications - Limited resources should be better spentDaniel B.Kopans2021 | Clinical Imaging, Vol. 78Design, implementation, and pitfalls of TMISTDaniel B.Kopans2021 | Clinical Imaging, Vol. 78Antecedents: A Half-Century of Imaging the BreastDaniel BKopans2019 | Journal of Breast Imaging, Vol. 1, No. 1Publisher's Note2018 | Clinical Imaging, Vol. 50Breast cancer screening: Where have we been and where are we going? A personal perspective based on history, data and experienceDaniel B.Kopans2018 | Clinical Imaging, Vol. 48The Breast Cancer Screening "Arcade" and the "Whack-A-Mole" Efforts to Reduce Access to ScreeningDaniel B.Kopans2018 | Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, Vol. 39, No. 1The 20‐year effort to reduce access to mammography screening: Historical facts dispute a commentary in CancerDaniel B.Kopans, Matthew L.Webb, BlakeCady12 June 2014 | Cancer, Vol. 120, No. 18Comparison of Breast Cancers Diagnosed in Screening Patients in Their 40s With and Without Family History of Breast Cancer in a Community Outpatient FacilityStamatia V.Destounis, Andrea L.Arieno, Renee C.Morgan, DavidCavanaugh, Posy J.Seifert, Philip F.Murphy, Patricia A.Somerville2014 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 202, No. 4JUST THE FACTS: MAMMOGRAPHY SAVES LIVES WITH LITTLE IF ANY RADIATION RISK TO THE MATURE BREASTDaniel B.Kopans2011 | Health Physics, Vol. 101, No. 5Revisión de la literatura para el uso de la mamografía (Mx) en tamizaje de cáncer de mamaDravnaRazmilic Valdés2010 | Medwave, Vol. 7, No. 1Comprehensive Cancer Screening among Unmarried Women Aged 40–75 Years: Results from the Cancer Screening Project for WomenMelissa A.Clark, Michelle L.Rogers, Gene F.Armstrong, WilliamRakowski, Deborah J.Bowen, TondaHughes, Kelly A.McGarry2009 | Journal of Women's Health, Vol. 18, No. 4Revisión de la evidencia científica sobre la aplicación clínica de la mamografía digitalC.Carreira Gómez, J.Martínez Cantarero, D.Gómez Santos, C.Polanco Sánchez, P.Naranjo García, J.del Llano Señarís2007 | Radiología, Vol. 49, No. 3Quantitative Target Sizes for Breast Tumor Detection Prior to Metastasis: A Prerequisite to Rational Design of 4D Scanners for Breast ScreeningVincentVinh-Hung, RichardGordon2005 | Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, Vol. 4, No. 1Estimating life expectancy and related probabilities in screen‐detected breast cancer patients with restricted follow‐up informationHuubStraatman, André L. M.Verbeek, Petronella G. M.Peer, GeorgeBorm19 January 2004 | Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 3Significant improvement in breast cancer survival through population-based mammography screeningPekka JKlemi, IlmoParvinen, LiisaPylkkänen, LeaKauhava, PirjoImmonen-Räihä, OsmoRäsänen, HansHelenius2003 | The Breast, Vol. 12, No. 5Geriatrische OnkologieH.Sauer2002Screening women at high risk of breast cancer on the basis of evidenceRuthWarren2001 | European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 39, No. 1Average-risk ScreeningBernardLevin, Sarah TropmanHawley2000 | Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America, Vol. 9, No. 4Screening Mammography for Women Younger Than 50 YearsDaniel B.Kopans1999 | JAMA, Vol. 282, No. 13Epidemiology, prevention, and early detection of breast cancerAnthony J.Alberg, Anthony P.Lam, Kathy J.Helzlsouer1999 | Current Opinion in Oncology, Vol. 11, No. 6Recommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 210, No. 1 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Referência(s)