Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy|Continue
JAMA
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Sign inCreate an Account
Access through your institution
Sign In
View Correction
This Issue
Review
October20, 2015
Evan R.Myers,MD, MPH1,2; PatriciaMoorman,PhD1,3; Jennifer M.Gierisch,PhD, MPH1,4,5; et al Laura J.Havrilesky,MD, MHSc1,2; Lars J.Grimm,MD6; SujataGhate,MD6; BrittanyDavidson,MD2; Ranee ChatterjeeMongtomery,MD1,4; Matthew J.Crowley,MD1,4,5; Douglas C.McCrory,MD, MHSc1,4,5; AmyKendrick,RN, MSN1; Gillian D.Sanders,PhD1,4
Author Affiliations Article Information
-
1Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina
-
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
-
3Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
-
4Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
-
5Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
-
6Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615-1634. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13183
- Editorial New Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening in US Women
Nancy L.Keating,MD, MPH; Lydia E.Pace,MD, MPH
JAMA
- Special Communication 2015 Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for Women at Average Risk
Kevin C.Oeffinger,MD; Elizabeth T. H.Fontham,MPH, DrPH; RuthEtzioni,PhD; AbbeHerzig,PhD; James S.Michaelson,PhD; Ya-Chen TinaShih,PhD; Louise C.Walter,MD; Timothy R.Church,PhD; Christopher R.Flowers,MD, MS; Samuel J.LaMonte,MD; Andrew M. D.Wolf,MD; CarolDeSantis,MPH; JoannieLortet-Tieulent,MSc; KimberlyAndrews; DeanaManassaram-Baptiste,PhD; DebbieSaslow,PhD; Robert A.Smith,PhD; Otis W.Brawley,MD; RichardWender,MD
JAMA
-
Karsten JuhlJørgensen,MD, DrMedSci; Peter C.Gøtzsche,MD, DrMedSci
JAMA
-
Evan R.Myers,MD, MPH; PatriciaMoorman,PhD; Gillian D.Sanders,PhD
JAMA
- Correction Unclear Information in Table
JAMA
Podcast (22:39)
Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines
1x
0:00 / 0:00
Full Text
Abstract
Importance Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
Objective To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.
Evidence Review We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews.
Findings Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE.
Conclusions and Relevance For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
- Editorial New Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening in US Women
JAMA
Full Text
Add or change institution
Read More About
Breast Cancer Oncology Women's Health Cancer Screening, Prevention, Control
Download PDF Full Text
Citation
Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615–1634. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13183
Manage citations:
Ris (Zotero) EndNote BibTex Medlars ProCite RefWorks Reference Manager Mendeley
© 2024
Add or change institution
JAMA+ AI
Others Also Liked
Select Your Interests
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
- Academic Medicine
- Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
- Allergy and Clinical Immunology
- American Indian or Alaska Natives
- Anesthesiology
- Anticoagulation
- Art and Images in Psychiatry
- Assisted Reproduction
- Bleeding and Transfusion
- Cardiology
- Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
- Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
- Climate and Health
- Climate Change
- Clinical Challenge
- Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
- Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
- Coaching
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- Consensus Statements
- Coronavirus (COVID-19)
- Critical Care Medicine
- Cultural Competency
- Dental Medicine
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- Diagnostic Test Interpretation
- Digital Health
- Drug Development
- Emergency Medicine
- End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
- Environmental Health
- Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
- Ethics
- Facial Plastic Surgery
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Genetics and Genomics
- Genomics and Precision Health
- Geriatrics
- Global Health
- Guide to Statistics and Methods
- Guidelines
- Hair Disorders
- Health Care Delivery Models
- Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
- Health Care Quality
- Health Care Reform
- Health Care Safety
- Health Care Workforce
- Health Disparities
- Health Inequities
- Health Policy
- Health Systems Science
- Hematology
- History of Medicine
- Humanities
- Hypertension
- Images in Neurology
- Implementation Science
- Infectious Diseases
- Innovations in Health Care Delivery
- JAMA Forum
- JAMA Infographic
- Law and Medicine
- Leading Change
- Less is More
- LGBTQIA Medicine
- Lifestyle Behaviors
- Medical Coding
- Medical Devices and Equipment
- Medical Education
- Medical Education and Training
- Medical Journals and Publishing
- Melanoma
- Narrative Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Neuroscience and Psychiatry
- Notable Notes
- Nursing
- Nutrition
- Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
- Obesity
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Occupational Health
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopedics
- Otolaryngology
- Pain Medicine
- Palliative Care
- Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
- Patient Care
- Patient Information
- Pediatrics
- Performance Improvement
- Performance Measures
- Perioperative Care and Consultation
- Pharmacoeconomics
- Pharmacoepidemiology
- Pharmacogenetics
- Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Physical Therapy
- Physician Leadership
- Poetry
- Population Health
- Primary Care
- Professional Well-being
- Professionalism
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
- Public Health
- Pulmonary Medicine
- Radiology
- Regulatory Agencies
- Reproductive Health
- Research, Methods, Statistics
- Resuscitation
- Rheumatology
- Risk Management
- Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
- Sexual Health
- Shared Decision Making and Communication
- Sleep Medicine
- Sports Medicine
- Stem Cell Transplantation
- Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
- Surgery
- Surgical Innovation
- Surgical Pearls
- Teachable Moment
- The Art of JAMA
- The Arts and Medicine
- The Rational Clinical Examination
- Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
- Toxicology
- Translational Medicine
- Trauma and Injury
- Treatment Adherence
- Ultrasonography
- Urology
- Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
- Vaccination
- Venous Thromboembolism
- Veterans Health
- Violence
- Women's Health
- Workflow and Process
- Wound Care, Infection, Healing
Save Preferences
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
X
.
Access your subscriptions
Add or change institution
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Purchase access
Get full journal access for 1 year
Get unlimited access and a printable PDF ($40.00)—
Sign in or create a free account
Rent this article from DeepDyve
Access your subscriptions
Add or change institution
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Purchase access
Get full journal access for 1 year
Get unlimited access and a printable PDF ($40.00)—
Sign in or create a free account
Rent this article from DeepDyve
Sign in to access free PDF
Add or change institution
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Save your search
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Purchase access
Customize your interests
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Create a personal account or sign in to:
- Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
- Access PDFs of free articles
- Manage your interests
- Save searches and receive search alerts
Privacy Policy
Make a comment
Free access to newly published articles
To register for email alerts, access free PDF, and more
Create a personal account or sign in to:
- Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
- Access PDFs of free articles
- Manage your interests
- Save searches and receive search alerts
Privacy Policy