scholarly journals Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis

Author(s):  
Ismail Jatoi ◽  
Paul F Pinsky

Abstract Screening mammography was assessed in 9 randomized trials initiated between 1963 and 1990, with breast cancer-specific mortality as the primary endpoint. In contrast, breast cancer detection has been the primary endpoint in most screening trials initiated during the past decade. These trials have evaluated digital breast tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound, and novel screening strategies have been recommended solely on the basis of improvements in breast cancer detection rates. Yet, the assumption that increases in tumor detection produce reductions in cancer mortality has not been validated, and tumor-detection endpoints may exacerbate the problem of overdiagnosis. Indeed, the detection of greater numbers of early stage breast cancers in the absence of a subsequent decline in rates of metastatic cancers and cancer-related mortality is the hallmark of overdiagnosis. There is now evidence to suggest that both ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancers are overdiagnosed as a consequence of screening. For each patient who is overdiagnosed with breast cancer, the adverse consequences include unnecessary anxiety, financial hardships, and a small risk of morbidity and mortality from unnecessary treatments. Moreover, the overtreatment of breast cancer, as a consequence of overdiagnosis, is costly and contributes to waste in health-care spending. In this article, we argue that there is a need to establish better endpoints in breast cancer screening trials, including quality of life and composite endpoints. Tumor-detection endpoints should be abandoned, because they may lead to the implementation of screening strategies that increase the risk of overdiagnosis.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafia Masud ◽  
Mona Al-Rei ◽  
Cynthia Lokker

BACKGROUND With the growth of machine learning applications, the practice of medicine is evolving. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is a software technology that has become widespread in radiology practices, particularly in breast cancer screening for improving detection rates at earlier stages. Many studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CAD, but its implementation in clinical settings has been largely overlooked. OBJECTIVE The aim of this scoping review was to summarize recent literature on the adoption and implementation of CAD during breast cancer screening by radiologists and to describe barriers and facilitators for CAD use. METHODS The MEDLINE database was searched for English, peer-reviewed articles that described CAD implementation, including barriers or facilitators, in breast cancer screening and were published between January 2010 and March 2018. Articles describing the diagnostic accuracy of CAD for breast cancer detection were excluded. The search returned 526 citations, which were reviewed in duplicate through abstract and full-text screening. Reference lists and cited references in the included studies were reviewed. RESULTS A total of nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The included articles showed that there is a tradeoff between the facilitators and barriers for CAD use. Facilitators for CAD use were improved breast cancer detection rates, increased profitability of breast imaging, and time saved by replacing double reading. Identified barriers were less favorable perceptions of CAD compared to double reading by radiologists, an increase in recall rates of patients for further testing, increased costs, and unclear effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS There is a gap in the literature between CAD’s well-established diagnostic accuracy and its implementation and use by radiologists. Generally, the perceptions of radiologists have not been considered and details of implementation approaches for adoption of CAD have not been reported. The cost-effectiveness of CAD has not been well established for breast cancer screening in various populations. Further research is needed on how to best facilitate CAD in radiology practices in order to optimize patient outcomes, and the views of radiologists need to be better considered when advancing CAD use.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 205846011879121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg J Wengert ◽  
Thomas H Helbich ◽  
Panagiotis Kapetas ◽  
Pascal AT Baltzer ◽  
Katja Pinker

Mammography, as the primary screening modality, has facilitated a substantial decrease in breast cancer-related mortality in the general population. However, the sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection is decreased in women with higher breast densities, which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. With increasing public awareness of the implications of a high breast density, there is an increasing demand for supplemental screening in these patients. Yet, improvements in breast cancer detection with supplemental screening methods come at the expense of increased false-positives, recall rates, patient anxiety, and costs. Therefore, breast cancer screening practice must change from a general one-size-fits-all approach to a more personalized, risk-based one that is tailored to the individual woman’s risk, personal beliefs, and preferences, while accounting for cost, potential harm, and benefits. This overview will provide an overview of the available breast density assessment modalities, the current breast density screening recommendations for women at average risk of breast cancer, and supplemental methods for breast cancer screening. In addition, we will provide a look at the possibilities for a risk-adapted breast cancer screening.


Author(s):  
Penghuan Qu ◽  
Xueou Liu ◽  
Yubei Huang ◽  
Ziwei Feng ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To investigate whether women with benign breast disease (BBD) history have higher breast cancer detection rate in screening. Methods We reviewed data for 33 001 female participants in Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial (MIST). Corresponding data for 6823 breast cancer patients were retrieved from the Tianjin Breast Cancer Cases Cohort (TBCCC) and analyzed for comparison. Results The breast cancer detection rate was 2.83‰ among women with BBD history and 3.28‰ in women without. Moreover, the proportion of carcinoma in situ (CIS) was also lower in women with BBD history than women without (7.69 versus 20.31%). In contrast, analysis of TBCCC data revealed a higher proportion of CIS in patients with BBD history (5.05%) than patients without (3.26%). Our data showed that a larger proportion of women with BBD history had undergone previous breast examinations. Additionally, among participants diagnosed with both breast cancer and BBD in MIST, we found a lower proportion of CIS in women with BBD history (11.76%) compared to women without (32.14%). Conclusions Women with BBD history were not found to have higher detection rate in breast cancer screening. Women with BBD history were more likely to be proactive in seeking breast examinations and to have breast cancer be diagnosed in clinic.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51
Author(s):  
Nick Carcioppolo ◽  
Katheryn R. Christy ◽  
Jakob D. Jensen ◽  
Andy J. King ◽  
Julie Goonewardene ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document