Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies

Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, Natasha K. Stout, Clyde B. Schechter, Jeroen J. Van Den Broek, Diana L Miglioretti, Martin Krapcho, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Diego Munoz, Sandra J. Lee, Donald A. Berry, Nicolien T. Van Ravesteyn, Oguzhan Alagoz, Karla Kerlikowske, Anna N A Tosteson, Aimee M. Near, Amanda Hoeffken, Yaojen Chang, Eveline A. Heijnsdijk, Gary Chisholm, Xuelin HuangHui Huang, Mehmet Ali Ergun, Ronald Gangnon, Brian L. Sprague, Sylvia Plevritis, Eric Feuer, Harry J. De Koning, Kathleen A. Cronin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Setting: United States. Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and qualityadjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar bene-fits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2-to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-225
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume164
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 16 2016

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Breast Neoplasms
Mammography
Comorbidity
Mortality
Population Characteristics
Population
Technology
Biopsy
Weights and Measures
Incidence
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Mandelblatt, J. S., Stout, N. K., Schechter, C. B., Van Den Broek, J. J., Miglioretti, D. L., Krapcho, M., ... Cronin, K. A. (2016). Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(4), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1536

Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies. / Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; Stout, Natasha K.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Van Den Broek, Jeroen J.; Miglioretti, Diana L; Krapcho, Martin; Trentham-Dietz, Amy; Munoz, Diego; Lee, Sandra J.; Berry, Donald A.; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.; Alagoz, Oguzhan; Kerlikowske, Karla; Tosteson, Anna N A; Near, Aimee M.; Hoeffken, Amanda; Chang, Yaojen; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.; Chisholm, Gary; Huang, Xuelin; Huang, Hui; Ergun, Mehmet Ali; Gangnon, Ronald; Sprague, Brian L.; Plevritis, Sylvia; Feuer, Eric; De Koning, Harry J.; Cronin, Kathleen A.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 164, No. 4, 16.02.2016, p. 215-225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mandelblatt, JS, Stout, NK, Schechter, CB, Van Den Broek, JJ, Miglioretti, DL, Krapcho, M, Trentham-Dietz, A, Munoz, D, Lee, SJ, Berry, DA, Van Ravesteyn, NT, Alagoz, O, Kerlikowske, K, Tosteson, ANA, Near, AM, Hoeffken, A, Chang, Y, Heijnsdijk, EA, Chisholm, G, Huang, X, Huang, H, Ergun, MA, Gangnon, R, Sprague, BL, Plevritis, S, Feuer, E, De Koning, HJ & Cronin, KA 2016, 'Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 164, no. 4, pp. 215-225. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1536
Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. ; Stout, Natasha K. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Van Den Broek, Jeroen J. ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Krapcho, Martin ; Trentham-Dietz, Amy ; Munoz, Diego ; Lee, Sandra J. ; Berry, Donald A. ; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T. ; Alagoz, Oguzhan ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Near, Aimee M. ; Hoeffken, Amanda ; Chang, Yaojen ; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. ; Chisholm, Gary ; Huang, Xuelin ; Huang, Hui ; Ergun, Mehmet Ali ; Gangnon, Ronald ; Sprague, Brian L. ; Plevritis, Sylvia ; Feuer, Eric ; De Koning, Harry J. ; Cronin, Kathleen A. / Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 164, No. 4. pp. 215-225.
@article{16d5dc885c604878866642d916b7fbb1,
title = "Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies",
abstract = "Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Setting: United States. Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100{\%} adherence and stopped at age 74 years. Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and qualityadjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar bene-fits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2-to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.",
author = "Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.} and Stout, {Natasha K.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and {Van Den Broek}, {Jeroen J.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Martin Krapcho and Amy Trentham-Dietz and Diego Munoz and Lee, {Sandra J.} and Berry, {Donald A.} and {Van Ravesteyn}, {Nicolien T.} and Oguzhan Alagoz and Karla Kerlikowske and Tosteson, {Anna N A} and Near, {Aimee M.} and Amanda Hoeffken and Yaojen Chang and Heijnsdijk, {Eveline A.} and Gary Chisholm and Xuelin Huang and Hui Huang and Ergun, {Mehmet Ali} and Ronald Gangnon and Sprague, {Brian L.} and Sylvia Plevritis and Eric Feuer and {De Koning}, {Harry J.} and Cronin, {Kathleen A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "16",
doi = "10.7326/M15-1536",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "164",
pages = "215--225",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

AU - Stout, Natasha K.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Van Den Broek, Jeroen J.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Krapcho, Martin

AU - Trentham-Dietz, Amy

AU - Munoz, Diego

AU - Lee, Sandra J.

AU - Berry, Donald A.

AU - Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.

AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

AU - Near, Aimee M.

AU - Hoeffken, Amanda

AU - Chang, Yaojen

AU - Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.

AU - Chisholm, Gary

AU - Huang, Xuelin

AU - Huang, Hui

AU - Ergun, Mehmet Ali

AU - Gangnon, Ronald

AU - Sprague, Brian L.

AU - Plevritis, Sylvia

AU - Feuer, Eric

AU - De Koning, Harry J.

AU - Cronin, Kathleen A.

PY - 2016/2/16

Y1 - 2016/2/16

N2 - Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Setting: United States. Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and qualityadjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar bene-fits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2-to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

AB - Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Setting: United States. Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and qualityadjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar bene-fits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2-to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958818486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958818486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M15-1536

DO - 10.7326/M15-1536

M3 - Article

C2 - 26756606

AN - SCOPUS:84958818486

VL - 164

SP - 215

EP - 225

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 4

ER -