Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years

Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, Diana L Miglioretti, Natasha K. Stout, Sandra J. Lee, Clyde B. Schechter, Diana S M Buist, Hui Huang, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Oguzhan Alagoz, Aimee M. Near, Karla Kerlikowske, Heidi D. Nelson, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, Harry J. de Koning

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. Design: Comparative modeling study. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. Target Population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). Outcome Measures: Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, falsepositive findings/deaths averted. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)609-618
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume156
Issue number9
StatePublished - May 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Breast Neoplasms
SEER Program
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Health Services Needs and Demand
Information Storage and Retrieval

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

van Ravesteyn, N. T., Miglioretti, D. L., Stout, N. K., Lee, S. J., Schechter, C. B., Buist, D. S. M., ... de Koning, H. J. (2012). Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(9), 609-618.

Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years. / van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.; Miglioretti, Diana L; Stout, Natasha K.; Lee, Sandra J.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Buist, Diana S M; Huang, Hui; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M; Trentham-Dietz, Amy; Alagoz, Oguzhan; Near, Aimee M.; Kerlikowske, Karla; Nelson, Heidi D.; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; de Koning, Harry J.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 156, No. 9, 01.05.2012, p. 609-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

van Ravesteyn, NT, Miglioretti, DL, Stout, NK, Lee, SJ, Schechter, CB, Buist, DSM, Huang, H, Heijnsdijk, EAM, Trentham-Dietz, A, Alagoz, O, Near, AM, Kerlikowske, K, Nelson, HD, Mandelblatt, JS & de Koning, HJ 2012, 'Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 156, no. 9, pp. 609-618.
van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Buist DSM et al. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012 May 1;156(9):609-618.
van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T. ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Stout, Natasha K. ; Lee, Sandra J. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Buist, Diana S M ; Huang, Hui ; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M ; Trentham-Dietz, Amy ; Alagoz, Oguzhan ; Near, Aimee M. ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Nelson, Heidi D. ; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. ; de Koning, Harry J. / Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 156, No. 9. pp. 609-618.
@article{d53d173c0e744e50b88908c775745bc2,
title = "Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years",
abstract = "Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. Design: Comparative modeling study. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. Target Population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). Outcome Measures: Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, falsepositive findings/deaths averted. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.",
author = "{van Ravesteyn}, {Nicolien T.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Stout, {Natasha K.} and Lee, {Sandra J.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Buist, {Diana S M} and Hui Huang and Heijnsdijk, {Eveline A M} and Amy Trentham-Dietz and Oguzhan Alagoz and Near, {Aimee M.} and Karla Kerlikowske and Nelson, {Heidi D.} and Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.} and {de Koning}, {Harry J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "156",
pages = "609--618",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years

AU - van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Stout, Natasha K.

AU - Lee, Sandra J.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Huang, Hui

AU - Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M

AU - Trentham-Dietz, Amy

AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan

AU - Near, Aimee M.

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Nelson, Heidi D.

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

AU - de Koning, Harry J.

PY - 2012/5/1

Y1 - 2012/5/1

N2 - Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. Design: Comparative modeling study. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. Target Population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). Outcome Measures: Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, falsepositive findings/deaths averted. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

AB - Background: Timing of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States. Objective: To determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years. Design: Comparative modeling study. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. Target Population: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: Mammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). Outcome Measures: Benefits: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, falsepositive findings/deaths averted. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. Limitation: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance. Conclusion: Women aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860381403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860381403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 156

SP - 609

EP - 618

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 9

ER -