For example , mammography screening does not seem to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram .
The incidence of breast cancer and mortality increases with age , and the GDG extrapolated that the absolute health benefits are greater in women aged 45 to 49 than those aged 40 to 44 years .
However , for the 45- to 49-year age group , the higher breast cancer incidence and mortality compared with women between the ages of 40 and 44 , as well as observational evidence showing a greater benefit in this age group ( 33 ) , led the GDG to judge that the balance of health effects probably favors screening , although the required re sources for screening likely differ across setting s ( 34 , 35 ) .
Other EtD criteria also were generally in favor of implementing organized mammography screening in this age group .
Despite intensified efforts by the European Council since 2003 , the implementation of organized , population -based mammography screening is not uniform across Europe and depends greatly on the policies in place in different countries , the organization of health care , and available re sources ( 1 ) .
Since the last edition of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis was published in 2006 ( 2 ) , new evidence regarding breast cancer and innovation in guideline methodology prompted the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer ( ECIBC ) to develop new evidence -based recommendations ( in short , the European Breast Guidelines ) .
These guidelines inform women , health professionals , and policymakers about important questions related to organized mammography screening and breast cancer diagnosis , but recommendations may apply in context s in which organized screening programs are not in place .
Women generally consider these undesirable effects acceptable ( low certainty of evidence ) , and a systematic review suggested that women place a relatively low value on the psychosocial and physical effects of false-positive results and overdiagnosis ; however , some studies raised concerns about whether women fully underst and the result ing implication s ( 15 ) .
How Often Should Women Attend an Organized Mammography Screening Program ?
Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
BACKGROUND Digital breast tomo synthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer . We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening . METHODS Screening with Tomo synthesis OR st and ard Mammography ( STORM ) was a prospect i ve comparative study . We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population -based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services ( Italy ) from August , 2011 , to June , 2012 . We did screen-reading in two sequential phases-2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography-yielding paired data for each screen . St and ard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read . Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology . Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers , the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens , the number and proportion of false positive recalls , and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography .  We compared paired binary data with McNemar 's test . FINDINGS 7292 women were screened ( median age 58 years [ IQR 54 - 63 ] ) . We detected 59 breast cancers ( including 52 invasive cancers ) in 57 women . Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers . We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only ( p<0.0001 ) . Cancer detection rates were 5.3 cancers per 1000 screens ( 95 % CI 3.8 - 7.3 ) for 2D only , and 8.1 cancers per 1000 screens ( 6.2 - 10.4 ) for integrated 2D and 3D screening . The incremental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography was 2.7 cancers per 1000 screens ( 1.7 - 4.2 ) . 395 screens ( 5.5 % ; 95 % CI 5.0 - 6.0 ) result ed in false positive recalls : 181 at both screen reads , and 141 with 2D only versus 73 with integrated 2D and 3D screening ( p<0.0001 ) . We estimated that conditional recall ( positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography as a condition to recall ) could have reduced false positive recalls by 17.2 % ( 95 % CI 13.6 - 21.3 ) without missing any of the cancers detected in the study population . INTERPRETATION Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls . R and omised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening . FUNDING National Breast Cancer Foundation , Australia ; National Health and Medical Research Council , Australia ; Hologic , USA ; Technologic , Italy
For example , mammography screening does not seem to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram .
The incidence of breast cancer and mortality increases with age , and the GDG extrapolated that the absolute health benefits are greater in women aged 45 to 49 than those aged 40 to 44 years .
However , for the 45- to 49-year age group , the higher breast cancer incidence and mortality compared with women between the ages of 40 and 44 , as well as observational evidence showing a greater benefit in this age group ( 33 ) , led the GDG to judge that the balance of health effects probably favors screening , although the required re sources for screening likely differ across setting s ( 34 , 35 ) .
Other EtD criteria also were generally in favor of implementing organized mammography screening in this age group .
Despite intensified efforts by the European Council since 2003 , the implementation of organized , population -based mammography screening is not uniform across Europe and depends greatly on the policies in place in different countries , the organization of health care , and available re sources ( 1 ) .
Since the last edition of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis was published in 2006 ( 2 ) , new evidence regarding breast cancer and innovation in guideline methodology prompted the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer ( ECIBC ) to develop new evidence -based recommendations ( in short , the European Breast Guidelines ) .
These guidelines inform women , health professionals , and policymakers about important questions related to organized mammography screening and breast cancer diagnosis , but recommendations may apply in context s in which organized screening programs are not in place .
Women generally consider these undesirable effects acceptable ( low certainty of evidence ) , and a systematic review suggested that women place a relatively low value on the psychosocial and physical effects of false-positive results and overdiagnosis ; however , some studies raised concerns about whether women fully underst and the result ing implication s ( 15 ) .
How Often Should Women Attend an Organized Mammography Screening Program ?