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 ?
Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.
PURPOSE We compared detection measures for breast screening strategies comprising single-reading or double-reading using st and ard 2D-mammography or 2D/3D-mammography , based on the ' screening with tomo synthesis or st and ard mammography ' ( STORM ) trial . METHODS STORM prospect ively examined screen-reading in two sequential phases , 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography , in asymptomatic women participating in Trento and Verona ( Northern Italy ) population -based screening services . Outcomes were ascertained from assessment and /or excision histology or follow-up . For each screen-reading strategy we calculated the number of detected and non-detected ( including interval ) cancers , cancer detection rates ( CDRs ) , false positive recall ( FPR ) measures and incremental CDR relative to a comparator strategy . We estimated the false : true positive ( FP : TP ) ratio and sensitivity of each mammography screening strategy . Paired binary data were compared using McNemar 's test . RESULTS Amongst 7292 screening participants , there were 65 ( including six interval ) breast cancers ; estimated first-year interval cancer rate was 0.82/1000 screens ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : 0.30 - 1.79/1000 ) . For single-reading , 35 cancers were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D-mammography , 20 cancers were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none at 2D-mammography alone ( p<0.001 ) and 10 cancers were not detected . For double-reading , 39 cancers were detected at 2D-mammography and 2D/3D-mammography , 20 were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none detected at 2D-mammography alone ( p<0.001 ) and six cancers were not detected . The incremental CDR attributable to 2D/3D-mammography ( versus 2D-mammography ) of 2.7/1000 screens ( 95 % CI : 1.6 - 4.2 ) was evident for single and for double-reading . Incremental CDR attributable to double-reading ( versus single-reading ) of 0.55/1000 screens ( 95 % CI : -0.02 - 1.4 ) was evident for 2D-mammography and for 2D/3D-mammography .  Estimated FP : TP ratios showed that 2D/3D-mammography screening strategies had more favourable FP to TP trade-off and higher sensitivity , applying single-reading or double-reading , relative to 2D-mammography screening . CONCLUSION The evidence we report warrants rethinking of breast screening strategies and should be used to inform future evaluations of 2D/3D-mammography that assess whether or not the estimated incremental detection translates into improved screening outcomes such as a reduction in interval cancer rates
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 ?