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 ?
Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.
Purpose To investigate the utility and accuracy of breast magnetic resonance ( MR ) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer and to investigate the types of cancer detected with MR imaging screening . Material s and Methods This prospect i ve observational study was conducted at two academic breast centers in women aged 40 - 70 years without breast cancer-associated risk factors ( lifetime risk < 15 % ) . Between January 2005 and December 2013 , women with at least minimal residual breast tissue ( American College of Radiology categories A-D ) and normal conventional imaging findings ( screening mammography with or without screening ultrasonography [ US ] )  were invited to undergo supplemental MR imaging screening . Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates , interval cancer rates , and biologic profiles of MR imaging-detected additional cancers , as well as specificity and positive predictive value ( PPV ) of MR imaging screening . Tissue diagnoses or 2 years of follow-up were used to establish the reference st and ard . Results A total of 2120 women were recruited and underwent 3861 screening MR imaging studies  , covering an observation period of 7007 women-years . Breast MR imaging depicted 60 additional breast cancers ( ductal carcinoma in situ , n = 20 ; invasive carcinoma , n = 40 ) for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 15.5 per 1000 cases ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] : 11.9 , 20.0 ) . Forty-eight additional cancers were detected with MR imaging at initial screening ( supplemental cancer detection rate , 22.6 per 1000 cases ) . During the 1741 subsequent screening rounds , 12 of 13 incident cancers were found with MR imaging alone ( supplemental cancer detection rate , 6.9 per 1000 cases ) . One cancer was diagnosed with all three methods ( mammography , US , and MR imaging ) , and none were diagnosed with mammography only or US only . Cancers diagnosed with MR imaging were small ( median , 8 mm ) , node negative in 93.4 % of cases , and dedifferentiated ( high- grade cancer ) in 41.7 % of cases at prevalence screening and 46.0 % of cases at incidence screening . No interval cancers were observed . MR imaging screening offered high specificity ( 97.1 % ; 95 % CI : 96.5 , 97.6 ) and high PPV ( 35.7 % ; 95 % CI : 28.9 , 43.1 ) . Conclusion In women at average risk for breast cancer , MR imaging screening improves early diagnosis of prognostically relevant breast cancer . © RSNA , 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article
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 ?