Frequency, Digital Technology, and the Efficiency of Screening Mammography
Authors: Philippe Autier
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2011)

Editorials18 October 2011Frequency, Digital Technology, and the Efficiency of Screening MammographyPhilippe Autier, MDPhilippe Autier, MDFrom International Prevention Research Institute, 69006 Lyon, France.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00014 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The optimal frequency of screening mammography has been a topic of debate for decades. In the wake of the Greater New York Health Insurance Plan trial, which tested annual mammography plus breast physical examination, the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (conducted from 1973 to 1981 in 283 222 U.S. women aged 35 to 74 years from 29 U.S. centers) also adopted an annual screening schedule (1). In 1985, the Swedish Two-County Trial (2) provided the first evidence that mammography screening alone could reduce breast cancer mortality. The screening schedule in this trial was mammography 2 to 4 times every 24 months ...References1. Baker LH. Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin. 1982;32:194-225. [PMID: 6805867] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Gröntoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829-32. [PMID: 2858707] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabár L, Chen HH, Smith TC. Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;:93-7. [PMID: 9709283] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481-92. LinkGoogle Scholar5. Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen. 2005;12:50-4. [PMID: 15814020] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009;302:1685-92. [PMID: 19843904] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast Cancer Screening. IARC/WHO Handbook of Cancer Prevention, vol 7. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002. Google Scholar8. Breast Screening Frequency Trial Group. The frequency of breast cancer screening: results from the UKCCCR Randomised Trial. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1458-64. [PMID: 12110490] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082-91. [PMID: 18664650] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States. A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:493-502. LinkGoogle Scholar11. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253:353-8. [PMID: 19703851] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, Salcman JT, Wiele KN, Hildebolt CF. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology. 2011;260:664-70. [PMID: 21788529] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From International Prevention Research Institute, 69006 Lyon, France.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M11-2122.Corresponding Author: Philippe Autier, MD, International Prevention Research Institute, 95 Cours Lafayette, 69006 Lyon Cedex 08, France; e-mail, philippe.[email protected]org. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoCumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography Rebecca A. Hubbard , Karla Kerlikowske , Chris I. Flowers , Bonnie C. Yankaskas , Weiwei Zhu , and Diana L. Miglioretti Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Community Practice in the United States Karla Kerlikowske , Rebecca A. Hubbard , Diana L. Miglioretti , Berta M. Geller , Bonnie C. Yankaskas , Constance D. Lehman , Stephen H. Taplin , Edward A. Sickles , and Metrics 18 October 2011Volume 155, Issue 8Page: 554-555KeywordsBiopsyBreast cancerCancer screeningEstrogensMammographyReasoningResearch designStatistical distributions ePublished: 18 October 2011 Issue Published: 18 October 2011 CopyrightCopyright © 2011 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...