Efficient Treatments Reduce the Cost-Efficiency of Breast Cancer Screening
Authors: Philippe Autier
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2016)

Editorials16 February 2016Efficient Treatments Reduce the Cost-Efficiency of Breast Cancer ScreeningPhilippe Autier, MD, PhDPhilippe Autier, MD, PhDFrom University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health at the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2789 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The primary objective of cancer screening and treatment is to reduce the risk for cancer death. Screening may reduce this risk by detecting cancer at an early stage in its development when it is asymptomatic and curable. A combination of therapeutic methods specific to disease stage at diagnosis and other cancer and patient characteristics influence the risk for cancer death. Efficient treatment methods are usually available for cancer diagnosed when it is still local, but this availability wanes when cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage. Thus, by “down-staging,” or identifying cancer at an early stage, screening decreases the ...References1. Birnbaum J, Gadi VK, Markowitz E, Etzioni R. The effect of treatment advances on the mortality results of breast cancer screening trials: a microsimulation model. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:236-43. doi:10.7326/M15-0754 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778-86. [PMID: 23117178] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311:2499-507. [PMID: 25058084] doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6095 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al; J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015. [PMID: 26547101] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Lin D, Moy L, Axelrod D, Smith J. Utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening. Curr Oncol. 2015;22:e332-5. [PMID: 26628872] doi:10.3747/co.22.2882 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877. [PMID: 23737396] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Morrison AS. Intermediate determinants of mortality in the evaluation of screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1991;20:642-50. [PMID: 1955248] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507-17. [PMID: 7736395] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L; Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053-60. [PMID: 17161727] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Autier P, Boniol M, Smans M, Sullivan R, Boyle P. Statistical analyses in Swedish randomised trials on mammography screening and in other randomised trials on cancer screening: a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2015;108:440-50. [PMID: 26152677] doi:10.1177/0141076815593403 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health at the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.Disclosures: The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M15-2789.Corresponding Author: Philippe Autier, MD, PhD, University of Strathclyde Institute of Global Public Health, Espace Européen, Building G, Allée Claude Debussy, 69130 Ecully, France; e-mail, philippe.[email protected]org.This article was published at www.annals.org on 12 January 2016. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model Jeanette Birnbaum , Vijayakrishna K. Gadi , Elan Markowitz , and Ruth Etzioni Metrics Cited byConocimiento, conducta y actitud ante el Código europeo contra el cáncer por parte de los profesionales sanitarios de atención primariaMammography screening: A major issue in medicine8 Vroegdiagnostiek, total body scans en bevolkingsonderzoek: verbetering of valse verwachting?Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype 16 February 2016Volume 164, Issue 4Page: 297-298KeywordsBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningCancer preventionCancer risk factorsCancer screeningCancer treatmentDeath ratesMammographyRisk management ePublished: 12 January 2016 Issue Published: 16 February 2016 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...