You Are Here:
Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms (continued)
2. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:909-19. [PMID: 11918907]
3. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625-51. [PMID: 10943268]
4. Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. Breast Cancer Screening. International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook on Cancer Prevention, Report No. 7. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002.
5. 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]
6. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:551-8. [PMID: 9294789]
7. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al; Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-92. [PMID: 16251534]
8. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Accessed at http://cisnet.cancer.gov/breast/profiles.html on 15 September 2008.
9. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:37-47. [PMID: 17032893]
10. Mandelblatt J, Schechter CB, Lawrence W, Yi B, Cullen J. The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:47-55. [PMID: 17032894]
11. Berry DA, Inoue L, Shen Y, Venier J, Cohen D, Bondy M, et al. Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: a Bayesian approach. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:30-6. [PMID: 17032892]
12. Clarke LD, Plevritis SK, Boer R, Cronin KA, Feuer EJ. A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:96-105. [PMID: 17032899]
13. Plevritis SK, Sigal BM, Salzman P, Rosenberg J, Glynn P. A stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:86-95. [PMID: 17032898]
17. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance Measures for 3,884,059 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 to 2007 by Age & Time (Months) Since Previous Mammography. Accessed at http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/perf_age_time.html on 7 October 2009.
18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in oncology v.2.2008. Accessed at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp on 22 September 2009.
19. Clarke M, Coates AS, Darby SC, Davies C, Gelber RD, Godwin J, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2008;371:29-40. [PMID: 18177773]
20. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687-717. [PMID: 15894097]
22. Cronin KA, Feuer EJ, Clarke LD, Plevritis SK. Impact of adjuvant therapy and mammography on U.S. mortality from 1975 to 2000: comparison of mortality results from the CISNET breast cancer base case analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:112-21. [PMID: 17032901]
24. Mariotto AB, Feuer EJ, Harlan LC, Abrams J. Dissemination of adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States using estrogen receptor information: 1975-1999. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:7-15. [PMID: 17032888]
25. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, et al; American Cancer Society High-Risk Work Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141-69. [PMID: 12809408]
26. National Cancer Institute. NCI Statement on Mammography Screening [press release]. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 31 January 2002. Accessed at http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02 on 22 September 2009.
27. Preventive Services: Breast Cancer Screening. Accessed at http://www.medicare.gov/Health/Mammography.asp on 22 September 2009.
29. Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Smith MA, Robinson SM, Fryback DG. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:774-82. [PMID: 16757702]
31. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR, Lawrence W, Dignam J, Extermann M, et al; Breast Cancer in Older Women Research Consortium. Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:487-96. [PMID: 15987322]
32. Kerlikowske K, Salzmann P, Phillips KA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR. Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 1999;282:2156-63. [PMID: 10591338]
34. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:2129-37. [PMID: 14570948]
36. White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Kerlikowske K, et al. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1832-9. [PMID: 15601639]
37. Wai ES, D'yachkova Y, Olivotto IA, Tyldesley S, Phillips N, Warren LJ, et al. Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography. Br J Cancer 2005;92:961-6. [PMID: 15714210]
38. Fracheboud J, Groenewoud JH, Boer R, Draisma G, de Bruijn AE, Verbeek AL, et al. Seventy-five years is an appropriate upper age limit for population-based mammography screening. Int J Cancer 2006;118:2020-5. [PMID: 16287064]
39. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305-12. [PMID: 12204013]
41. Elmore JG, Reisch LM, Barton MB, Barlow WE, Rolnick S, Harris EL, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1035-43. [PMID: 16030301]
42. Norman SA, Russell Localio A, Weber AL, Coates RJ, Zhou L, Bernstein L, et al. Protection of mammography screening against death from breast cancer in women aged 40-64 years. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:909-18. [PMID: 17665313]
44. McCarthy EP, Burns RB, Freund KM, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Marwill SL, et al. Mammography use, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and survival among older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:1226-33. [PMID: 11037009]
46. Badgwell BD, Giordano SH, Duan ZZ, Fang S, Bedrosian I, Kuerer HM, et al. Mammography before diagnosis among women age 80 years and older with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2482-8. [PMID: 18427152]
48. Berry DA, Baines CJ, Baum M, Dickersin K, Fletcher SW, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Flawed inferences about screening mammography's benefit based on observational data [Letter]. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:639-40; author reply 641-2. [PMID: 19075270]
50. Mandelblatt JS, Silliman R. Hanging in the balance: making decisions about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening among the oldest old without a safety net of scientific evidence [Editorial]. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:487-90. [PMID: 19075258]
52. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, Ljung BM, Ernster VL, Stewart K, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1692-702. [PMID: 14625260]
54. Feuer EJ, Etzioni R, Cronin KA, Mariotto A. The use of modeling to understand the impact of screening on U.S. mortality: examples from mammography and PSA testing. Stat Methods Med Res 2004;13:421-42. [PMID: 15587432]
55. de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Fracheboud J, de Bruijn A. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:202. [PMID: 16524452]
58. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al; ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003;6:9-17. [PMID: 12535234]
59. Mandelblatt JS, Liang W, Sheppard VB, Wang J, Isaacs C. Breast cancer in minority women. In: Harris J, Lippman M, Morrow M, Osborne CK, eds. Diseases of the Breast. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkin; 2009.
60. El-Tamer MB, Ward BM, Schifftner T, Neumayer L, Khuri S, Henderson W. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg 2007;245:665-71. [PMID: 17457156]
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
* This work was done by 6 independent modeling teams from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Erasmus University; Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (Dr. Mandelblatt, principal investigator); Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care/University of Wisconsin (Dr. Stout, principal investigator); M.D. Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center (Dr. Berry, principal investigator); and Stanford University (Dr. Plevritis, principal investigator). Drs. Mandelblatt and Cronin were the writing and coordinating committee for the project; all other collaborators are listed in alphabetical order. Dr. Feuer was responsible for overall CISNET project direction.
Copyright and Source Information
This document is in the public domain within the United States.
Requests for linking or to incorporate content in electronic resources should be sent via the USPSTF contact form.
Source: Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:738-747.
AHRQ Publication No. 10-05142-EF-4
Current as of November 2009
Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms. AHRQ Publication No. 10-05142-EF-4, November 2009. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanart.htm