The Breast
Volume 19, Issue 4 , Pages 268-272 , August 2010

Mammographic screening for breast cancer: An invited review of the benefits and costs

  • Jon M. Greif

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationBay Area Breast Surgeons, Inc., 3300 Webster Street, Suite 212, Oakland, CA 94609, USA. Tel.: +1 510 835 9900; fax: +1 510 835 9909.

References 

  1. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Evaluation of periodic breast cancer screening with mammography. Methodology and early observations. JAMA. 1966;195:731–738
  2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–726
  3. Kolata G. New guidelines suggest cutback in mammograms. NY Times. Nov 17, 2009;
  4. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):Art. No. CD001877
  5. Cady B, Webb M, Michaelson J, Smith BI. Death from breast cancer occurs predominantly in women not participating in mammographic screening. Abstract No. 24, Proc. ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium. San Francisco; October, 2009. http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=70&abstractID=40559 [accessed 09.02.2010]
  6. Max W. The cost of breast cancer in California – final report. California Breast Cancer Research Program Grant # 9PB-0025; 2006. http://www.cbcrp.org/RESEARCH/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=2591 [accessed 20.02.2010]
  7. Lehman CD, Smith RA. The role of MRI in breast cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7:1109–1115
  8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis panel members. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf. [accessed 8.02.2010]
  9. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:27–41
  10. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–737
  11. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Walker R, Carney PA. National cancer institute-sponsored breast cancer surveillance consortium. Declines in invasive breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening mammography population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1335–1339
  12. American Cancer Society . Breast cancer facts & figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc; 2009–2010;
  13. Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;57:1–133http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf[accessed 20.02.2010]
  14. Tabár L, Vitak B, Yen MF, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Number needed to screen: lives saved over 20 years of follow-up in mammographic screening. J Med Screen. 2004;11:126–129
  15. Rosenquist CJ, Lindfors KK. Screening mammography beginning at age 40 years: a reappraisal of cost-effectiveness. Cancer. 1998;82:2235–2240
  16. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:955–965
  17. Ward E, Halpern M, Shrag N, Cokkinides V, DeSantis C, Bandi P, et al. Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:9–31
  18. Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Smith M, Robinson SM, Fryback DG. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:774–782
  19. Ahern CH, Shen Y. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:718–725
  20. Smith RA. An overview of mammography: benefits and limitations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003;1:264–271
  21. Kolb GR. New tools for cost-effective delivery of breast imaging. Radiol Manage. 2002;24:22–2628, 30, 32–34
  22. de Gelder R, Bulliard JL, de Wolf C, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, Schopper D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organized mammography screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:127–138
  23. Burnside E, Belkora J, Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clin Breast Cancer. 2001;2:145–152
  24. 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
  25. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance measures for 3,884,059 screening mammography examinations from 1996 to 2007 by age & time (months) since previous mammography. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/perf_age_time.html [accessed 8.02.2010]
  26. Gur D, Sumkin JH. CAD in screening mammography. Amer J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1474
  27. Pirola ME, Houssami N, Maltagliati E, et al. Quality of mammography screening in the Milan programme: evidence of improved sensitivity based on interval cancer proportional incidence and radiological review. Breast. 2009;18:208–210
  28. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–1783
  29. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:1–10
  30. Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:261–266

PII: S0960-9776(10)00071-8

doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.03.017

The Breast
Volume 19, Issue 4 , Pages 268-272 , August 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution