{"title":"Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?","authors":"Leah S Kim, Donald R Lannin","doi":"10.1007/s12609-022-00465-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Breast cancer screening is highly controversial and different agencies have widely varying guidelines. Yet it is currently used extensively in the USA and frequently the thought is \"the more, the better.\" The purpose of this review is to objectively assess the risks and benefits of screening mammography and consider whether there may be areas where it could be de-escalated.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Over the past few years, there have been several meta-analyses that are concordant, and it is now agreed that the main benefit of screening mammography is about a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This actually benefits about 5% of patients with mammographically detected tumors. We now appreciate that the main harm of screening is overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of a cancer that will not cause the patient any harm and would not have ever been detected without the screening. This currently represents about 20 to 30% of screening detected cancers. Finding extra cancers with more intense screening is not always good, because in this situation, the risk of overdiagnosis increases and the benefit decreases. In some groups, the risk of overdiagnosis approaches 75%.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Our goal should be not only to find more cancers, but to avoid finding cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm and lead to unnecessary treatment. The authors suggest some situations where it may be reasonable to de-escalate screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":10769,"journal":{"name":"Current Breast Cancer Reports","volume":"14 4","pages":"153-161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9640864/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Breast Cancer Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-022-00465-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Purpose of review: Breast cancer screening is highly controversial and different agencies have widely varying guidelines. Yet it is currently used extensively in the USA and frequently the thought is "the more, the better." The purpose of this review is to objectively assess the risks and benefits of screening mammography and consider whether there may be areas where it could be de-escalated.
Recent findings: Over the past few years, there have been several meta-analyses that are concordant, and it is now agreed that the main benefit of screening mammography is about a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This actually benefits about 5% of patients with mammographically detected tumors. We now appreciate that the main harm of screening is overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of a cancer that will not cause the patient any harm and would not have ever been detected without the screening. This currently represents about 20 to 30% of screening detected cancers. Finding extra cancers with more intense screening is not always good, because in this situation, the risk of overdiagnosis increases and the benefit decreases. In some groups, the risk of overdiagnosis approaches 75%.
Summary: Our goal should be not only to find more cancers, but to avoid finding cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm and lead to unnecessary treatment. The authors suggest some situations where it may be reasonable to de-escalate screening.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings related to the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of breast cancer. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care of those with the disease. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as prevention, systemic therapy, and translational research. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.