Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?

IF 1 Q4 ONCOLOGY Current Breast Cancer Reports Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s12609-022-00465-z
Leah S Kim, Donald R Lannin
{"title":"Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?","authors":"Leah S Kim,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乳腺癌筛查:是否有降级的空间?
综述目的:乳腺癌筛查争议很大,不同的机构有不同的指导方针。然而,它目前在美国被广泛使用,并且经常被认为是“越多越好”。本综述的目的是客观地评估筛查性乳房x光检查的风险和益处,并考虑是否有可能降低风险的领域。最近的研究发现:在过去的几年里,有几项荟萃分析都是一致的,现在人们一致认为乳房x光检查的主要好处是乳腺癌死亡率降低了20%左右。这实际上使5%的乳房x光检查发现的肿瘤患者受益。我们现在认识到,筛查的主要危害是过度诊断,即检测出的癌症不会对患者造成任何伤害,如果不进行筛查,就不会被发现。目前,这约占筛查发现的癌症的20%至30%。通过更严格的筛查发现额外的癌症并不总是好的,因为在这种情况下,过度诊断的风险增加了,益处减少了。在某些群体中,过度诊断的风险接近75%。总结:我们的目标不仅是发现更多的癌症,还要避免发现那些不会对患者造成任何伤害并导致不必要治疗的癌症。作者提出了一些可能合理降低筛查级别的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
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.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Relevance of Radial Scars: A Review of the Current Literature Minimally Invasive Breast Cancer: How to Find Early Breast Cancers Impact of Systemic Therapy on Fertility in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Chemoprevention—Historical Perspectives and Current Trends Hereditary Breast Cancer, Genetics, and Fertility Preservation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1