United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored
- PMID: 21257850
- DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5609
United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this article is to examine the scientific evidence considered by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in recommending against screening mammography in women 40-49 years old and against annual screening mammography in women 50 and older. We use evidence made available to the USPSTF to estimate the benefits and "harms" of screening mammography in women 40 years old and older. We use Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network modeling to compare lives saved by different screening scenarios and the summary of evidence prepared for the USPSTF to estimate the frequency of harms of screening mammography by age.
Conclusion: Averaged over the six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models of benefit, screening mammography shows greatest benefit--a 39.6% mortality reduction--from annual screening of women 40-84 years old. This screening regimen saves 71% more lives than the USPSTF-recommended regimen of biennial screening of women 50-74 years old, which had a 23.2% mortality reduction. For U.S. women currently 30-39 years old, annual screening mammography from ages 40-84 years would save 99,829 more lives than USPSTF recommendations if all women comply, and 64,889 more lives with the current 65% compliance rate. The potential harms of a screening examination in women 40-49 years old, on average, consist of the risk of a recall for diagnostic workup every 12 years, a negative biopsy every 149 years, a missed breast cancer every 1,000 years, and a fatal radiation-induced breast cancer every 76,000-97,000 years. Evidence made available to the USPSTF strongly supports the mortality benefit of annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 years, whereas potential harms of screening with this regimen are minor.
Comment in
-
Screening mammography, patient decision-making, and absolute risks.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct;197(4):W791; author reply 794. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.6610. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011. PMID: 21940560 No abstract available.
-
Response to Hendrick and Helvie by the Cancer Intervention Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Working Group.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct;197(4):W792; author reply 794. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.6749. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011. PMID: 21940561 No abstract available.
-
Evaluation of breast cancer screening strategies must be based on comparison of harms and benefits.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct;197(4):W793; author reply 794. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.6791. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011. PMID: 21940562 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):716-26, W-236. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. Ann Intern Med. 2009. PMID: 19920272
-
Mammography in 40-year-old women: what difference does it make? The potential impact of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) mammography guidelines.Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Oct;18(11):3066-71. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-2009-4. Epub 2011 Aug 24. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011. PMID: 21863364
-
Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):723-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7146. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012. PMID: 22358016
-
The 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines are not supported by science: the scientific support for mammography screening.Radiol Clin North Am. 2010 Sep;48(5):843-57. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.005. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010. PMID: 20868889 Review.
-
Mammographic screening for breast cancer: 2010.Mt Sinai J Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;77(4):398-404. doi: 10.1002/msj.20194. Mt Sinai J Med. 2010. PMID: 20687187 Review.
Cited by
-
Patient counseling for breast cancer screening: Taking changes to USPSTF recommendations into account.OBG Manag. 2023 Dec;35(12):43-49. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0334. OBG Manag. 2023. PMID: 38835939 Free PMC article.
-
Inappropriate requests for cranial CT scans in emergency departments increase overuse and reduce test performance.Emerg Radiol. 2023 Dec;30(6):733-741. doi: 10.1007/s10140-023-02185-y. Epub 2023 Nov 16. Emerg Radiol. 2023. PMID: 37973624
-
Recommendations for breast cancer screening in Brazil, from the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Society of Mastology, and the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations.Radiol Bras. 2023 Jul-Aug;56(4):207-214. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2023.0064-en. Radiol Bras. 2023. PMID: 37829583 Free PMC article.
-
Recommendations for the Screening of Breast Cancer of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Society of Mastology and Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Association.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023 Aug;45(8):e480-e488. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1772498. Epub 2023 Sep 8. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 37683660 Free PMC article.
-
The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women.Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Jan;30(1):58-67. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12535-8. Epub 2022 Oct 3. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023. PMID: 36192515 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
