Background:
Mammography trials, which are the primary sources of evidence for screening benefit, were conducted decades ago. Whether advances in systemic therapies have rendered previously observed benefits of screening less significant is unknown.
Objective:
To compare the outcomes of breast cancer screening trials had they been conducted using contemporary systemic treatments with outcomes of trials conducted with previously used treatments.
Design:
Computer simulation model of 3 virtual screening trials with similar reductions in advanced-stage cancer cases but reflecting treatment patterns in 1975 (prechemotherapy era), 1999, or 2015 (treatment according to receptor status).
Data Sources:
Meta-analyses of screening and treatment trials; study of dissemination of primary systemic treatments; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry.
Target Population:
U.S. women aged 50 to 74 years.
Time Horizon:
10 and 25 years.
Perspective:
Population.
Intervention:
Mammography, chemotherapy, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and trastuzumab.
Outcome Measures:
Breast cancer mortality rate ratio (MRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) obtained by the difference in cumulative breast cancer mortality between control and screening groups.
Results of Base-Case Analysis:
At 10 years, screening in a 1975 trial yielded an MRR of 90% and an ARR of 5 deaths per 10 000 women. A 2015 screening trial yielded a 10-year MRR of 90% and an ARR of 3 deaths per 10 000 women.
Results of Sensitivity Analysis:
Greater reductions in advanced-stage disease yielded a greater screening effect, but MRRs remained similar across trials. However, ARRs were consistently lower under contemporary treatments. When contemporary treatments were available only for early-stage cases, the MRR was 88%.
Limitation:
Disease models simplify reality and cannot capture all breast cancer subtypes.
Conclusion:
Advances in systemic therapies for breast cancer have not substantively reduced the relative benefits of screening but have likely reduced the absolute benefits because of their positive effect on breast cancer survival.
Primary Funding Source:
University of Washington and National Cancer Institute.
References
- 1. Kolata G. Considering when it might be best not to know about cancer. The New York Times. 29 October 2011. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/health/cancer-screening-may-be-more-popular-than-useful.html on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 2.
Woolf SH ,Harris R . The harms of screening: new attention to an old concern. JAMA. 2012;307:565-6. [PMID:22318274 ] doi:10.1001/jama.2012.100 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Procedural Manual. AHRQ publication no. 08-05118-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. Accessed at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Home/GetFile/6/7/procmanual/pdf on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 4.
Moyer VA ;U.S. Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120-34. [PMID:22801674 ]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459 LinkGoogle Scholar - 5.
Miller AB ,Wall C ,Baines CJ ,Sun P ,To T ,Narod SA . Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g366. [PMID:24519768 ] doi:10.1136/bmj.g366 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 6.
Berry DA . Breast cancer screening: controversy of impact. Breast. 2013;22 Suppl 2:S73-6. [PMID:24074796 ] doi:10.1016/j.breast.2013.07.013 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 7.
Etzioni R ,Gulati R ,Cooperberg MR ,Penson DM ,Weiss NS ,Thompson IM . Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials: the US Preventive Services Task Force and prostate cancer screening. Med Care. 2013;51:295-300. [PMID:23269114 ] doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da979 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 8.
Marmot MG . Sorting through the arguments on breast screening. JAMA. 2013;309:2553-4. [PMID:23722915 ] doi:10.1001/jama.2013.6822 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 9.
Gøtzsche PC ,Jørgensen KJ . Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877. [PMID:23737396 ] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 10.
Jüni P ,Zwahlen M . It is time to initiate another breast cancer screening trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:864-6. [PMID:24711124 ]. doi:10.7326/M14-0569 LinkGoogle Scholar - 11.
Biller-Andorno N ,Jüni P . Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1965-7. [PMID:24738641 ] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401875 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 12.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening . The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778-86. [PMID:23117178 ] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 13.
Sledge GW ,Mamounas EP ,Hortobagyi GN ,Burstein HJ ,Goodwin PJ ,Wolff AC . Past, present, and future challenges in breast cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1979-86. [PMID:24888802 ] doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.4139 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 14.
Harris R . Screening is only part of the answer to breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:861-3. [PMID:24711098 ]. doi:10.7326/M14-0616 LinkGoogle Scholar - 15.
Kalager M ,Adami HO ,Bretthauer M . Too much mammography [Editorial]. BMJ. 2014;348:g1403. [PMID:24519765 ] doi:10.1136/bmj.g1403 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716-26. [PMID:19920272 ]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008 LinkGoogle Scholar - 17.
Smith RA . The value of modern mammography screening in the control of breast cancer: understanding the underpinnings of the current debates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:1139-46. [PMID:24991021 ] doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0946 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 18.
Elmore JG ,Harris RP . The harms and benefits of modern screening mammography [Editorial]. BMJ. 2014;348:g3824. [PMID:24938686 ] doi:10.1136/bmj.g3824 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 19.
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 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 20. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. R. Accessed at https://cran.r-project.org on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 21. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program SEER*Stat software. Accessed at http://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 22.
Ludwig JA ,Weinstein JN . Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:845-56. [PMID:16239904 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 23.
Autier P ,Héry C ,Haukka J ,Boniol M ,Byrnes G . Advanced breast cancer and breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials on mammography screening. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5919-23. [PMID:19884547 ] doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.7041 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 24. Wilmoth JR. The Berkeley Mortality Database. 2005. Accessed at www.demog.berkeley.edu/~bmd/index.html on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 25.
Wever EM ,Draisma G ,Heijnsdijk EA ,de Koning HJ . How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:550-8. [PMID:21406620 ] doi:10.1177/0272989X10396717 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 26.
Feuer EJ ,Mariotto A ,Merrill R . Modeling the impact of the decline in distant stage disease on prostate carcinoma mortality rates. Cancer. 2002;95:870-80. [PMID:12209732 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 27.
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 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 28.
Davies C ,Godwin J ,Gray R ,Clarke M ,Cutter D ,Darby S ,et al ;Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771-84. [PMID:21802721 ] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60993-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 29.
Peto R ,Davies C ,Godwin J ,Gray R ,Pan HC ,Clarke M ,et al ;Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432-44. [PMID:22152853 ] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 30.
Balduzzi S ,Mantarro S ,Guarneri V ,Tagliabue L ,Pistotti V ,Moja L ,et al . Trastuzumab-containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD006242. [PMID:24919460 ] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006242.pub2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 31.
Moja L ,Tagliabue L ,Balduzzi S ,Parmelli E ,Pistotti V ,Guarneri V ,et al . Trastuzumab containing regimens for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD006243. [PMID:22513938 ] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006243.pub2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 32.
Dowsett M ,Cuzick J ,Ingle J ,Coates A ,Forbes J ,Bliss J ,et al . Meta-analysis of breast cancer outcomes in adjuvant trials of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:509-18. [PMID:19949017 ] doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1274 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 33.
National Cancer Institute . DevCan—Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015. Google Scholar - 34. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Hodgson N, Ciliska D, Peirson L, Gauld M, Liu YY; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Breast Cancer—Systematic Review. Accessed at http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ctfphc-guidelines/2011-breast-cancer/systematic-review on 14 August 2015. Google Scholar
- 35.
Ong MS ,Mandl KD . National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34:576-83. [PMID:25847639 ] doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1087 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 36.
Bleyer A ,Welch HG . Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998-2005. [PMID:23171096 ] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206809 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 37.
Etzioni R ,Xia J ,Hubbard R ,Weiss NS ,Gulati R . A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014:106. [PMID:25362701 ] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju315 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 38.
Etzioni R ,Gulati R ,Mallinger L ,Mandelblatt J . Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:831-8. [PMID:23732716 ]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008 LinkGoogle Scholar - 39.
Kalia M . Personalized oncology: recent advances and future challenges. Metabolism. 2013;62 Suppl 1:S11-4. [PMID:22999010 ] doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2012.08.016 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 40.
Chung C ,Christianson M . Predictive and prognostic biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers: a systemic review of current development, evidence, and recommendation. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2014;20:11-28. [PMID:23493335 ] doi:10.1177/1078155212474047 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 41.
Ismail-Khan R ,Bui MM . A review of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Control. 2010;17:173-6. [PMID:20664514 ] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 42.
Chuang SL ,Chen SL ,Yu CP ,Chang KJ ,Yen AM ,Chiu SY ,et al . Using tumor phenotype, histological tumor distribution, and mammographic appearance to explain the survival differences between screen-detected and clinically detected breast cancers. APMIS. 2014;122:699-707. [PMID:25046200 ] doi:10.1111/apm.12294 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 43.
Albain KS ,Paik S ,van't Veer L . Prediction of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in endocrine responsive, early breast cancer using multigene assays. Breast. 2009;18 Suppl 3:S141-5. [PMID:19914534 ] doi:10.1016/S0960-9776(09)70290-5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Author, Article and Disclosure Information
From University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Disclaimer: The results and conclusions are those of the authors only and do not reflect the opinions of the University of Washington or the National Cancer Institute.
Grant Support: In part by a Comparative Effectiveness Research dissertation award from the University of Washington Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program and by the National Cancer Institute (grant 1RC4CA155806).
Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M15-0754.
Editors' Disclosures: Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, reports that she has no financial relationships or interests to disclose. Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Executive Deputy Editor, reports that he has no financial relationships or interests to disclose. Cynthia D. Mulrow, MD, MSc, Senior Deputy Editor, reports that she has no relationships or interests to disclose. Deborah Cotton, MD, MPH, Deputy Editor, reports that she has no financial relationships or interest to disclose. Jaya K. Rao, MD, MHS, Deputy Editor, reports that she has stock holdings/options in Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Sankey V. Williams, MD, Deputy Editor, reports that he has no financial relationships or interests to disclose. Catharine B. Stack, PhD, MS, Deputy Editor for Statistics, reports that she has stock holdings in Pfizer.
Reproducible Research Statement:Study protocol: Available from Dr. Etzioni (e-mail, [email protected]
Corresponding Author: Ruth Etzioni, PhD, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B230, PO Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109; e-mail, [email protected]
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Birnbaum: Department of Health Services, University of Washington, 1959 Northeast Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195.
Dr. Gadi: Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109.
Mr. Markowitz and Dr. Etzioni: Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B230, PO Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: J. Birnbaum, V.K. Gadi, E. Markowitz, R. Etzioni.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: J. Birnbaum, V.K. Gadi, E. Markowitz, R. Etzioni.
Drafting of the article: J. Birnbaum, V.K. Gadi, R. Etzioni.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: V.K. Gadi, R. Etzioni.
Final approval of the article: J. Birnbaum, V.K. Gadi, R. Etzioni.
Statistical expertise: J. Birnbaum, R. Etzioni.
Obtaining of funding: J. Birnbaum, R. Etzioni.
Collection and assembly of data: J. Birnbaum, E. Markowitz, R. Etzioni.
This article was published at www.annals.org on 12 January 2016.
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
*All comments submitted after October 1, 2021 and selected for publication will be published online only.