Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios.
Zielonke, Nadine; Geuzinge, Amarens; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M; Heinävaara, Sirpa; Senore, Carlo; Jarm, Katja; de Koning, Harry J; van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
Afiliação
  • Zielonke N; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Geuzinge A; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Heijnsdijk EAM; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Heinävaara S; Finnish Cancer Registry, Mass Screening Registry, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.
  • Senore C; Epidemiology and screening Unit-CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, 10126 Turin, Italy.
  • Jarm K; Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
  • de Koning HJ; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • van Ravesteyn NT; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(13)2021 Jul 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34283068
The main benefit of breast cancer (BC) screening is a reduction in mortality from BC. However, screening also causes harms such as overdiagnosis and false-positive results. The balance between benefits and harms varies by age. This study aims to assess how harm-to-benefit ratios of BC screening vary by age in the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Slovenia. Using microsimulation models, we simulated biennial screening with 100% attendance at varying ages for cohorts of women followed over a lifetime. The number of overdiagnoses, false-positive diagnoses, BC deaths averted and life-years gained (LYG) were calculated per 1000 women. We compared four strategies (50-69, 45-69, 45-74 and 50-74) by calculating four harm-to-benefit ratios, respectively. Compared to the reference strategy 50-69, screening women at 45-74 or 50-74 years would be less beneficial in any of the four countries than screening women at 45-69, which would result in relatively fewer overdiagnoses per death averted or LYG. At the same time, false-positive results per death averted would increase substantially. Adapting the age range of BC screening is an option to improve harm-to-benefit ratios in all four countries. Prioritization of considered harms and benefits affects the interpretation of results.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article