Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening

被引:112
作者
Yen, MF
Tabár, L
Vitak, B
Smith, RA
Chen, HH
Duffy, SW [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ London Queen Mary Coll, Wolfson Inst Prevent, Canc Res UK Dept Epidemiol Math & Stat, London EC1M 6BQ, England
[2] UCL, Dept Stat Sci, London WC1E 6BT, England
[3] Falun Cent Hosp, Dept Mammog, S-79182 Falun, Sweden
[4] Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden
[5] Univ Hosp, Mammog Dept, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden
[6] Amer Canc Soc, Dept Canc Control, Atlanta, GA USA
[7] Natl Taiwan Univ, Inst Prevent Med, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
ductal carcinoma in situ; breast screening; overdiagnosis;
D O I
10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00260-0
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS(0)) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS(1)) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100 000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1746 / 1754
页数:9
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   THE EDINBURGH RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BREAST-CANCER SCREENING - RESULTS AFTER 10 YEARS OF FOLLOW-UP [J].
ALEXANDER, FE ;
ANDERSON, TJ ;
BROWN, HK ;
FORREST, APM ;
HEPBURN, W ;
KIRKPATRICK, AE ;
MCDONALD, C ;
MUIR, BB ;
PRESCOTT, RJ ;
SHEPHERD, SM ;
SMITH, A ;
WARNER, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1994, 70 (03) :542-548
[2]   MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING AND MORTALITY FROM BREAST-CANCER - THE MALMO MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING TRIAL [J].
ANDERSSON, I ;
ASPERGREN, K ;
JANZON, L ;
LANDBERG, T ;
LINDHOLM, K ;
LINELL, F ;
LJUNGBERG, O ;
RANSTAM, J ;
SIGFUSSON, B .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1988, 297 (6654) :943-948
[3]   Recent trends of in situ carcinoma of the breast and mammographic screening in the Florence area, Italy [J].
Barchielli, A ;
Paci, E ;
Giorgi, D .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 1999, 10 (04) :313-317
[4]  
Cady B, 1998, J SURG ONCOL, V69, P60, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199810)69:2<60::AID-JSO2>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-3
[6]   NATIONAL-HEALTH-SERVICE BREAST SCREENING-PROGRAM RESULTS FOR 1991-2 [J].
CHAMBERLAIN, J ;
MOSS, SM ;
KIRKPATRICK, AE ;
MICHELL, M ;
JOHNS, L .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 307 (6900) :353-356
[7]  
Chen HH, 1997, J EPIDEMIOL BIOSTAT, V2, P9
[8]  
Cox DR., 1965, The Theory of Stochastic Proceesses, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.PHYSA.2011
[9]   SIMPLIFIED MODELS OF SCREENING FOR CHRONIC DISEASE - ESTIMATION PROCEDURES FROM MASS-SCREENING PROGRAMS [J].
DAY, NE ;
WALTER, SD .
BIOMETRICS, 1984, 40 (01) :1-14
[10]  
Dershaw DD, 1998, CANCER, V82, P1692, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980501)82:9<1692::AID-CNCR15>3.0.CO