Stage distribution at first and repeat examinations in breast cancer screening

被引:15
作者
Boer, R [1 ]
de Koning, H [1 ]
van Oortmarssen, G [1 ]
Warmerdam, P [1 ]
van der Maas, P [1 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Dept Publ Hlth, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
breast cancer; theoretical models; computer simulation;
D O I
10.1136/jms.6.3.132
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objectives To investigate observed stage distributions at first and repeat screenings. To compare the observed outcomes with expected values based on simulation modelling, varying the assumptions about the natural history of the disease. Methods-An overview is made of observed data on stage distribution at first and repeat screenings and the difference between those distributions is summarised in a Gini coefficient. Four possible explanations for the observations are considered, two of these are worked out as Miscan simulation models, and the outcomes are compared with observations. Results-Often the reported stage distributions at repeat screenings are not or only slightly more favourable than at first screenings and, in the ones that are more favourable, the difference is relatively small. If, in the Miscan model,it is assumed that there is no correlation between the duration of preclinical breast cancer in consecutive tumour size categories and that there is a strong influence of latent cancers, it is not possible to reproduce the observed outcomes. Conclusions-The two modelled explanations are not sufficient. Decreasing sensitivity seems an unlikely explanation for the discrepancy in many screening programmes. The possibility that the observations may be explained because false reassurance has been given should be seriously considered and investigated.
引用
收藏
页码:132 / 138
页数:7
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   COMPARATIVE PATHOLOGY OF BREAST-CANCER IN A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF SCREENING [J].
ANDERSON, TJ ;
LAMB, J ;
DONNAN, P ;
ALEXANDER, FE ;
HUGGINS, A ;
MUIR, BB ;
KIRKPATRICK, AE ;
CHETTY, U ;
HEPBURN, W ;
SMITH, A ;
PRESCOTT, RJ ;
FORREST, P .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1991, 64 (01) :108-113
[2]  
ANDERSSON I, 1984, RECENT RES CANCER, V90, P114
[3]  
Bedell M B, 1995, J Cancer Educ, V10, P223
[4]  
Blanks R G, 1996, J Med Screen, V3, P200
[5]  
Boer R, 1998, BRIT MED J, V317, P376
[6]   EXTRA INCIDENCE CAUSED BY MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING [J].
BOER, R ;
WARMERDAM, P ;
DEKONING, H ;
VANOORTMARSSEN, G .
LANCET, 1994, 343 (8903) :979-979
[7]  
Brekelmans CT, 1996, CANCER, V78, P1220, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960915)78:6<1220::AID-CNCR8>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-D
[9]  
BURNS PE, 1978, NEW ENGL J MED, V299, P201
[10]  
Caplan Lee S., 1992, Public Health Reviews, V20, P187