Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:54:00.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mass Mammography: The Time for Reappraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Petr Skrabanek
Petr Skrabanek
Affiliation:
University of Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of the four randomized controlled trials of mass mammography completed to date, the New York HIP trial used obsolete technology and was not designed to assess mammography in the absence of physical examination; the Swedish Two-County trial had serious methodological flaws; the U.K. trial was incompletely documented but showed no significant benefit; and the Malmö trial, which was perfect in design and execution, showed no benefit.

Paradoxicially, with each successive trial and an increasing sophistication of mammography, the benefit of screening was becoming not greater but less. This may be summarized by comparing the number of women who would have to be offered mammography for one breast cancer death prevented or postponed in the respective trials: 5,000 in the HIP trial, 13,000 in the Two-County trial, 18,000 in the U.K. trial, and 68,000 in the Malmä trial.

The enthusiasts in favor of mass mammography have created an atmosphere of false optimism. They have not informed the public about the very small potential benefit nor about the risks associated with screening, especially the risks of false positive diagnoses and of unnecessary surgical operations. This is an unacceptable situation, and the ethical vacuum in which population screening takes place needs to be filled with guidelines to protect women who are “targeted” for screening.

Type
Special Section: Technology Assessment and Surgical Policy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 423 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCE

Andersson, I., Aspergen, K., Janzon, L. et al. Effect of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in an urban population in Sweden. Results from the randomised Malmö mammographic screening trial. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 943–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. Mammographers stand by screening. Diagnostic Imaging, 1988, 10(6), 76.Google Scholar
Aron, J. L., & Prorok, P. C.An analysis of the mortality effect in a breast cancer screening study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1986, 15, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baines, C. J., Miller, A. B., Wall, C. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: A preliminary report from five centers. Radiology, 1986, 160, 295–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, M.Delayed assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet, 1988, 1, 1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chargaff, E.Voices in the labyrinth: Dialogues around the study of nature. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1975, 18, 251–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, T.Le cancer du sein: Le débat se poursuit. Canadian Family Physician, 1987, 33, 1106–07.Google Scholar
Donovan, D., Middleton, J., & Ellis, D.Early detection of breast cancer. Lancet, 1988, 2, 685.Google Scholar
Edeiken, S.Mammography and palpable cancer of the breast. Cancer, 1988, 61, 263–5.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fentiman, S.Pensive women, painful vigils: Consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancel, 1988, 1, 1041–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greeenberg, E. R., & Stevens, M.Recent trends in breast surgery in the United States and the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 1986, 292, 1487–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansell, D. M., Cooke, J. C., & Parsons, C. A.The accuracy of mammography alone and in combination with clinical examination and cytology in the detection of breast cancer. Clinical Radiology, 1988, 39, 150–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmberg, D. M., Adami, H-O., Persson, I., Lundström, T., & Tabar, L.Demands on surgical inpatient services after mass mammography screening. British Medical Journal, 1986, 293, 779–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S.An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 1728–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, M. L.Statistical indiscretion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983, 250, 2470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, A. B. Screening for cancer of the breast. In Miller, A. B. (Ed.), Screening for cancer. New York: Academic, 1985, 325–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, J.Die Brustkrebs-Vorsorgeuntersuchung: Theoretisch interessant, aber von keinem praktischen Nutzen. Schweiz Krebs Bulletin, 1987, 7, 9–16; 1988, 8, 6–10.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., Venet, W., Strax, P., Venet, L., & Roeser, R.Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: A randomized trial with breast cancer screening. National Cancer Institute Monograph, 1985, 67, 65–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Skrabanek, P.Benefits of mass breast screening rest in equivocal evidence. Diagnostic Imaging, 1988, 10 (6), 73–7, 183.Google Scholar
Skrabanek, P.The physician's responsibility to the patient. Lancet, 1988, 1, 1155–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skrabanek, P.The debate over mass mammography in Britain: The case against it. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 971–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrabanek, P.Breast cancer screening–a U.K. showdown [Editorial’. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 1988, 40, 419.Google Scholar
Skrabanek, P.Shadows over screening mammography [Editorial]. Clinical Radiology, 1989, 40, 4–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabar, L., Fagerberg, C. J. G., & Day, N. E. The results of periodic one-view mammography screening in a randomized controlled trial in Sweden. Part II. Evaluation of the results. In Day, N. E. & Miller, A. B. (Eds.), Screening for breast cancer. Toronto: Huber, 1988, 39–44.Google Scholar
Tagnon, H.Considérations éthiques dans le traitement du cancer mammaire. Revue Medicale de Bruxelles, 1988, 9, 13–19.Google Scholar
U.K. Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. First results on mortality reduction in the UK trial of early detection of breast cancer. Lancet, 1988, 2, 411–6.Google Scholar
Van, Kampen-Donker M. Borstkanker. Een wetenschapssociologische beschouwing. MD Thesis, University of Leiden, 1982.Google Scholar
Wolmark, N.Minimal breast cancer: Advance or anachronism? Canadian Journal of Surgery, 1985, 28, 252–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Wright, C. J.Breast cancer screening: A different look at the evidence. Surgery, 1986, 100, 594–98.Google Scholar