Loading…
Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report
Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest’s results be...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMJ 2011-12, Vol.343 (7839), p.14-14 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b620t-811a06dd1b3de2d48724b6001f0616e430bcb6b4b174c2e74d9d5b50e35454013 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 14 |
container_issue | 7839 |
container_start_page | 14 |
container_title | BMJ |
container_volume | 343 |
creator | Raftery, James Chorozoglou, Maria |
description | Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest’s results before updating and extending them with data from relevant systematic reviews, trials, and other models based on purposive literature searches.Participants Women aged 50 and over invited for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery.Results Inclusion of the effects of harms reduced the updated estimate of net cumulative QALYs gained after 20 years from 3301 to 1536 or by more than half. The best estimates from the Cochrane review generated negative QALYs for the first seven years of screening, 70 QALYs after 10 years, and 834 QALYs after 20 years. Sensitivity analysis showed these results were robust to a range of assumptions, particularly up to 10 years. It also indicated the importance of the level and duration of harms from surgery.Conclusions This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.d7627 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3234304</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>41501808</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>41501808</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b620t-811a06dd1b3de2d48724b6001f0616e430bcb6b4b174c2e74d9d5b50e35454013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kd9r1TAcxYMo7jL34B-gFBXEh85886vpHgS5OhWGjqE--BKS5nu3XtvmmrSi_72pnRcVBoFAzofDOTmE3Ad6DMDVc9dvj32lWHWLrEAoXUrN-W2yorWsSw1cH5CjlLaUUsYrXSt5lxwwBlJyrlbk4jyk1LoOiwHH4srGPhVhU7iINo1FY4cGY5GaiDi0w-VJMe28HdEXffDYdflppk9DjJjxiLsQx3vkzsZ2CY-u70Py6fT1x_Xb8uzDm3frl2elU4yOORpYqrwHxz0yL3TFhFOUwoYqUCg4dY1TTjioRMOwEr720kmKXAopKPBD8mLx3U2uR9_gMEbbmV1sext_mmBb868ytFfmMnw3nPHsLrLB02uDGL5NuYDp29TkWnbAMCVTM4BKa80y-eg_chumOOR2M1RJqtls9_gmCGohIR_gmXq2UE3MPx9xsw8M1MyDmjyo-T1oZh_-3XBP_pkvAw8WYJvGEPe6AElBU531ctHbNOKPvW7jV6MqXknz_vPaUKlefbnQ1Jxn_snCzxluzvUL5fK-0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1945145113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>BMJ Journals</source><creator>Raftery, James ; Chorozoglou, Maria</creator><creatorcontrib>Raftery, James ; Chorozoglou, Maria</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest’s results before updating and extending them with data from relevant systematic reviews, trials, and other models based on purposive literature searches.Participants Women aged 50 and over invited for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery.Results Inclusion of the effects of harms reduced the updated estimate of net cumulative QALYs gained after 20 years from 3301 to 1536 or by more than half. The best estimates from the Cochrane review generated negative QALYs for the first seven years of screening, 70 QALYs after 10 years, and 834 QALYs after 20 years. Sensitivity analysis showed these results were robust to a range of assumptions, particularly up to 10 years. It also indicated the importance of the level and duration of harms from surgery.Conclusions This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.</description><edition>International edition</edition><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8146</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d7627</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22155336</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BMJOAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Breast Cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - psychology ; Breasts ; Cancer screening ; Estimates ; False positive errors ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography ; Mass Screening - adverse effects ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Patient safety ; Quality ; Quality of Life ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Review Literature as Topic ; Screening (Epidemiology) ; Screening (Oncology) ; Screening (Public Health) ; Screening questions ; Sensitivity analysis ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology ; Trends ; United Kingdom ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2011-12, Vol.343 (7839), p.14-14</ispartof><rights>Raftery et al 2011</rights><rights>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2012</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 © Raftery et al 2011</rights><rights>Copyright BMJ Publishing Group Jan 14, 2012</rights><rights>Raftery et al 2011 2011 Raftery et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b620t-811a06dd1b3de2d48724b6001f0616e430bcb6b4b174c2e74d9d5b50e35454013</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7627.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7627.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>112,113,230,314,780,784,885,3194,27924,27925,30999,58238,58471,77466,77467</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155336$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Raftery, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chorozoglou, Maria</creatorcontrib><title>Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest’s results before updating and extending them with data from relevant systematic reviews, trials, and other models based on purposive literature searches.Participants Women aged 50 and over invited for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery.Results Inclusion of the effects of harms reduced the updated estimate of net cumulative QALYs gained after 20 years from 3301 to 1536 or by more than half. The best estimates from the Cochrane review generated negative QALYs for the first seven years of screening, 70 QALYs after 10 years, and 834 QALYs after 20 years. Sensitivity analysis showed these results were robust to a range of assumptions, particularly up to 10 years. It also indicated the importance of the level and duration of harms from surgery.Conclusions This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.</description><subject>Breast Cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - psychology</subject><subject>Breasts</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>False positive errors</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mass Screening - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Screening (Epidemiology)</subject><subject>Screening (Oncology)</subject><subject>Screening (Public Health)</subject><subject>Screening questions</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kd9r1TAcxYMo7jL34B-gFBXEh85886vpHgS5OhWGjqE--BKS5nu3XtvmmrSi_72pnRcVBoFAzofDOTmE3Ad6DMDVc9dvj32lWHWLrEAoXUrN-W2yorWsSw1cH5CjlLaUUsYrXSt5lxwwBlJyrlbk4jyk1LoOiwHH4srGPhVhU7iINo1FY4cGY5GaiDi0w-VJMe28HdEXffDYdflppk9DjJjxiLsQx3vkzsZ2CY-u70Py6fT1x_Xb8uzDm3frl2elU4yOORpYqrwHxz0yL3TFhFOUwoYqUCg4dY1TTjioRMOwEr720kmKXAopKPBD8mLx3U2uR9_gMEbbmV1sext_mmBb868ytFfmMnw3nPHsLrLB02uDGL5NuYDp29TkWnbAMCVTM4BKa80y-eg_chumOOR2M1RJqtls9_gmCGohIR_gmXq2UE3MPx9xsw8M1MyDmjyo-T1oZh_-3XBP_pkvAw8WYJvGEPe6AElBU531ctHbNOKPvW7jV6MqXknz_vPaUKlefbnQ1Jxn_snCzxluzvUL5fK-0w</recordid><startdate>20111208</startdate><enddate>20111208</enddate><creator>Raftery, James</creator><creator>Chorozoglou, Maria</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111208</creationdate><title>Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report</title><author>Raftery, James ; Chorozoglou, Maria</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b620t-811a06dd1b3de2d48724b6001f0616e430bcb6b4b174c2e74d9d5b50e35454013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Breast Cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - psychology</topic><topic>Breasts</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>False positive errors</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mass Screening - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Screening (Epidemiology)</topic><topic>Screening (Oncology)</topic><topic>Screening (Public Health)</topic><topic>Screening questions</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Raftery, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chorozoglou, Maria</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Journals (Open Access)</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Raftery, James</au><au>Chorozoglou, Maria</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2011-12-08</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>343</volume><issue>7839</issue><spage>14</spage><epage>14</epage><pages>14-14</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><coden>BMJOAE</coden><abstract>Objective To assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good by updating the analysis in the Forrest report, which led to screening in the United Kingdom.Design Development of a life table model, which replicated Forrest’s results before updating and extending them with data from relevant systematic reviews, trials, and other models based on purposive literature searches.Participants Women aged 50 and over invited for breast cancer screening.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery.Results Inclusion of the effects of harms reduced the updated estimate of net cumulative QALYs gained after 20 years from 3301 to 1536 or by more than half. The best estimates from the Cochrane review generated negative QALYs for the first seven years of screening, 70 QALYs after 10 years, and 834 QALYs after 20 years. Sensitivity analysis showed these results were robust to a range of assumptions, particularly up to 10 years. It also indicated the importance of the level and duration of harms from surgery.Conclusions This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>22155336</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.d7627</doi><tpages>1</tpages><edition>International edition</edition><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
ispartof | BMJ, 2011-12, Vol.343 (7839), p.14-14 |
issn | 0959-8138 0959-8146 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3234304 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; BMJ Journals |
subjects | Breast Cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - psychology Breasts Cancer screening Estimates False positive errors Female Humans Mammography Mass Screening - adverse effects Medical screening Middle Aged Mortality Patient safety Quality Quality of Life Quality-Adjusted Life Years Review Literature as Topic Screening (Epidemiology) Screening (Oncology) Screening (Public Health) Screening questions Sensitivity analysis Surgery Surgical Oncology Trends United Kingdom Womens health |
title | Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A46%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Possible%20net%20harms%20of%20breast%20cancer%20screening:%20updated%20modelling%20of%20Forrest%20report&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Raftery,%20James&rft.date=2011-12-08&rft.volume=343&rft.issue=7839&rft.spage=14&rft.epage=14&rft.pages=14-14&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft.coden=BMJOAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.d7627&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E41501808%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b620t-811a06dd1b3de2d48724b6001f0616e430bcb6b4b174c2e74d9d5b50e35454013%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1945145113&rft_id=info:pmid/22155336&rft_jstor_id=41501808&rfr_iscdi=true |