Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancers 2021-07, Vol.13 (13), p.3360
Hauptverfasser: Zielonke, Nadine, Geuzinge, Amarens, Heijnsdijk, Eveline, Heinävaara, Sirpa, Senore, Carlo, Jarm, Katja, de Koning, Harry, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:2072-6694
2072-6694
DOI:10.3390/cancers13133360