• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

PMID:20722110
Abstract

CONTEXT

Breast cancer is the most commonly occurring non-skin malignancy among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related death. Screening for breast cancer has been shown to reduce breast cancer-related mortality among women aged 40 to 69 and screening women aged 50 to 69 has been endorsed by most professional groups. Historically, recommendations for breast cancer screening among women aged 40 to 49 and women older than age 69 have varied due to less supporting evidence, as well as the costs and risks associated with screening.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic evidence review to update previous analyses and synthesize new data on various modes of breast cancer screening to assist the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its recommendations on breast cancer screening, focusing primarily on the efficacy of screening with mammography, clinical breast exam, and breast self-exam.

DATA SOURCES

We identified relevant publications by searching MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and reference lists of reviews, editorials, and original studies.

STUDY SELECTION

We identified eight randomized trials and one non-randomized trial of mammography, clinical breast examination, or both. All studies were rated for quality using predefined criteria and only studies of fair or better quality were included in the meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two of the authors abstracted information about each randomized controlled trial. We compiled an appendix consisting of detailed information about the patient population, design, potential flaws, missing information, and analysis conducted in each trial. For the primary endpoint of breast cancer mortality, we abstracted results for each reported length of follow-up.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We conducted a meta-analysis using a Bayesian random effects model to provide summary relative risk estimates of the effectiveness of screening with mammography, either alone or with clinical breast exam, in reducing breast cancer mortality by age group. We also reviewed two randomized controlled trials, one non-randomized controlled trial and one cohort study evaluating breast self-examination.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the randomized controlled trials of mammography, with or without clinical breast exam have published updates since 1996 and now have between 10.5 and 20 years of follow-up. In our meta-analysis combining all studies of fair quality, the summary relative risk reduction for breast cancer screening among women of all ages was 0.84 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.77–0.91), and the overall number needed to screen to prevent one death from breast cancer over approximately 14 years of observation was 1,224 (95% CrI, 665–2,564). These numbers reflect not just one screening, but multiple screenings in an organized program. Six fair or better quality randomized trials provided information about the efficacy of mammography and clinical breast exam among women younger than age 50. In our meta-analysis, the summary relative risk for the six studies was 0.85 (95% CrI, 0.73–0.99), and the overall number needed to screen was 1,792 (95% CrI, 764–10,540). Analyses of the trials to determine the portion of the benefit attributable to screening before age 50 have mixed results, but suggest that a significant portion of the benefit is due to screening before age 50, especially in women who were aged 39 to 44 when they had their first mammogram. No study has compared clinical breast examination to no screening. In trials that combined mammography with clinical breast examination, the contribution of clinical breast examination to reduced mortality from breast cancer is unclear. One study compared annual clinical breast examination plus mammography to a baseline clinical breast examination in women aged 40 to 49 at study entry and found no difference in breast cancer mortality. The role of breast self-examination in reducing breast cancer mortality has been evaluated in 2 randomized controlled trials and 1 non-randomized controlled trial, and none have shown benefit.

摘要

相似文献

1
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.针对40至49岁患乳腺癌平均风险女性的乳腺钼靶筛查:一项基于证据的分析。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007;7(1):1-32. Epub 2007 Jan 1.
4
Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.乳腺癌筛查:美国预防服务工作组的证据总结
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 3;137(5 Part 1):347-60. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00012.
5
Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: an evidence-based analysis.针对乳腺癌平均风险女性进行数字化乳腺钼靶筛查,针对高风险女性进行磁共振成像(MRI)筛查:一项基于证据的分析。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(3):1-55. Epub 2010 Mar 1.
6
7
8
9
10