Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina3Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1615-34. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183.
Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy.
We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews.
Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE.
For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
患者需要考虑乳腺癌筛查的获益和危害。
系统综合现有证据,评估不同年龄和间隔的乳腺钼靶筛查和临床乳房检查(CBE)与乳腺癌死亡率、过度诊断、假阳性活检结果、预期寿命和质量调整预期寿命之间的关系。
我们在 PubMed(截至 2014 年 3 月 6 日)、CINAHL(截至 2013 年 9 月 10 日)和 PsycINFO(截至 2013 年 9 月 10 日)中搜索了系统评价、随机临床试验(RCT)(无出版日期限制)和观察性及建模研究,检索时间截止至 2000 年 1 月 1 日之后发表的研究,还检索了所有研究设计的系统评价。纳入的研究(7 项系统评价、10 项 RCT、72 项观察性研究、1 项建模研究)提供了有关平均风险乳腺癌女性(无已知遗传易感性、家族史、既往乳腺肿瘤或胸部放射治疗史)中筛查与特定结局(乳腺癌死亡率、过度诊断、假阳性活检结果、预期寿命和质量调整预期寿命)之间关联的证据。我们使用了现有评价中的汇总估计值,并补充了那些评价中未包括的研究的定性综合分析。
在所有平均风险的女性年龄中,3 项临床试验的 meta 分析(英国独立小组:RR,0.80[95%CI,0.73-0.89];加拿大工作组:RR,0.82[95%CI,0.74-0.94];Cochrane:RR,0.81[95%CI,0.74-0.87])中,乳腺癌死亡率降低的汇总估计值在 13 年的随访后相似;队列研究的 meta 分析(RR,0.75[95%CI,0.69-0.81])中更大;建模研究(CISNET;7 个模型中中位数 RR 等效值为 0.85[范围,0.77-0.93])中相当。在整个美国人群中,在 40 至 49 岁的女性中,以及与每年筛查相比,与双年筛查相比,相关的死亡率降低幅度仍存在不确定性。在不同的筛查策略中,与过度诊断相关的不确定性在多大程度上存在,这部分归因于在估计方法和导管原位癌在过度诊断中的重要性方面缺乏共识。对于首次在 40 岁进行乳腺钼靶筛查的女性,估计 10 年的假阳性活检结果累积风险更高(7.0%[95%CI,6.1%-7.8%]),与双年筛查(4.8%[95%CI,4.4%-5.2%])相比。尽管开始筛查年龄为 50 岁的女性 10 年的假阳性活检结果概率相似,但终生假阳性结果的间接估计值较低。筛查与预期寿命和质量调整预期寿命之间关系的证据质量较低。没有直接证据表明增加 CBE 可增加与乳腺癌筛查相关的任何额外死亡率获益,但来自美国和加拿大的观察性证据表明,与单独使用乳腺钼靶筛查相比,CBE 可增加假阳性发现的数量,这两项研究都发现,与单独使用乳腺钼靶筛查相比,额外增加的 55 例乳腺癌中,有 55 例是假阳性发现。
对于所有年龄段的平均风险女性,筛查与乳腺癌死亡率降低约 20%相关,但对于美国不同乳腺癌筛查策略的定量估计结果存在不确定性。在根据对乳腺癌筛查的获益和危害的权衡做出建议时,应考虑这些发现和相关的不确定性。