Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Oct;24(55):1-24. doi: 10.3310/hta24550.
BACKGROUND: There remains disagreement on the long-term effect of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years. OBJECTIVES: The long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial that offered annual mammography to women aged 40-49 years. The estimation of the effect of these mammograms on breast cancer and other-cause mortality, and the effect on incidence, with implications for overdiagnosis. DESIGN: An individually randomised controlled trial comparing offering annual mammography with offering usual care in those aged 40-48 years, and thus evaluating the effect of annual screening entirely taking place before the age of 50 years. There was follow-up for an average of 23 years for breast cancer incidence, breast cancer death and death from other causes. We analysed the mortality and incidence data by Poisson regression and estimated overdiagnosis formally using Markov process models. SETTING: Twenty-three screening units in England, Wales and Scotland within the NHS Breast Screening Programme. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 39-41 years were recruited between 1990 and 1997. After exclusions, a total of 53,883 women were randomised to undergo screening (the intervention group) and 106,953 women were randomised to have usual care (the control group). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group was invited to an annual breast screen with film mammography, two view at first screen and single view thereafter, up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday. The control group received no intervention. Both groups were invited to the National Programme from the age of 50 years, when screening is offered to all women in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase of the trial (i.e. before the first National Programme screen at 50 years), mortality from all breast cancers diagnosed after randomisation, all-cause mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, and the incidence of breast cancer. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase at 10 years' follow-up (relative rate 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97; = 0.03). No reduction was observed thereafter (relative rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.22). Overall, there was a statistically non-significant 12% reduction (relative rate 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.03; = 0.1). The absolute benefit remained approximately constant over time, at one death prevented per 1000 women screened. There was no effect of intervention on other-cause mortality (relative rate 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.07; = 0.4). The intervention group had a higher incidence of breast cancer than the control group during the intervention phase of the trial, but incidence equalised immediately on the first National Programme screen at the age of 50-52 years. LIMITATIONS: There was 31% average non-compliance with screening and three centres had to cease screening for resource and capacity reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Annual mammographic screening at the age of 40-49 years resulted in a relative reduction in mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years. It is likely that digital mammography with two views at all screens, as practised now, could improve this further. There was no evidence of overdiagnosis in addition to that which already results from the National Programme carried out at later ages. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for research on the effects of modern mammographic protocols and additional imaging in this age group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24647151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Other funding in the past has been received from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care, the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
背景:40-49 岁女性进行乳腺 X 线筛查的长期效果仍存在争议。
目的:长期随访一项随机对照试验,该试验为 40-49 岁女性提供每年一次的乳腺 X 线检查。评估这些乳腺 X 线检查对乳腺癌和其他原因死亡率的影响,以及对发病的影响,这对过度诊断有影响。
设计:一项个体随机对照试验,比较在 40-48 岁年龄组中提供每年一次的乳腺 X 线检查与常规护理,从而完全评估在 50 岁之前进行的年度筛查的效果。对乳腺癌发病、乳腺癌死亡和其他原因死亡的平均随访时间为 23 年。我们通过泊松回归分析了死亡率和发病率数据,并使用马尔可夫过程模型正式估计了过度诊断。
地点:英国国民保健署乳腺筛查计划中的 23 个筛查单位,位于英格兰、威尔士和苏格兰。
参与者:1990 年至 1997 年期间招募了 39-41 岁的女性。排除后,共有 53883 名女性被随机分配接受筛查(干预组),106953 名女性被随机分配接受常规护理(对照组)。
干预措施:干预组被邀请每年进行一次乳腺 X 线检查,采用胶片乳腺 X 线摄影,首次检查采用双视图,之后采用单视图,直至 48 岁生日当年。对照组不进行任何干预。两组均在 50 岁时被邀请参加国家计划,该计划向英国所有女性提供筛查。
主要观察指标:主要观察指标是在试验的干预阶段诊断出的乳腺癌死亡率(即在 50 岁时第一次参加国家计划筛查之前)、随机分组后诊断出的所有乳腺癌死亡率、全因死亡率、非乳腺癌原因死亡率以及乳腺癌发病率。
结果:在 10 年随访时,干预阶段诊断出的乳腺癌死亡率降低了 25%(相对风险率 0.75,95%置信区间 0.58 至 0.97; = 0.03)。此后未观察到降低(相对风险率 0.98,95%置信区间 0.79 至 1.22)。总体而言,统计学上无显著差异(相对风险率 0.88,95%置信区间 0.74 至 1.03; = 0.1)。绝对获益在一段时间内保持相对稳定,每 1000 名筛查女性中就有 1 人死亡得到预防。干预对其他原因死亡率没有影响(相对风险率 1.02,95%置信区间 0.97 至 1.07; = 0.4)。在试验的干预阶段,干预组的乳腺癌发病率高于对照组,但在 50-52 岁时第一次参加国家计划筛查时,发病率立即持平。
局限性:平均不遵守筛查率为 31%,有三个中心因资源和能力原因不得不停止筛查。
结论:40-49 岁女性每年进行乳腺 X 线筛查可降低死亡率,10 年后效果减弱。现在采用的双视图数字乳腺 X 线摄影可能会进一步改善这种情况。除了在较晚年龄进行的国家计划已经导致的过度诊断外,没有证据表明存在过度诊断。
未来工作:需要研究这一年龄组中现代乳腺 X 线摄影方案和其他影像学的效果。
试验注册:当前对照试验 ISRCTN24647151。
资金:该项目由英国国家卫生研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,将全文发表在;第 24 卷,第 55 期。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取更多项目信息。过去的其他资金来源包括医学研究委员会、英国癌症研究中心、英国卫生部和社会关怀部、美国国家癌症研究所和美国癌症协会。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007
Health Technol Assess. 2022-2
Epidemiol Prev. 2013
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025-7-3
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024-11
Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2024-1-8
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017-11-17
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017-10-24
Ann Intern Med. 2016-1-12