• 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

临床试验中的行为及其对乳腺钼靶检查指南的影响。

Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines.

作者信息

Kowalski Amanda E

机构信息

Department of Economics, University of Michigan.

出版信息

Rev Econ Stud. 2023 Jan;90(1):432-462. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdac022. Epub 2022 May 9.

DOI:10.1093/restud/rdac022
PMID:36798741
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9928190/
Abstract

Mammography guidelines have weakened in response to evidence that mammograms diagnose breast cancers that would never eventually cause symptoms, a phenomenon called "overdiagnosis." Given concerns about overdiagnosis, instead of recommending mammograms, US guidelines encourage women aged 40-49 to get them as they see fit. To assess whether these guidelines target women effectively, I propose an approach that examines mammography behavior within an influential clinical trial that followed participants long enough to find overdiagnosis. I find that women who are more likely to receive mammograms are healthier and have higher socioeconomic status. More importantly, I find that the 20-year level of overdiagnosis is at least 3.5 times higher among women who are most likely to receive mammograms. At least 36% of their cancers are overdiagnosed. These findings imply that US guidelines encourage mammograms among healthier women who are more likely to be overdiagnosed by them. Guidelines in other countries do not.

摘要

鉴于有证据表明乳房X光检查会诊断出那些最终不会引发症状的乳腺癌,即所谓的“过度诊断”现象,乳房X光检查指南的力度已经有所减弱。出于对过度诊断的担忧,美国指南不再推荐进行乳房X光检查,而是鼓励40至49岁的女性根据自身情况自行决定是否进行检查。为了评估这些指南是否有效地针对了女性群体,我提出了一种方法,该方法通过一项有影响力的临床试验来研究乳房X光检查行为,该试验对参与者进行了足够长时间的跟踪,以发现过度诊断情况。我发现,更有可能接受乳房X光检查的女性更健康,社会经济地位也更高。更重要的是,我发现,在最有可能接受乳房X光检查的女性中,20年的过度诊断水平至少高出3.5倍。她们至少36%的癌症被过度诊断。这些发现意味着美国指南鼓励更健康的女性进行乳房X光检查,而这些女性更有可能被过度诊断。其他国家的指南则并非如此。

相似文献

1
Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines.临床试验中的行为及其对乳腺钼靶检查指南的影响。
Rev Econ Stud. 2023 Jan;90(1):432-462. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdac022. Epub 2022 May 9.
2
Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT.从 40 岁开始每年进行乳腺 X 线筛查以降低女性乳腺癌死亡率:英国年龄 RCT 的长期随访。
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Oct;24(55):1-24. doi: 10.3310/hta24550.
3
Estimation of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis in a U.S. Breast Screening Cohort.美国乳腺筛查队列中乳腺癌过度诊断的评估。
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Apr;175(4):471-478. doi: 10.7326/M21-3577. Epub 2022 Mar 1.
4
Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine.乳腺 X 光筛查:医学中的一个重大问题。
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Feb;90:34-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.002. Epub 2017 Dec 20.
5
Mammographic screening for breast cancer. Overdiagnosis: an insidious adverse effect of screening.乳腺癌的乳腺钼靶筛查。过度诊断:筛查的一种潜在不良影响。
Prescrire Int. 2015 Jul;24(162):186-9, 191.
6
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.
7
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.
8
[Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].[定制乳房筛查试验(TBST)]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Jul-Oct;37(4-5):317-27.
9
Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study.荷兰乳腺钼靶筛查的有效性及过度诊断:基于人群的研究
BMJ. 2017 Dec 5;359:j5224. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5224.
10
Another round in the mammography controversy.乳房X光检查争议的又一轮较量。
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003 Apr;12(3):261-76. doi: 10.1089/154099903321667609.

引用本文的文献

1
Instrumental Variables Methods Reveal Larger Effects of Menopausal Hormone Therapy in the Landmark Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial.工具变量法揭示了绝经激素治疗在具有里程碑意义的女性健康倡议临床试验中的更大效果。
AEA Pap Proc. 2025 May;115:215-220. doi: 10.1257/pandp.20251064.
2
When Scale and Replication Work: Learning from Summer Youth Employment Experiments.规模与复制何时起作用:从暑期青年就业实验中学习。
J Public Econ. 2022 May;209. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104617. Epub 2022 Apr 4.
3
How to Examine External Validity Within an Experiment.如何在实验中检验外部效度。
J Econ Manag Strategy. 2023 Fall;32(3):491-509. doi: 10.1111/jems.12468. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
4
Reconciling Seemingly Contradictory Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment and the Massachusetts Health Reform.调和俄勒冈健康保险实验与马萨诸塞州医疗改革中看似矛盾的结果。
Rev Econ Stat. 2023 May;105(3):646-664. doi: 10.1162/rest_a_01069. Epub 2023 May 9.
5
Instrumental variables methods reconcile intention-to-screen effects across pragmatic cancer screening trials.工具变量法协调了实用癌症筛查试验中的意图筛查效应。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Dec 19;120(51):e2311556120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2311556120. Epub 2023 Dec 15.
6
Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?乳房X光检查与死亡率:证据是如何演变的?
J Econ Perspect. 2021 Spring;35(2):119-140. doi: 10.1257/jep.35.2.119.
7
Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.大肠癌防治计划之成效。
Health Econ. 2021 Nov;30(11):2667-2685. doi: 10.1002/hec.4397. Epub 2021 Aug 2.
8
Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms.筛查与选择:乳房X光检查的案例
Am Econ Rev. 2020 Dec;110(12):3836-3870. doi: 10.1257/aer.20191191.

本文引用的文献

1
Reconciling Seemingly Contradictory Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment and the Massachusetts Health Reform.调和俄勒冈健康保险实验与马萨诸塞州医疗改革中看似矛盾的结果。
Rev Econ Stat. 2023 May;105(3):646-664. doi: 10.1162/rest_a_01069. Epub 2023 May 9.
2
Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?乳房X光检查与死亡率:证据是如何演变的?
J Econ Perspect. 2021 Spring;35(2):119-140. doi: 10.1257/jep.35.2.119.
3
Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms.筛查与选择:乳房X光检查的案例
Am Econ Rev. 2020 Dec;110(12):3836-3870. doi: 10.1257/aer.20191191.
4
Does Medicare Coverage Improve Cancer Detection and Mortality Outcomes?医疗保险覆盖范围能否改善癌症检测及死亡率结果?
J Policy Anal Manage. 2020 Summer;39(3):577-604. doi: 10.1002/pam.22199. Epub 2020 Jan 12.
5
Use and Costs of Breast Cancer Screening for Women in Their 40s in a US Population With Private Insurance.美国私人保险覆盖人群中 40 多岁女性乳腺癌筛查的应用和费用。
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 May 1;180(5):799-801. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0262.
6
External beam accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and node-negative breast cancer (RAPID): a randomised controlled trial.保乳手术后局部晚期导管原位癌和淋巴结阴性乳腺癌患者行体外加速部分乳房照射与全乳房照射的对比(RAPID):一项随机对照试验。
Lancet. 2019 Dec 14;394(10215):2165-2172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32515-2. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
7
Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.乳腺癌筛查与诊断:欧洲乳腺指南概要。
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 7;172(1):46-56. doi: 10.7326/M19-2125. Epub 2019 Nov 26.
8
How Effective is Population-Based Cancer Screening? Regression Discontinuity Estimates from the US Guideline Screening Initiation Ages.基于人群的癌症筛查效果如何?来自美国指南筛查起始年龄的回归断点估计
Forum Health Econ Policy. 2016 Jun 1;19(1):87-139. doi: 10.1515/fhep-2014-0014.
9
Should we rename low risk cancers?我们应该重新命名低风险癌症吗?
BMJ. 2019 Jan 23;364:k4699. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4699.
10
Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.针对乳腺癌风险未增加的40至74岁女性乳腺癌筛查的建议。
CMAJ. 2018 Dec 10;190(49):E1441-E1451. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180463.