Bennett Alexandria, Shaver Nicole, Vyas Niyati, Almoli Faris, Pap Robert, Douglas Andrea, Kibret Taddele, Skidmore Becky, Yaffe Martin, Wilkinson Anna, Seely Jean M, Little Julian, Moher David
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Patient Partner Representative, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 19;13(1):304. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02700-3.
This systematic review update synthesized recent evidence on the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in women aged ≥ 40 years and aims to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's (CTFPHC) guideline update.
We searched Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase Classic + Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to update our searches to July 8, 2023. Search results for observational studies were limited to publication dates from 2014 to capture more relevant studies. Screening was performed independently and in duplicate by the review team. To expedite the screening process, machine learning was used to prioritize relevant references. Critical health outcomes, as outlined by the CTFPHC, included breast cancer and all-cause mortality, treatment-related morbidity and overdiagnosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non/quasi RCTs and observational studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs and the Joanna Brigg's Institute (JBI) checklists for non-randomized and observational studies. When deemed appropriate, studies were pooled via random-effects models. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed following GRADE guidance.
Three new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status. For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality. For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.
This systematic review update did not identify any new trials comparing breast cancer screening to no screening. Although 26 new observational studies were identified, the overall quality of evidence remains generally low or very low. Future research initiatives should prioritize studying screening in higher risk populations such as those from different ages, racial or ethnic groups, with dense breasts or family history.
Protocol available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xngsu/.
本系统评价更新综合了近期关于40岁及以上女性乳腺癌筛查利弊的证据,旨在为加拿大预防性医疗保健工作组(CTFPHC)的指南更新提供参考。
我们检索了Ovid MEDLINE® ALL、Embase Classic + Embase和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,将检索更新至2023年7月8日。观察性研究的检索结果限于2014年以来的发表日期,以获取更相关的研究。由综述团队独立且重复地进行筛选。为加快筛选过程,使用机器学习对相关参考文献进行优先级排序。CTFPHC概述的关键健康结局包括乳腺癌和全因死亡率、治疗相关发病率和过度诊断。纳入随机对照试验(RCT)、非/准RCT和观察性研究。由一名评审员进行数据提取和质量评估,并由另一名评审员进行核实。使用Cochrane偏倚风险2.0工具对RCT进行偏倚风险评估,使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所(JBI)清单对非随机和观察性研究进行评估。在认为适当时,通过随机效应模型对研究进行汇总。根据GRADE指南评估证据的总体确定性。
纳入了3篇报告现有RCT试验数据的新论文和26项观察性研究。本次更新未发现新的RCT。没有研究按种族、民族、乳房致密的研究人群比例或社会经济地位报告结果。对于乳腺癌死亡率,先前综述的RCT数据报告,对于一般人群,筛查乳腺X线摄影可使乳腺癌死亡风险相对显著降低15%(RR 0.85,95% CI 0.78至0.93)。在本次综述更新中,基于RCT数据的乳腺癌死亡相对风险降低保持不变,10年期间按年龄组划分的绝对效应为:40至49岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.27例;50至59岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.50例;60至69岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.65例;70至74岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.92例。对于观察性数据,相对死亡风险降低范围为29%至62%。10年期间乳腺癌死亡的绝对效应为:40至49岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.79至0.94例;50至59岁人群每1000人死亡减少1.45至1.72例;60至69岁人群每1000人死亡减少1.89至2.24例;70至74岁人群每1000人死亡减少2.68至3.17例。对于全因死亡率,先前综述的RCT数据报告,对于一般人群,筛查乳腺X线摄影可使全因死亡风险相对非显著降低1%(RR 0.99,95% CI 0.98至1.00)。在本次综述更新中,10年期间按年龄组划分的全因死亡绝对效应为:40至49岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.1例;50至59岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.31例;60至69岁人群每1000人死亡减少0.71例;70至74岁人群每1000人死亡减少1.41例。未找到全因死亡率的观察性数据。对于过度诊断,本次综述更新发现,RCT数据(随访9至15年)的绝对效应为:40至49岁人群每1000人中有1.95例更多的浸润性癌和原位癌,或每1000人中有1例更多的浸润性癌;50至59岁人群每1000人中有1.93例更多的浸润性癌和原位癌,或每1000人中有1.18例更多的浸润性癌。一项去除高偏倚风险研究的敏感性分析发现,40至49岁人群每1000人中有1.57例更多的浸润性癌和原位癌,或0.49例更多的浸润性癌;50至59岁人群每1000人中有3.95例更多的浸润性癌和原位癌,或2.81例更多的浸润性癌。对于观察性数据,一份报告(随访13年)发现,50至69岁人群每1000人中有0.34例更多的浸润性癌和原位癌。总体而言,证据的GRADE确定性被评估为低或非常低,表明证据对于乳腺癌筛查对本综述中评估的结局的影响非常不确定。
本次系统评价更新未发现任何比较乳腺癌筛查与不筛查的新试验。尽管识别出26项新的观察性研究,但证据的总体质量仍然普遍较低或非常低。未来的研究计划应优先研究高风险人群的筛查,如来自不同年龄、种族或民族、乳房致密或有家族史的人群。
方案可在开放科学框架上获取:https://osf.io/xngsu/ 。