programas cribado cancer


Nota Bibliográfica

Esta Nota es una recopilación de publicaciones (artículos, informes, libros) sobre cribado de cáncer resultado de una revisión no sistemática de la literatura.

Podéis dirigir vuestros comentarios o sugerencias sobre la Nota a:

Josep A Espinás. Pla Director d'Oncología de Catalunya.
Correo electrónico: Esta dirección electrónica esta protegida contra spam bots. Necesita activar JavaScript para visualizarla

Nota bibliográfica cribado c mama 2013-04

Carney P, O'Neill S, O'Neill C. Determinants of breast cancer screening uptake in women, evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Soc Sci Med 2013 Apr;82:108-114. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.018; 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.018. PMID:23415458.

Breast cancer screening is an integral part of the cancer control strategies of many developed economies. In Britain individuals screened in a given year are re-called every three years unless results indicate a need for more immediate investigation. This pattern may create a legacy arising from past decisions, a legacy that should be considered when examining current decisions. In this paper we use a balanced panel drawn from the British Household Panel Survey of 1997 women over an 18 year period to examine variations in uptake. A dynamic random effects probit model is used to control for unobserved heterogeneity and the legacy of previous decisions. As might be expected women to whom universal screening is offered are more likely to screen than others. Changes during the study period in the eligible age range saw an increase in uptake among the age group to whom the programme was extended but not among other groups. Past screening behaviour was found to be a significant predictor of current behaviour. Failure to account for past choices may result in model mis-specification and a failure to develop policies aimed at promoting initial engagement that may compromise the screening programme. Income was not found to be a significant determinant of uptake.

Amaro J, Severo M, Vilela S, Fonseca S, Fontes F, La Vecchia C, et al. Patterns of breast cancer mortality trends in Europe. The Breast 2013 6;22(3):244-253.
Conclusion This study provides a general model for the description and interpretation of the variation in breast cancer mortality in Europe, based in three main patterns.

Eric Lavigne, Eric J Holowaty, Sai Yi Pan, Paul J Villeneuve, Kenneth C Johnson, Dean A Fergusson, et al. Breast cancer detection and survival among women with cosmetic breast implants: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 2013 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd;346 DOI:10.1136/bmj.f2399.
Conclusions The research published to date suggests that cosmetic breast augmentation adversely affects the survival of women who are subsequently diagnosed as having breast cancer. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as some studies included in the meta-analysis on survival did not adjust for potential confounders. Further investigations are warranted regarding diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer among women with breast implants.

Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DSM, Irwig L, Lee J, et al. Risk Factors for Second Screen-Detected or Interval Breast Cancers in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer Participating in Mammography Screening. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2013 March 19 DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1208-T.
Conclusion: Although the risk of a second breast cancer is modest, our models identify risk factors for interval second breast cancer in PHBC women.Impact: Our findings may guide discussion and evaluations of tailored breast screening in PHBC women, and incorporating this information into clinical decision-making warrants further research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 1–16. ©2013 AACR.

Mandelblatt J, van Ravesteyn N, Schechter C, Chang Y, Huang A, Near AM, et al. Which strategies reduce breast cancer mortality most? Cancer 2013:n/a-n/a. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28087.

Foca F, Mancini S, Bucchi L, Puliti D, Zappa M, Naldoni C, et al. Decreasing incidence of late-stage breast cancer after the introduction of organized mammography screening in Italy. Cancer 2013:n/a-n/a. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28014.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant and stable decrease in the incidence of late-stage breast cancer was observed from the third year of screening onward, when the IRR varied between 0.81 and 0.71. Cancer 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Yaghjyan L, Colditz G, Rosner BA, Tamimi RM. Mammographic Breast Density and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women according to the Time Since the Mammogram. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2013 April 19 DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0169.

Conclusions. Patterns of the associations between percent density, absolute dense and non-dense area with breast cancer risk persist for up to 10 years after the mammogram. Impact. A one-time density measure can be used for long-term breast cancer risk prediction.

Nelson HD, Fu R, Goodard K, Mitchell Priest J, Okinaka-Hu L, Pappas M, et al. Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 101. AHRQ Publication No. 12-05164-EF-1. 2013.

Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M, MacGillivray S. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: A systematic review. The Breast (0) DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.003.

Toriola AT, Colditz GA. Trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in the United States: implications for prevention. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013 Apr 2 DOI:10.1007/s10549-013-2500-7. PMID:23546552
While debate continues regarding short-term changes in breast cancer incidence and the impact of screening on mortality, a long-term view of trends in incidence and mortality may better inform our understanding of the changing patterns of disease and ultimately guide in population-based prevention. Although many factors have influenced breast cancer incidence over the past seven decades, some have played more prominent roles at various times. Changing reproductive patterns, greater longevity, and post-menopausal hormone (estrogen + progesterone) were important in the steady increase before 1980, while mammographic screening, probably in conjunction with escalating combined estrogen + progesterone use, played dominant roles in the post-1980 surge. Accruing evidence also indicates that the rapid drop in 2003 was mostly due to a sharp decline in estrogen + progesterone use. The most paradoxical observation relates to the divergence in incidence and mortality trends most noticeable when mortality rates started to decline shortly after the surge in incidence rates started in 1980. In addition to the dynamic changes in risk factor profiles, the divergence reflects wider uptake of screening mammography, better characterization of tumor biology, and improvements in treatment. The rise in incidence rates over the past three decades is due to an increase in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) tumors, which respond favorably to treatment. On the other hand, the incidence of estrogen receptor negative (ER-) tumors, which respond poorly to hormonal therapy, has been decreasing for almost three decades. Furthermore, widespread adoption of screening mammography has led to tumors being diagnosed at earlier stages when treatment is effective and advances in treatment have ensured adoption of targeted and better tolerated therapies. To achieve long-term success in the primary prevention of breast cancer, a greater understanding of factors responsible for the decrease in ER- tumors is essential. In addition, improving the sensitivity of breast cancer screening to facilitate earlier detection of tumors with very aggressive phenotypes would go a long way in bridging the divergence between incidence and mortality.


Nota bibliográfica cribado c mama 2013-03

Correspondencia artículo:  Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.  Lancet, 380 (2012), pp. 1778–1786:

Autier P, Boniol M, Boyle P. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):800. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60620-0.

Bird SM. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):802-803. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60625-X.

Donzelli A. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):799-800. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60619-4.

Duffy SW. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):802. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60624-8.

Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):799. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60618-2.

Hanley JA, Liu Z, McGregor M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):800. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60621-2.

Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, Duffy SW. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):800-801. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60622-4.

Zahl P. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):801-802. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60623-6.

Mühlhauser I. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):803. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60626-1.

Jatoi I. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):803. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60627-3.

The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening – Authors' reply. (carta). The Lancet 2013 3/9–15;381(9869):803-804. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60628-5

Duffy S, Mackay J, Thomas S, Anderson E, Chen T, Ellis I, et al. Evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women aged 40-49 years with a moderate family history of breast cancer: a single-arm cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2013 Mar;17(11):1-95. DOI:10.3310/hta17110; 10.3310/hta17110. PMID:23489892.

CONCLUSIONS: Annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years with a significant family history of breast or ovarian cancer is both clinically effective in reducing breast cancer mortality and cost-effective. There is a need to further standardise familial risk assessment, to research the impact of digital mammography and to clarify the role of breast density in this population.


Nota bibliográfica cribado c mama 2013-02

Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller B, et al. Screening Outcomes in Older US Women Undergoing Multiple Mammograms in Community Practice: Does Interval, Age or Comorbidity Score Affect Tumor Characteristics or False Positive Rates? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2013 February 05 DOI:10.1093/jnci/djs645.

Conclusion Women aged 66 to 89 years who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of a false-positive recommendation than annual screeners, regardless of comorbidity.

 Schou Bredal I, Kåresen R, Skaane P, Engelstad KS, Ekeberg Ø. Recall mammography and psychological distress. Eur J Cancer 2013 3;49(4):805-811. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.09.001.

Concluding statement Recall after mammography was associated with transiently increased anxiety. Four weeks after screening, the level of anxiety was the same and depression was lower compared with the general female Norwegian population. The women were almost unanimously satisfied with their participation in the screening, would participate again and would recommend other women to participate.

 Autier P, Boniol M, Jorgensen KJ, Lannin D,R, Monticciolo D, Monsees B, et al. Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast Cancer Incidence. (carta). N Engl J Med 2013 02/14; 2013/02;368(7):677-679. DOI:10.1056/NEJMc1215494. Enlace:

 Feig SA. Reply. (carta). Am J Roentgenol 2013 01/01; 2013/03;200(1):W98-W100. DOI:10.2214/AJR.12.9922. Enlace:


Nota bibliográfica cribado c mama 2013-01

Domingo L, Jacobsen KK, von Euler-Chelpin M, Vejborg I, Schwartz W, Sala M, et al. Seventeen-years overview of breast cancer inside and outside screening in Denmark. Acta Oncol 2013;52(1):48-56.

McCarthy N. What's a girl to do? Nat Rev Cancer 2013 print;13(1):9-9.Enlace:

Protocols for the surveillance of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. 2012;NHSBSP Publication No 74.

Álvaro-Meca A, Debón A, Gil Prieto R, Gil de Miguel Á. Breast cancer mortality in Spain: Has it really declined for all age groups? Public Health 2012 10;126(10):891-895. DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.031. PMID:22921339.

Autier P, Boniol M. Breast cancer screening: evidence of benefit depends on the method used. BMC Med 2012 Dec 12;10:163-7015-10-163. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-10-163; 10.1186/1741-7015-10-163. PMID:23234249.

ABSTRACT: In this article, we discuss the most common epidemiological methods used for evaluating the ability of mammography screening to decrease the risk of breast cancer death in general populations (effectiveness). Case-control studies usually find substantial effectiveness. However when breast cancer mortality decreases for reasons unrelated to screening, the case-control design may attribute to screening mortality reductions due to other causes. Studies based on incidence-based mortality have obtained contrasted results compatible with modest to considerable effectiveness, probably because of differences in study design and statistical analysis. In areas where screening has been widespread for a long time, the incidence of advanced breast cancer should be decreasing, which in turn would translate into reduced mortality. However, no or modest declines in the incidence of advanced breast cancer has been observed in these areas. Breast cancer mortality should decrease more rapidly in areas with early introduction of screening than in areas with late introduction of screening. Nonetheless, no difference in breast mortality trends has been observed between areas with early or late screening start. When effectiveness is assessed using incidence-based mortality studies, or the monitoring of advanced cancer incidence, or trends in mortality, the ecological bias is an inherent limitation that is not easy to control. Minimization of this bias requires data over long periods of time, careful selection of populations being compared and availability of data on major confounding factors. If case-control studies seem apparently more adequate for evaluating screening effectiveness, this design has its own limitations and results must be viewed with caution.
Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ 2013 Jan 23;346:f158. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f158. PMID:23344309.

CONCLUSIONS: Women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.

Fiona Godlee. Breast screening controversy continues. BMJ 2013 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd;346 DOI:10.1136/bmj.f477.

Marmot and his committee were charged with asking whether the screening programme should continue, and if so, what women should be told about the risks of overdiagnosis.As nicely summarised by Nigel Hawkes at the time (BMJ 2012;345:e7330), the committee concluded that the programme should continue because it did prevent deaths—43 deaths

Cliona C Kirwan. Breast cancer screening: what does the future hold? (editorial). BMJ 2013 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd;346 DOI:10.1136/bmj.f87.

Michael Baum. Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included. BMJ 2013 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd;346 DOI:10.1136/bmj.f385.

Dore C, Gallagher F, Saintonge L, Hebert M. Breast cancer screening program: experiences of Canadian women and their unmet needs. Health Care Women Int 2013;34(1):34-49. DOI:10.1080/07399332.2012.673656; 10.1080/07399332.2012.673656. PMID:23216095.

The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of women waiting for results from the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program and their need for support. A qualitative analysis of the interviews generated a description of (a) the experiences and emotions of women waiting for mammogram results and (b) the need for services and psychosocial support that were and were not met. The results revealed a "timeline" of the waiting process experienced by the women, and their unmet informational and psychosocial needs (such as a lack of information about the prediagnosis steps, lack of a resource person, and others).

Payne JI, Caines JS, Gallant J, Foley TJ. A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program. Radiology 2013 Jan;266(1):96-103. DOI:10.1148/radiol.12102348; 10.1148/radiol.12102348. PMID:23169791.

CONCLUSION: In screening programs, true interval cancer rates should be differentiated from missed cancer rates as part of ongoing quality assurance.

Baines CJ. The mammography controversy: full steam ahead versus reasonable caution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013 Jan;200(1):W96-7. DOI:10.2214/AJR.12.9362; 10.2214/AJR.12.9362.

Feig SA. Reply. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013 Jan;200(1):W98-9.PMID:23379023.


Nota bibliográfica cribado c mama 2012-12

Mette Kalager, Rulla M Tamimi, Michael Bretthauer, Hans-Olov Adami. Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study. BMJ 2012;345  DOI:10.1136/bmj.e7536.  

Conclusion The prognosis of women with interval breast cancers was the same as that of women with breast cancers diagnosed without mammography screening.


Página 5 de 20

web desarrollada y mantenida por :