Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 103, Issue 6, pp e417–e419 | Cite as

Optimizing Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Perspective for Action

  • Andriana Barisic
  • Sharareh Taghipour
  • Dragan Banjevic
  • Anthony B. Miller
  • Neil Montgomery
  • Andrew Jardine
  • Bart J. Harvey


While controversies regarding optimal breast cancer screening modalities, screening start and end ages, and screening frequencies continue to exist, additional population-based randomized trials are unlikely to be initiated to examine these concerns. Simulation models have been used to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of various breast cancer screening strategies, however these models were all developed using US data. Currently, there is a need to examine the optimal screening and treatment policies in the Canadian context. In this commentary, we discuss the current controversies pertaining to breast cancer screening, and describe the fundamental components of a simulation model, which can be used to inform breast cancer screening and treatment policies.


Des controverses persistent au sujet des modalités optimales de dépistage du cancer du sein, de l’âge de début et de fin du dépistage, et de la fréquence du dépistage, mais on a peu tendance à lancer d’autres essais aléatoires en population pour examiner ces questions. Des modèles de simulation ont été utilisés pour évaluer l’utilité et l’efficacité de diverses stratégies de dépistage du cancer du sein, mais ces modèles ont tous été élaborés à l’aide de données des États-Unis. Il faudrait aujourd’hui examiner les politiques de dépistage et de traitement optimales dans un contexte canadien. Dans notre commentaire, nous expliquons les controverses actuelles afférentes au dépistage du cancer du sein et nous décrivons les composants fondamentaux d’un modèle de simulation pouvant servir à éclairer les politiques de dépistage et de traitement du cancer du sein.

Key words

Breast cancer screening controversies screening strategies simulation model components 

Mots clés

tumeurs du sein controverses et dissensions (dépistage) stratégies de dépistage simulation composants de modèle 


  1. 1.
    Canadian Cancer Society Steering Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statisticis 2011. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society, 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin N Am 2000;38(4):625–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Humphrey L, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5):347–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mam-mography in women aged 40–49: A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273(2):149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: The Malmö mammographic screening trial. Br Med J 1988;297(6654):943–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: Updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359(9310):909–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox B. Variation in the effectiveness of breast screening by year of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;1997(22):69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: A statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(19):1431–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gøtzsche PC, Neilson M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;19(1):CD001877.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: Impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260(3):658–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(18):1490–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368(9552):2053–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study-1: Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40–74 years. CMAJ 2011;183(17):1991–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S, Zelen M. A stochastic model for predicting the mortality of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tan SY, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. The MIS-CAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mandelblatt J, Schechter CB, Lawrence W, Yi B, Cullen J. The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: Principles and practice of the model methods. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berry DA, Inoue L, Shen Y, Venier J, Cohen D, Bondy M, et al. Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: A Bayesian approach. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plevritis SK, Sigal BM, Salzman P, Rosenberg PG. A stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006;36:37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter DJ, Drake SM, Shortt SE, Dorland JL, Tran N. Simulation modeling of change to breast cancer detection age eligibility recommendations in Ontario, 2002–2021. Cancer Detect Prev 2004;28(6):453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahern CH, Shen Y. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: A comparison with current guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomar 2009;18(3):718–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialist’s Collaborative Group. Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy: 133 randomized trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Lancet 1992;339(8784):1–15.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialist’s Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: An overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 1998;351(9114):1451–67.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialist’s Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: An overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 1998;352(9132):930–42.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McPake B, Kumaranayake L, Normand C. Health Economics: An International Perspective. London, UK: Routledge, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Warwick J, Duffy SW. A review of cancer screening evaluation techniques, with some particular examples in breast cancer screening. J Roy Stat Soc A STA 2005;168(Part 4):657–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andriana Barisic
    • 1
  • Sharareh Taghipour
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dragan Banjevic
    • 3
  • Anthony B. Miller
    • 1
  • Neil Montgomery
    • 3
  • Andrew Jardine
    • 3
  • Bart J. Harvey
    • 1
  1. 1.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations