Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia
- 694 Downloads
Efficacy of breast screening may differ in practice from the results of randomized trials. We report one of the largest case–control evaluations of a screening service.
Subjects included 491 breast-cancer deaths affecting 45–80-year-old South Australian females during 2002–2005 (diagnosed after BreastScreen commencement) and 1,473 live controls (three per death) randomly selected from the State Electoral Roll after birth-date matching. Cancer Registry and BreastScreen records provided cancer and screening details. Risk estimates were calculated by BreastScreen participation, using conditional logistic regression. Interpretation was assisted by a population survey of risk factor prevalence by BreastScreen participation in 1,684 females aged ≥40 years.
The relative odds (OR) (95% confidence limits) of breast-cancer death in BreastScreen participants compared with non-participants were 0.59 (0.47, 0.74). Compared with non-participants, the OR was 0.70 (0.47, 1.05) for women last screened through BreastScreen more than 3 years before diagnosis of the index case, and 0.57 (0.44, 0.72) for women screened more recently. The OR of 0.47 (0.34, 0.65) for women screened more frequently in the pre-diagnosis phase was lower than the 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) for other screened women. The overall OR of 0.59 approximated 0.70 when corrected for the screening self-selection bias observed in five randomized trials. However, multivariable analysis of survey data did not indicate a lower prevalence of breast-cancer risk factors among BreastScreen participants, suggesting that this correction may be inappropriate.
Participation in screening was associated with a breast-cancer mortality reduction of between 30 and 41%, depending on assumptions about screening self-selection bias. A downward mortality risk by recency of last screen prior to cancer diagnosis, and frequency of recent screening, is consistent with a screening effect.
KeywordsPopulation screening Breast neoplasm Breast cancer mortality Mammography Self-selection bias
- 4.Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy S, Day N, Gas A, Grontoft O (1998) Update of the Swedish two county program of mammographic screening trial. Radiol Clin North Am 51:81–91Google Scholar
- 6.Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian national breast screening study, 1: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. Can Med Assoc J 147:1459–1476Google Scholar
- 7.Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian national breast screening study, 2: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. Can Med Assoc J 147:1477–1488Google Scholar
- 10.World Health Organization (WHO), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2002) IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol 7: breast cancer screening. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
- 13.South Australian Cancer Registry (1996) Epidemiology of cancer in South Australia. Incidence, mortality and survival, 1977 to 1995. Incidence and mortality, 1995. Openbook Publishers, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- 14.Roder D (2006) Population screening—opportunities to strengthen cancer control. Public Health Bull S Aust 5:2–6Google Scholar
- 16.Armitage P, Berry G (1987) Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 17.StataCorp (2005) Stata statistical software. Release 9.2. StatCorp LP, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
- 19.Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998) 1996 census of population and housing. Socio-economic indexes for areas. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 20.Department of Health and Aged Care and the University of Adelaide (1999) Measuring remoteness: accessibility/remoteness index of Australia (ARIA). Occasional Papers: New Series No. 6. Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 21.Government of South Australia, Department of Health, Population Research and Outcomes Studies Unit (2006) Health Monitor, July and September, 2006. BreastScreen data report. Department of Health, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- 22.Duffy SW, Hill C, Esteve J (eds) (2001) Quantitative methods for the evaluation of cancer screening. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 31.Feig SA (1996) Methods to identify benefit from mammographic screening in women aged 40–49 years. Editorial. Radiology 201:309–316Google Scholar
- 32.Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabar L et al (2002) Correcting for non-compliance bias in case-control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. Appl Stat 51:235–243Google Scholar