Prediction of higher mortality reduction for the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial: a model-based approach on screening intervals
2011

Predicting Breast Cancer Mortality Reduction from Screening Frequency

Sample size: 99389 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): van Ravesteyn N T, Heijnsdijk E A M, Draisma G, de Koning H J

Primary Institution: Erasmus MC

Hypothesis

What is the effect of different mammography screening intervals on breast cancer mortality?

Conclusion

Shortening the screening interval from 3 years to 1 year may reduce breast cancer mortality, but the benefit is likely not substantial enough to warrant annual screenings.

Supporting Evidence

  • The model predicted a relative risk of 0.83 for dying from breast cancer in the study group compared to the control group.
  • The study found that the predicted benefit of more frequent screening is larger when attendance rates or screening test sensitivity are increased.
  • The microsimulation model accurately reproduced age-specific breast cancer incidence rates for the year 1988.
  • The study suggests that the trial was underpowered to find a significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

Takeaway

This study looks at how often women should get mammograms to catch breast cancer early. It suggests that getting them every year might help a little, but not enough to change the current schedule.

Methodology

The study used a microsimulation model called MISCAN-Fadia to simulate the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial and predict breast cancer deaths based on different screening intervals.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from the low sensitivity of mammography and the lack of detailed attendance data.

Limitations

The study's predictions are limited by the availability of data and the use of a single simulation model.

Participant Demographics

Women aged 50-62 years who participated in the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.05

Confidence Interval

0.63–1.37

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/bjc.2011.300

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication