Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 February 1994 | Volume 120 Issue 4 | Pages 326-334
Recently published 7-year results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS) generated much controversy and criticism. In women aged 40 to 49 years at entry, no reduction in breast cancer mortality was observed when screened women were compared with virtually unscreened women. In women aged 50 to 59 years, breast cancer mortality was similar when annual screening with mammography and physical examination was compared with annual screening with physical examination alone. Although NBSS results in 40- to 49-year-old women are similar to those from previously published screening studies, critics have attacked the study's design, randomization, execution, mammography, follow-up procedures, contamination of controls, and analysis. The absence of benefit observed in mammographically screened women who were 50 to 59 years old has been used to support criticism of mammography. Important facts have been ignored. The NBSS controls, aged 50 to 59 years, unlike in other studies, received thorough annual physical examinations. Cancer detection rates in both age groups were higher in the mammography than the comparison groups. Screen and interval cancer detection rates, sensitivity and specificity estimates, and prevalence to incidence ratios at first screen met or exceeded standards established by other screening studies. Claims that randomization was flawed, in particular, that more symptomatic women were assigned to mammography, are not supported by the distribution of descriptive variables collected before randomization was done. As for the "contamination" of 26% of controls aged 40 to 49 years, who reported receiving mammography, it is improbable that single or occasional diagnostic mammograms in one quarter of the control group could obliterate the benefit of four or five annual mammograms in almost 100% of the mammography group. Much remains unknown about the efficacy of breast screening. PERSPECTIVE
The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: A Perspective on Criticisms
|
Author and Article Information
|
|
From the Central Office, National Breast Screening Study at the University of Toronto, Ontario.
Requests for Reprints: Cornelia J. Baines, MD, 12 Queen's Park Crescent West, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8.
Acknowledgments: The author thanks Dr. Howard Seiden, who identified the origin of the claims that cancer detection was delayed 2 to 5 years, Dr. Andrew D. Baines, who designed Table 7 and who, along with Professor Gail McKeown-Eyssen, read and improved many drafts.
Grant Support: By the Canadian Cancer Society, Health and Welfare Canada, Heritage Fund Alberta, Manitoba Health Services Commission, Medical Research Council of Canada, Le Minister des Affaires Sociales du Quebec, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Nova Scotia Department of Health, and the Ontario Ministry of Health. The author received partial salary support from the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. B. Kopans Bias in the Medical Journals: A Commentary Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 176 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J Baines In search of the best available version of the truth Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1404 - 1405. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A Freedman, D. B Petitti, and J. M Robins On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2004; 33(1): 43 - 55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Baines Mammography Screening: Are Women Really Giving Informed Consent? J Natl Cancer Inst, October 15, 2003; 95(20): 1508 - 1511. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. B. Miller, T. To, C. J. Baines, and C. Wall The Canadian National Breast 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, September 3, 2002; 137(5_Part_1): 305 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. H. Lerner When statistics provide unsatisfying answers: revisiting the breast self-examination controversy Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 1, 2002; 166(2): 199 - 201. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
A. B. Miller, T. To, C. J. Baines, and C. Wall Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-Year Results of a Randomized Trial in Women Aged 50-59 Years J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2000; 92(18): 1490 - 1499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Kopans The Breast Cancer Screening Controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40–49 Radiology, January 1, 1999; 210(1): 4 - 9. [Full Text] |
||||