Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 April 1995 | Volume 122 Issue 7 | Pages 539-547
When balancing the benefits of screening women for breast cancer against the harms and costs of such screening, one needs to consider the risk for dying of breast cancer, the relative reduction in that risk that will result from screening women in different age groups, and the harms and costs associated with screening.Seven randomized controlled trials provide evidence of the relative risk reduction that results from screening women in different age groups; other studies estimate the harms and costs of screening. These studies indicate that the benefit of screening, expressed as the absolute number of lives extended per 1000 women screened, increases with age and that the harm of screening, expressed as the number of follow-up procedures per cancer detected, decreases with age. Thus, the tradeoff between the benefits and the harms and costs of screening is better for older than for younger women. Because there is no clear cut-point for determining when benefits outweigh harms and costs, it is important to involve women in discussions of breast cancer screening. The women who most need to be involved are those for whom the benefits of screening clearly outweigh the harms and costs and those for whom the benefits and the harms and costs constitute a "close call." For women in both groups, the physician should routinely raise the issue of screening, first eliciting the patient's perceptions and then providing information and discussion about the risk for breast cancer and about the benefits and the harms and costs of screening. Furthermore, the physician should encourage the patient to use her own values to weigh the benefits against the harms and costs, pointing out biases in reasoning and minimizing socioeconomic barriers. Finally, when the benefits obviously outweigh the harms and costs, the physician should make a clear recommendation for screening.
Author and Article Information
From the Department of Medicine and the UNC-Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
IN THE BALANCE
Clinical Strategies for Breast Cancer Screening: Weighing and Using the Evidence
![]()
Requests for Reprints: Russell Harris, MD, MPH, Cancer Control Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#7300, Trailer L, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7300.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Eric Feuer, PhD, and Martin Brown, PhD, at the National Cancer Institute for discussion and for sharing data; Anthony Miller, MB, FRCP, for further analysis of the data from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study; William Black, MD, Tim Carey, MD, Suzanne Fletcher, MD, Michael O'Malley, MSPH, Bruce McCarthy, MD, Alvin Mushlin, MD, David Ransohoff, MD, and Ann Chamberlin, MPH, for suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript; and Kevin Squires and Laura Philpot for developing tables and figures and for manuscript preparation.
Grant Support: In part by National Cancer Institute grant CA5434-02.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Paskett, C. Tatum, J. Rushing, R. Michielutte, R. Bell, K. L. Foley, M. Bittoni, S. L. Dickinson, A. S. McAlearney, and K. Reeves Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 6, 2006; 98(17): 1226 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Kopans Bias in the Medical Journals: A Commentary Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 176 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. B. Terry, M. Gammon, and A. I. Neugut Association of Aspirin Use and Hormone Receptor Status With Breast Cancer Risk--Reply JAMA, September 22, 2004; 292(12): 1427 - 1427. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. C. Walter and K. E. Covinsky Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making JAMA, June 6, 2001; 285(21): 2750 - 2756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Y. Moody-Ayers, C. K. Wells, and A. R. Feinstein "Benign" Tumors and "Early Detection" in Mammography-Screened Patients of a Natural Cohort With Breast Cancer Arch Intern Med, April 24, 2000; 160(8): 1109 - 1115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A. Feig Age-related Accuracy of Screening Mammography: How Should It Be Measured? Radiology, March 1, 2000; 214(3): 633 - 640. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
M. A. Clark, W. Rakowski, B. Ehrich, D. N. Pearlman, M. Goldstein, C. E. Dube, B. K. Rimer, and H. Woolverton Stages of Adopting Regular Screening Mammography: Do Women Differ in Decisional Balance Within Stages? J Health Psychol, October 1, 1998; 3(4): 491 - 506. [Abstract] |
||||
![]() |
MORE ON SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY BEFORE AGE 50 Journal Watch (General), April 18, 1995; 1995(418): 2 - 2. [Full Text] |
||||