0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Health benefits and harms of mammography screening in older women (75+ years)—a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is little evidence on the balance between potential benefits and harms of mammography screening in women 75 years and older. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the outcomes of mammography screening in women aged 75 years and older.

          Methods

          A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over.

          Results

          Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 27 observational studies and 9 modelling studies. Many of the included studies used no or uninformative comparison groups resulting in a potential bias towards the benefits of screening. Despite this, there was mixed evidence about the benefits and harms of continuing mammography screening beyond the age of 75 years. Some studies showed a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality, and other studies showed no effect on mortality. Some studies showed some harms (false positive tests and recalls) being comparable to those in younger age-groups, with other studies showing increase in false positive screens and biopsies in older age-group. Although reported in fewer studies, there was consistent evidence of increased overdiagnosis in older age-groups.

          Conclusion

          There is limited evidence available to make a recommendation for/against continuing breast screening beyond the age of 75 years. Future studies should use more informative comparisons and should estimate overdiagnosis given potentially substantial harm in this age-group due to competing causes of death.

          This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203131).

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

          Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

              Update of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for breast cancer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                erin.mathieu@sydney.edu.au
                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                29 November 2023
                29 November 2023
                10 February 2024
                : 130
                : 2
                : 275-296
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, ( https://ror.org/0384j8v12) Sydney, NSW Australia
                [2 ]The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, ( https://ror.org/0384j8v12) Sydney, NSW Australia
                [3 ]Wiser Healthcare, The University of Sydney, ( https://ror.org/0384j8v12) Sydney, NSW Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.4494.d, ISNI 0000 0000 9558 4598, Department of Epidemiology, , University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, ; Groningen, The Netherlands
                [5 ]BreastScreen Western Australia, Women and Newborn Health Service, Perth, WA Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5209-7989
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4956-765X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-6639
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-952X
                Article
                2504
                10.1038/s41416-023-02504-7
                10803784
                38030747
                ff662455-a2ce-4218-b9f8-2f222c955e58
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 2 April 2023
                : 28 October 2023
                : 13 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001171, Cancer Institute NSW (Cancer Institute New South Wales);
                Award ID: 2022/ECF1420
                Award ID: 2020/ECF1158
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000925, Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC);
                Award ID: 1194410
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF) Chair in Breast Cancer Prevention grant (EC-21-001)
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2024

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast cancer,population screening
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast cancer, population screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article