The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gøtzsche

A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening

Objectives

To identify issues of principle and practice giving rise to misunderstandings in reviewing evidence, to illustrate these by reference to the Nordic Cochrane Review (NCR) and its interpretation of two trials of mammographic screening, and to draw lessons for future reviewing of published results.

Methods

A narrative review of the publications of the Nordic Cochrane Review of mammographic screening (NCR), the Swedish Two-County Trial (S2C) and the Canadian National Breast Screening Study 1 and 2 (CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2).

Results

The NCR concluded that the S2C was unreliable, despite the review's complaints being shown to be mistaken, by direct reference to the original primary publications of the S2C. Repeated concerns were expressed by others about potential subversion of randomisation in CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2; however, the NCR continued to rely heavily on the results of these trials. Since 2022, however, eyewitness evidence of such subversion has been in the public domain.

Conclusions

An over-reliance on nominal satisfaction of checklists of criteria in systematic reviewing can lead to erroneous conclusions. This occurred in the case of the NCR, which concluded that mammographic screening was ineffective or minimally effective. Broader and more even-handed reviews of the evidence show that screening confers a substantial reduction in breast cancer mortality.

Advances in knowledge

Those carrying out systematic reviews should be aware of the dangers of over-reliance on checklists and guidelines. Readers of systematic reviews should be aware that a systematic review is just another study, with the capability that all studies have of coming to incorrect conclusions. When a review seems to overturn the current position, it is essential to revisit the publications of the primary research.

Lab-on-a-chip systems for cancer biomarker diagnosis

Lab-on-a-chip (LOC) or micro total analysis system is one of the microfluidic technologies defined as the adaptation, miniaturization, integration, and automation of analytical laboratory procedures into a single instrument or "chip". In this article, we review developments over the past five years in the application of LOC biosensors for the detection of different types of cancer. Microfluidics encompasses chemistry and biotechnology skills and has revolutionized healthcare diagnosis. Superior to traditional cell culture or animal models, microfluidic technology has made it possible to reconstruct functional units of organs on chips to study human diseases such as cancer. LOCs have found numerous biomedical applications over the past five years, including integrated bioassays, cell analysis, metabolomics, drug discovery and delivery systems, tissue and organ physiology and disease modeling, and personalized medicine. This review provides an overview of the latest developments in microfluidic-based cancer research, with pros, cons, and prospects.

Supplemental Screening for Patients at Intermediate and High Risk for Breast Cancer

The sensitivity of mammography is more limited in patients with dense breasts and some patients at higher risk for breast cancer. Patients with intermediate or high risk for breast cancer may begin screening earlier and benefit from supplemental screening techniques beyond standard 2-dimensional mammography. A patient's individual risk factors for developing breast cancer, their breast density, and the evidence supporting specific modalities for a given clinical scenario help to determine the need for supplemental screening and the modality chosen. Additional factors include the availability of supplemental screening techniques at an individual institution, cost, insurance coverage, and state-specific breast density legislation.

Breast cancer screening controversies: who, when, why, and how?

Mammographic screening is effective in reducing mortality from breast cancer. The issue is not whether mammography is effective, but whether the false positive rate and false negative rates can be reduced. This review will discuss controversies including the reduction in breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, the ideal screening candidate, and the optimal imaging modality for breast cancer screening. The article will compare and contrast screening mammography, tomosynthesis, whole-breast screening ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and molecular breast imaging. Though supplemental imaging modalities are being utilized to improve breast cancer diagnosis, mammography still remains the gold standard for breast cancer screening.

Screening mammography & breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies

Background

The magnitude of the benefit associated with screening has been debated. We present a meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies on the effects of mammography screening.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase for articles published through January 31, 2013. Studies were included if they reported: 1) a population-wide breast cancer screening program using mammography with 5+ years of data post-implementation; 2) a comparison group with equal access to therapies; and 3) breast cancer mortality. Studies excluded were: RCTs, case-control, or simulation studies. We defined quasi-experimental as studies that compared either geographical, historical or birth cohorts with a screening program to an equivalent cohort without a screening program. Meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using the metan command, random effects. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for ages screened: under 50, 50 to 69 and over 70 and weighted by population and person-years.

Results

Among 4,903 published papers that were retrieved, 19 studies matched eligibility criteria. Birth cohort studies reported a significant benefit for women screened <age 50, but not for women screened ages 50–69. Significant reductions in breast cancer mortality were observed in historical comparisons. For geographical comparisons, there was a significant 20% reduction in mortality for women <age 50 and a significant 21–22% reduction for women ages 50–69. Studies that tested the interaction of geographical and historical comparisons produced a pooled, significant 13–17% reduction in incident breast cancer mortality for women ages 50–69, but the effects in most individual studies were non-significant. All studies of women ages 70+ were non-significant.

Conclusions

Mammography screening may have modest effects on cancer mortality between the ages of 50 and 69 and non-significant effects for women older than age 70. Results are consistent with meta-analyses of RCTs. Effects on total mortality could not be assessed because of the limited number of studies.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (June 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. We excluded a biased trial from analysis. Two trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.09) at 13 years; four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, RR 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83) (P = 0.02 for difference between the two estimates). RR for all six trials combined was 0.80 (0.73 to 0.88). The two trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, RR 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, RR 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04) after 13 years. We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups, RR 1.31 (1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. Based on all trials, the reduction is 20%, but as the effect is lower in the highest quality trials, a more reasonable estimate is a 15% relative risk reduction. Based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with an estimated 30% increase, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.

Evaluation of screening for a cancer: annotated catechism of the Gold Standard creed

Even non-scientific people are generally aware of, and commonly also personally affected by, the confusion and debates that arose from two recent systematic reviews and their associated meta-analyses of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had been designed to assess the usefulness of screening for breast cancer. With nothing about the principles of research on cancer screening learned from this debacle, an RCT on screening for lung cancer has just been launched in the same 'gold standard' framework; and so in about 10 years, and upon expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, we are said to be able to learn whether the screening saves lives and whether it thereby is justifiable as a matter of public policy. We here examine the core tenets and precepts in this 'gold standard' line of thinking, and we argue that they are matters of belief at variance with the dictates of reason.