Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review update to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline

被引:0
|
作者
Bennett, Alexandria [1 ]
Shaver, Nicole [1 ]
Vyas, Niyati [1 ]
Almoli, Faris [1 ]
Pap, Robert [1 ]
Douglas, Andrea
Kibret, Taddele [1 ]
Skidmore, Becky
Yaffe, Martin [2 ,3 ]
Wilkinson, Anna [4 ]
Seely, Jean M. [5 ]
Little, Julian [1 ]
Moher, David [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Sch Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Sunnybrook Res Inst, Phys Sci Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Ontario Inst Canc Res, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Dept Family Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Dept Radiol, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
Breast cancer; Screening; Mammography; Systematic review; Mortality; Overdiagnosis; AGE; 40; YEARS; SWEDISH 2-COUNTY TRIAL; LONG-TERM INCIDENCE; FOLLOW-UP; MOLECULAR SUBTYPE; DENSE BREASTS; AVERAGE RISK; MORTALITY; WOMEN; MAMMOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-024-02700-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectiveThis systematic review update synthesized recent evidence on the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in women aged >= 40 years and aims to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's (CTFPHC) guideline update.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (R) ALL, Embase Classic + Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to update our searches to July 8, 2023. Search results for observational studies were limited to publication dates from 2014 to capture more relevant studies. Screening was performed independently and in duplicate by the review team. To expedite the screening process, machine learning was used to prioritize relevant references. Critical health outcomes, as outlined by the CTFPHC, included breast cancer and all-cause mortality, treatment-related morbidity and overdiagnosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non/quasi RCTs and observational studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs and the Joanna Brigg's Institute (JBI) checklists for non-randomized and observational studies. When deemed appropriate, studies were pooled via random-effects models. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed following GRADE guidance.ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status.For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74.For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality.For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69.Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status.For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74.For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality.For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69.Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status.For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74.For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality.For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69.Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status.For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0. 92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74.For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality.For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69.Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status.For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74.For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality.For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69.Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review.ConclusionsThis systematic review update did not identify any new trials comparing breast cancer screening to no screening. Although 26 new observational studies were identified, the overall quality of evidence remains generally low or very low. Future research initiatives should prioritize studying screening in higher risk populations such as those from different ages, racial or ethnic groups, with dense breasts or family history.Systematic review registration: Protocol available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xngsu/ConclusionsThis systematic review update did not identify any new trials comparing breast cancer screening to no screening. Although 26 new observational studies were identified, the overall quality of evidence remains generally low or very low. Future research initiatives should prioritize studying screening in higher risk populations such as those from different ages, racial or ethnic groups, with dense breasts or family history.Systematic review registration: Protocol available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xngsu/
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    Pillay, Jennifer
    Guitard, Samantha
    Rahman, Sholeh
    Saba, Sabrina
    Rahman, Ashiqur
    Bialy, Liza
    Gehring, Nicole
    Tan, Maria
    Melton, Alex
    Hartling, Lisa
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [2] Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update
    Alexandria Bennett
    Andrew Beck
    Nicole Shaver
    Roland Grad
    Allana LeBlanc
    Heather Limburg
    Casey Gray
    Ahmed Abou-Setta
    Scott Klarenbach
    Navindra Persaud
    Guylène Thériault
    Brett D. Thombs
    Keith J. Todd
    Neil Bell
    Philipp Dahm
    Andrew Loblaw
    Lisa Del Giudice
    Xiaomei Yao
    Becky Skidmore
    Elizabeth Rolland-Harris
    Melissa Brouwers
    Julian Little
    David Moher
    Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [3] Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update
    Bennett, Alexandria
    Beck, Andrew
    Shaver, Nicole
    Grad, Roland
    LeBlanc, Allana
    Limburg, Heather
    Gray, Casey
    Abou-Setta, Ahmed
    Klarenbach, Scott
    Persaud, Navindra
    Theriault, Guylene
    Thombs, Brett D.
    Todd, Keith J.
    Bell, Neil
    Dahm, Philipp
    Loblaw, Andrew
    Del Giudice, Lisa
    Yao, Xiaomei
    Skidmore, Becky
    Rolland-Harris, Elizabeth
    Brouwers, Melissa
    Little, Julian
    Moher, David
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [4] Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update
    Shaver, Nicole
    Beck, Andrew
    Bennett, Alexandria
    Wilson, Brenda J.
    Garritty, Chantelle
    Subnath, Melissa
    Grad, Roland
    Persaud, Navindra
    Theriault, Guylene
    Flemming, Jennifer
    Thombs, Brett D.
    LeBlanc, John
    Kaczorowski, Janusz
    Liu, Peter
    Clark, Christopher E.
    Traversy, Gregory
    Graham, Eva
    Feber, Janusz
    Leenen, Frans H. H.
    Premji, Kamila
    Pap, Robert
    Skidmore, Becky
    Brouwers, Melissa
    Moher, David
    Little, Julian
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [5] Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update
    Nicole Shaver
    Andrew Beck
    Alexandria Bennett
    Brenda J. Wilson
    Chantelle Garritty
    Melissa Subnath
    Roland Grad
    Navindra Persaud
    Guylène Thériault
    Jennifer Flemming
    Brett D. Thombs
    John LeBlanc
    Janusz Kaczorowski
    Peter Liu
    Christopher E. Clark
    Gregory Traversy
    Eva Graham
    Janusz Feber
    Frans H. H. Leenen
    Kamila Premji
    Robert Pap
    Becky Skidmore
    Melissa Brouwers
    David Moher
    Julian Little
    Systematic Reviews, 13
  • [6] Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    Pillay, Jennifer
    Rahman, Sholeh
    Klarenbach, Scott
    Reynolds, Donna L.
    Tessier, Laure A.
    Theriault, Guylene
    Persaud, Nav
    Finley, Christian
    Leighl, Natasha
    Mcinnes, Matthew D. F.
    Garritty, Chantelle
    Traversy, Gregory
    Tan, Maria
    Hartling, Lisa
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 13 (01)
  • [7] Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation
    Nelson, Heidi D.
    Pappas, Miranda
    Cantor, Amy
    Griffin, Jessica
    Daeges, Monica
    Humphrey, Linda
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 164 (04) : 256 - +
  • [8] Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    Jennifer Pillay
    Sholeh Rahman
    Scott Klarenbach
    Donna L. Reynolds
    Laure A. Tessier
    Guylène Thériault
    Nav Persaud
    Christian Finley
    Natasha Leighl
    Matthew D. F. McInnes
    Chantelle Garritty
    Gregory Traversy
    Maria Tan
    Lisa Hartling
    Systematic Reviews, 13
  • [9] Process for guideline development by the reconstituted Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    Gorber, Sarah Connor
    Singh, Harminder
    Pottie, Kevin
    Jaramillo, Alejandra
    Tonelli, Marcello
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2012, 184 (14) : 1575 - 1581
  • [10] Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force
    Nelson, Heidi D.
    Tyne, Kari
    Naik, Arpana
    Bougatsos, Christina
    Chan, Benjamin K.
    Humphrey, Linda
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 151 (10) : 727 - W242