Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-trbww Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T07:13:32.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Case Study: Cancer Screening

from Part III - Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

Karen B. Schmaling
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Robert M. Kaplan
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access

Summary

Screening for breast cancer using mammography is one of the most common medical tests for women aged 50 and older. In the United States, many protocols initiate mammography at ages 40 or 45. Although cancer screening tests are widely advocated, some systematic reviews find little evidence supporting the most common screening tests. Cancer screening clearly identifies lesions at an earlier stage. Yet, when evaluated against cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, screening is less likely to be associated with longer life of higher quality of life. This chapter reviews a series of biases, including lead time bias and length bias, that may explain the discrepancy between enthusiasm for cancer screening and clinical trials that have consistently failed to show benefit. We also review potential harms of screening, such as false positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and anxiety. We conclude that more studies are needed, particularly investigations that include a heterogeneous mix of studies participants.

Type
Chapter
Information
Rethinking Clinical Research
Methodology and Ethics
, pp. 293 - 316
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sung, H, Ferlay, J, Siegel, RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209249.Google ScholarPubMed
Frick, C, Rumgay, H, Vignat, J, et al. Quantitative estimates of preventable and treatable deaths from 36 cancers worldwide: A population-based study. Lancet Global Health. 2023; 11(11):e1700–e1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feirman, SP, Glasser, AM, Teplitskaya, L, et al. Medical costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with smoking: A systematic review. BMC Publ Health. 2016; 16:646. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3319-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonfiglio, R, Scimeca, M, Mauriello, A. The impact of environmental pollution on cancer: Risk mitigation strategies to consider. Sci Total Environ. 2023; 902:166219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiter, A, Veluswamy, RR, Wisnivesky, JP. The global burden of lung cancer: Current status and future trends. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023:116.Google ScholarPubMed
Adami, H-O, Kalager, M, Bretthauer, M. The future of cancer screening – Guided without conflicts of interest. JAMA Intern Med. 2023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, LM, Woloshin, S, Fowler, FJ, Jr., Welch, HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004; 291(1):7178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aronowitz, RA. Do not delay: Breast cancer and time, 1900–1970. Milbank Q. 2001; 79(3):355–86, III.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddy, DM. The frequency of cervical cancer screening. Comparison of a mathematical model with empirical data. Cancer. 1987; 60(5):11171122.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, P, Carnes, M. Is there an age at which we should stop performing screening pap smears and mammography? Cleve Clin J Med. 2002; 69(4):272273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parnes, BL, Smith, PC, Conry, CM, Domke, H. When should we stop mamography screening for breast cancer in elderly women? J Fam Pract. 2001; 50(2):110111.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S, Coleman, EA, Broeders, M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: Current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1998; 27(5):735742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, RM. Shared medical decision making. A new tool for preventive medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 26(1):8183. doi:S0749379703003015 [pii].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, M. re: Reflections on screening mammography and the early detection of breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014; 21(5):215216. doi:10.3747/co.21.2134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, M. “Catch it early, save a life and save a breast”: This misleading mantra of mammography. J R Soc Med. 2015; 108(9):338339. doi:10.1177/0141076815603563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arie, S. Uruguay’s mandatory breast cancer screening for working women aged 40–59 is challenged. BMJ: Brit Med J (Online). 2013; 346:f1907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, M. Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included. BMJ. 2013; 346:f385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woloshin, S, Jørgensen, KJ, Hwang, S, Welch, HG. The new USPSTF mammography recommendations – A dissenting view. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389(12):10611064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gøtzsche, PC, Hróbjartsson, A, Johansen, HK, Haahr, MT, Altman, DG, Chan, A-W. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(1):e19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, L, Gøtzsche, PC, Jefferson, T. Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: Systematic review with meta-analyses of trial data from clinical study reports. Syst Rev. 2020; 9:123.Google ScholarPubMed
Olsen, O, Gøtzsche, PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001; 358(9290):13401342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venkatesan, P. New US breast cancer screening recommendations. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24(6):e242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, JK, Duffy, SW, Baldwin, DR, et al. The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: A pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2016; 20(40):1–146. doi:10.3310/hta20400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabar, L, Fagerberg, G, Chen, HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995; 75(10):25072517.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabár, L, Vitak, B, Chen, TH-H, et al. Swedish two-county trial: Impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011; 260(3):658663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleyer, A, Welch, HG. Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(7):679. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1215494.Google ScholarPubMed
Harding, C, Pompei, F, Burmistrov, D, Welch, HG, Abebe, R, Wilson, R. Breast cancer screening, incidence, and mortality across US counties. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(9):14831489. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, HG. Should I Be Tested for Cancer?: Maybe not and Here’s Why. University of California Press; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, HG. Responding to the challenge of overdiagnosis. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22(8):945946. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, HG, Passow, HJ. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(3):448454. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, KJ, Zahl, P-H, Gøtzsche, PC. Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ. 2010; 340:c1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junod, B, Zahl, P-H, Kaplan, RM, Olsen, J, Greenland, S. An investigation of the apparent breast cancer epidemic in France: Screening and incidence trends in birth cohorts. BMC Cancer. 2011; 11(1):18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahl, P-H, Maehlen, J, Welch, HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(21):23112316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahl, P-H, Strand, BH, Mæhlen, J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: Prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2004; 328(7445):921924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, JD, Jorgensen, KJ. Four principles to consider before advising women on screening mammography. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015. doi:10.1089/jwh.2015.5220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bretthauer, M, Wieszczy, P, Løberg, M, et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2023; 183(11):11961203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleyer, A, Welch, HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(21):19982005. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halsted, WS. William Stewart Halsted. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1912; 23:191.Google Scholar
Sakorafas, GH. The origins of radical mastectomy. AORN J. 2008; 88(4):605608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muhkerjee, S. The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Scribner: A Division of Simon and Schuster; 2011.Google Scholar
Singh, R, Hellman, S, Heimann, R. The natural history of breast carcinoma in the elderly: Implications for screening and treatment. Cancer. 2004; 100(9):18071813. doi:10.1002/cncr.20206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, HG, Gorski, DH, Albertsen, PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer – Lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(18):16851687. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1510443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B, Anderson, S, Bryant, J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(16):12331241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellman, S. Karnofsky Memorial Lecture. Natural history of small breast cancers. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12(10):22292234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, HG. The heterogeneity of cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169(2):207208. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4691-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, WC, Welch, HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328(17):12371243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, T, Semsarian, CR, Barratt, A, et al. Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 199(3):415433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esserman, LJ, Thompson, IM, Jr., Reid, B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: An opportunity for improvement. JAMA. 2013; 310(8):797798. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.108415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chidiac, RM, Aron, DC. Incidentalomas: A disease of modern technology. Endocrinol Metabol Clin. 1997; 26(1):233253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, WC, Welch, HG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 168(1):311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, HG, Black, WC. Evaluating randomized trials of screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12(2):118124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Cancer Society. California Division., California Cancer Registry. California cancer facts & figures. Oakland, CA: American Cancer Society California Division. p. v.Google Scholar
Ansari, KK, Jha, A. Causes of cancer in the world: Comparative risk assessment of nine behavioral and environmental risk factors. Cureus. 2022; 14(9).Google ScholarPubMed
Barratt, A, Howard, K, Irwig, L, Salkeld, G, Houssami, N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005; 330(7497):936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahl, P, Mæhlen, J, Welch, H. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(21):23112316. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.21.2311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahl, PH, Maehlen, J. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Spontaneous regression of breast cancer may not be uncommon. BMJ. 2005; 331(7512):350; author reply 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, M, Demicheli, R, Hrushesky, W, Retsky, M. Does surgery unfavourably perturb the “natural history” of early breast cancer by accelerating the appearance of distant metastases? Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(4):508515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40–74 years. CMAJ. 2011; 183(17):19912001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmot, MG, Altman, D, Cameron, D, Dewar, J, Thompson, S, Wilcox, M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: An independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013; 108(11):22052240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canelo-Aybar, C, Ferreira, DS, Ballesteros, M, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: A systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer. J Med Screening. 2021; 28(4):389404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Working Group. Breast cancer screening with mammography: An updated decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2023. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-modeling-report/breast-cancer-screening-adults.Google Scholar
Henderson, J, Webbe, EM, Weiyrich, M, Miller, M, Melnikow, J. Screening for breast cancer: A comparative effectiveness review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2023. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/breast-cancer-screening-adults.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvin, VL, Kaplan, RM. Screening mammography & breast cancer mortality: Meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies. PloS One. 2014; 9(6):e98105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, HD, Pappas, M, Cantor, A, Griffin, J, Daeges, M, Humphrey, L. Harms of breast cancer screening: Systematic review to update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164(4):256267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, HD, Cantor, A, Humphrey, L, Fu, R, Pappas, M, Daeges, M, Griffin, J. Screening for breast cancer: A systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 124. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05201-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.Google Scholar
Tabar, L, Gad, A, Holmberg, L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985; 325(8433):829832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vo, JB, Ramin, C, Barac, A, Berrington de Gonzalez, A, Veiga, L. Trends in heart disease mortality among breast cancer survivors in the US, 1975–2017. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022; 192(3):611622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, AJ, Dodwell, D, McGale, P, et al. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments: A systematic review of their effects on mortality. Cancer Treat Rev. 2022; 105:102375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Broadcasting Company. Ontario to lower age for regular breast cancer screenings to 40. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-breast-cancer-screening-1.7012294.Google Scholar
Woloshin, S, Jørgensen, KJ, Hwang, S, Welch, HG. The new USPSTF mammography recommendations – A dissenting view. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389(12):10611064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J, Mackenzie, D. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books; 2018.Google Scholar
Lehman, CD, Wellman, RD, Buist, DS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(11):18281837. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenton, JJ. Is it time to stop paying for computer-aided mammography? JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(11):18371838. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jatoi, I, Sung, H, Jemal, A. The emergence of the racial disparity in US breast-cancer mortality. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386(25):23492352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yedjou, CG, Sims, JN, Miele, L, et al. Health and racial disparity in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Metastasis Drug Resist: Challenges Progress. 2019:3149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, N, Gorber, SC, Shane, A, et al. Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test. CMAJ. 2014; 186(16):12251234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, K, Lipsitz, R, Miller, T, Janakiraman, S. Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: An evidence update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149(3):192199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretthauer, M, Løberg, M, Wieszczy, P, et al. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(17):15471556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, SL, Highland, J, Karafa, MT, Joffe, S. Patient advocacy organizations, industry funding, and conflicts of interest. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(3):344350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richman, IB, Long, JB, Soulos, PR, Wang, S-Y, Gross, CP. Estimating breast cancer overdiagnosis after screening mammography among older women in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2023; 176(9):11721180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehan, L, Corrigan, P. Stigma of disease and its impact on health. Wiley Encyclopedia Health Psychol. 2020:5765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, JE, L’Hoyes, W, Lauwens, L, et al. Mortality and major adverse cardiac events in patients with breast cancer receiving radiotherapy: The first decade. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023; 12(8):e027855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCoy, MS, Carniol, M, Chockley, K, Urwin, JW, Emanuel, EJ, Schmidt, H. Conflicts of interest for patient-advocacy organizations. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(9):880885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, MT, Liu, B, Lowy, DR, Gupta, S, Croswell, JM, Doria-Rose, VP. The annual cost of cancer screening in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2024. doi:10.7326/M24-0375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leapman, MS, Wang, R, Park, H, et al. Changes in prostate-specific antigen testing relative to the revised US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on prostate cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2022; 8(1):4147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, L, Aldrighetti, CM, Ghosh, A, et al. Association of the USPSTF grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening with prostate cancer–specific mortality. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(5):e2211869–e2211869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, HG. Dollars and sense: The cost of cancer screening in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2024. doi:10.7326/M24-0887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×