Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
In the Literature

Does mammography save lives?

John Hoey
CMAJ April 30, 2002 166 (9) 1187-1188;
John Hoey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Miettinen OS, Henschke CI, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, Libby DM, Yankelevitz DF. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet 2002;359:404-5.

Background: A Cochrane meta-analysis by Olsen and Gøtzsche,1 in which the authors conclude that “there is no reliable evidence that screening for breast cancer reduces mortality,” has fuelled the debate about whether mammography saves lives. This conclusion has confused clinicians and their patients, who have been told that screening is recommended for women over age 50 in Canada2 and over age 40 in the United States.3

The Cochrane analysis reviewed all clinical trials of breast cancer screening, but only 2 of them met the authors' standards for trial quality: a study conducted in Malmö, Sweden, that followed women for 11 years after study entry4 and a Canadian randomized clinical trial by Miller and colleagues that had a follow-up of 3 to 4 years.5,6 In the Malmö study, there were 63 deaths from breast cancer in the screened group and 66 in the control group, a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–1.35).

However, a reanalysis of the Malmö study data by Miettinen and colleagues7 has produced a different conclusion and has highlighted the importance of determining the appropriate measure of the usefulness of a screening regimen. Miettinen previously pointed out that screening for early disease detection must be founded on the assumption that starting treatment earlier in detected cases is more likely to cure the disease than starting treatment later in unscreened patients.8 Thus, if we are evaluating screening trials, we should expect to see a benefit, not immediately at the time of screening, but some time later when patients, after having received the treatment, would begin to show the benefit of earlier treatment. For an indolent disease such as breast cancer, this period could easily be delayed for several years. Miettinen and colleagues thus set out to determine if this delayed effect was true in the Malmö study. (They did not examine the Canadian studies because, they reasoned, the follow-up of only 3 to 4 years after screening was too short to show an effect on breast cancer deaths from the screening program.)

Question: Does the Malmö study of breast cancer screening show a benefit of screening and early treatment, after an appropriate amount of time has elapsed in the study period?

Methods: Miettinen and colleagues examined data available from the Malmö trial for women 55 years of age or older at study entry. They compared deaths from breast cancer in the screened and control groups by year since entry to the trial and determined 3-year moving averages for the 2 populations. They reported the mortality rate ratio and 95% CI specific to each of the successive years after entry into the trial.

Results: There was a statistically significant drop in breast cancer mortality rates that began 6 years after entry into the trial (Fig. 1). In the first 5 years after entry the rates were higher in the screened group than in the control group. After the sixth year, the rates were lower in the screened group than in the control group. On the basis of data for years 8 to 11 (the last year for which data were available), the rate ratio is 0.45 (95% CI 0.24–0.84).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Fig. 1: Breast cancer mortality ratio for women at least 55 years of age in the Malmö study. Shown are point estimates and 95% confidence intervals, based on the deaths in the year at issue together with those in the preceding and following years. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science ( Lancet 2002;359:404-5).

Commentary: This is an important study. It has a clinical resonance that makes sense. As Miettinen previously argued,9 it is imperative that trialists get the purpose or object of their study right. One might quibble with the choice of interval for the analysis. Is a 6-year delay too long, or too short? The authors, although they chose years 6 to 11, present the data for all years.

Implications for practice: Physicians should not be too hasty in rejecting mammography for women 55 years of age or older. In addition, they should be skeptical when evaluating reports of screening trials that measure outcomes from the time of entry into the trial. Doing so usually makes no clinical sense.

John Hoey CMAJ

References

  1. 1.↵
    Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review of screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Morrison BJ. Screening for breast cancer. In: Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group; 1994. p. 788-95.
  3. 3.↵
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer. 2002. Available: www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer (accessed 2002 Apr 2).
  4. 4.↵
    Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 1992;147(10):1459-76.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  6. 6.↵
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992;147(10):1477-88.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  7. 7.↵
    Miettinen OS, Henschke CI, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, Libby DM, Yankelevitz DF. Mammographic screening: No reliable supporting evidence? Lancet 2002;359:404-5. Enhanced pdf version available: http://image.thelancet.com/extras/1093web.pdf (accessed 2002 Mar 29).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Miettinen OS. The modern scientific physician: 6. The useful property of a screening regimen. CMAJ 2001;165(9):1219-20.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Miettinen OS. Evidence in medicine: invited commentary [editorial]. CMAJ 1998;158(2):215-21.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 166, Issue 9
30 Apr 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does mammography save lives?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Does mammography save lives?
John Hoey
CMAJ Apr 2002, 166 (9) 1187-1188;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Does mammography save lives?
John Hoey
CMAJ Apr 2002, 166 (9) 1187-1188;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?
  • Bisphosphonates and skeletal morbidity in patients with metastatic cancer
  • ACE inhibition in stable coronary artery disease
Show more In the Literature

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cancer: breast
    • Screening & diagnostic tests

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire