Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • 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
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
In the Literature

Mammography screening among women aged 40–49 years shows no benefit

John Hoey
CMAJ October 15, 2002 167 (8) 898;
John Hoey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305-12.

Background: Although screening mammography appears to reduce breast cancer mortality among women 50 years and over, the benefits for women aged 40–49 remain murky. Most trials were of short duration, and critics point out the obvious that any mortality benefit would be revealed only with longer follow-up.

The first report of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1 (CNBSS-1), involving women 40–49 at entry, showed no significant difference in breast cancer mortality between those in the screening mammography group and those in the usual care group after 7 years' follow-up.1 In the latest report Miller and colleagues look at the data after 11–16 years' follow-up.

Question: Does combined screening (with longer follow-up) of women aged 40–49 years with annual mammography and clinical breast examination lead to a reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with a single breast examination and usual care thereafter?

Design: Women aged 40–49 were recruited between January 1980 and March 1985. None had a previous diagnosis of breast cancer. After an initial clinical breast examination and instruction on breast self-examination participants were randomly assigned to receive either annual screening with mammography and clinical breast examination (n = 25 214) or usual care (n = 25 216). The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. Follow-up was done through annual questionnaires sent to the participants and their physicians and by record linkages to the National Cancer Registry and the Canadian Mortality Database.

Results: Women were followed for 11–16 years (mean 13). In the mammography group 62% of the women underwent all 5 annual screenings; the remainder, recruited later, underwent 4. With follow-up complete to June 30, 1996, slightly fewer women in the screened group than in the usual care group died of breast cancer (105 v. 108). Restricting analysis to deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the first 5 years after entry, more women in the screened group than in the usual care group died (64 v. 60; cumulative rate ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.52).

Invasive breast cancer was more common in the screened group than in the usual care group at 5 years' follow-up (290 v. 237 cases). This difference was also evident at 14 years' follow-up (592 v. 552). Tumours detected through screening tended to be smaller than those found in the usual care group: at the first screening 81% of tumours were less than 20 mm in diameter, as compared with 50% in the usual care group).

Commentary: The latest CNBSS-1 data continue to show no benefit of breast cancer screening for women aged 40–49. However, a recent meta-analysis of data from 8 randomized controlled trials of screening mammography among women 40–49 at entry, with follow-up of 12.7 years on average, showed a reduction of 18% in breast cancer mortality among screened women compared with those in control groups (breast cancer mortality rate ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.71–0.95).2

What could explain this discrepancy? Miller and colleagues mention the controversy over randomization in the CNBSS trials3 and the inferior quality of mammograms taken 20 years ago compared with those obtained with more recent technology. They also mention the problem of contamination in the usual care group: 26% of those women had 1 or more mammograms. It is unclear whether they were for screening or for an evaluation of suspected breast cancer after physical examination. The authors also analyzed the data by removing women in both groups who had cancer detected by physical examination alone at enrolment; the results did not change.

Implications for practice: The debate about mammography for women aged 40–49 continues. There is even renewed debate about benefits for older women.4 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination, every 1–2 years for women 40 and older.5 The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care states that screening mammography for women 40–49 is not supported by available evidence6 and that teaching women of any age in the techniques of breast self-examination is harmful.7 Clinicians and women will have to make up their own minds, balancing the facts of the high frequency of breast cancer and the known hazards of screening (increased frequency of surgical procedures and, if cancer is found, living with the knowledge of having cancer) with the increasingly doubtful benefits of screening.

John Hoey CMAJ

References

  1. 1.↵
    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
  2. 2.↵
    Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH III, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;(22):87-92.
  3. 3.↵
    Bailar JC III, MacMahon B. Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion. CMAJ 1997; 156 (2): 193-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Ringash J, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40–49 years at average risk of breast cancer. CMAJ 2001;164(4):469-76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Baxter N, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: Should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 2001;164(13):1837-46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 167, Issue 8
15 Oct 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.
Mammography screening among women aged 40–49 years shows no benefit
(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
Mammography screening among women aged 40–49 years shows no benefit
John Hoey
CMAJ Oct 2002, 167 (8) 898;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Mammography screening among women aged 40–49 years shows no benefit
John Hoey
CMAJ Oct 2002, 167 (8) 898;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • 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
  • CPD credits
  • 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 2023, 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