Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • 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
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • 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 & 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
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Breast cancer guidelines

Gregory Doyle
CMAJ May 15, 2012 184 (8) 921-922; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.112-2041
Gregory Doyle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The recent screening guidelines for breast cancer1 by the Canadian Taskforce on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) have clarified the state of the science behind screening; however, many women and clinicians have expressed concerns. The new guidelines are nuanced and further discussion from the perspective of population-based screening is deserved.

The publication1 stated that the previous guidelines advised women aged 50–69 to have mammograms annually. In fact, CTFPHC previously recommended screening every one to two years. Average-risk women aged 50–69 do not routinely receive annual mammography in Canada. The new guidelines are similar to current practice in Canada. About 70% of women aged 50–69 have had mammography within a 30-month time period.2 Further, about 25% of women aged 40–49 have had annual mammography.

The new guidelines provide a “weak” level recommendation regarding routine screening with mammography for average-risk women aged 40–49 and aged 50–74.1 A weak recommendation implies some degree of choice based on individual circumstances. Clinicians must assist women in making informed choices consistent with the woman’s understanding of harms, benefits and personal values and preferences. In consideration of informed choice, the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative (CBCSI), which includes representation from all providers of population-based breast cancer screening in Canada, has produced a decision aid (www.publichealth.gc.ca/decisionaids). An online continuing medical education course related to breast cancer screening is also in development.

In Canada, the age-standardized mortality rate for breast cancer has fallen by more than 35% since 1986.3 The most significant drop occurred after 1996, which was six to eight years after the introduction of population-based screening programs in Canada and improved quality of mammography. The decline in mortality is attributable to both the uptake in screening and the use of more effective adjuvant therapies.4 The age-standardized incidence rate for breast cancer in Canada has remained relatively unchanged for twenty years.

The new guidelines look at the harms and benefits of screening mammography, as well as the values and preferences of the patient. Organized, high-quality, population-based breast cancer screening programs are an important public health initiative. Screening programs with comprehensive quality assurance and evaluation of program performance have shown to be more effective than screening that is not organized.5,6 Early detection, in combination with appropriate treatment significantly lowers breast cancer mortality and improves the quality of life of patients with breast cancer.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Tonelli M,
    2. Gorber SC,
    3. Joffres M
    ; The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40–74 years. CMAJ 2011;183:1991–2001.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Doyle GP,
    2. Major D,
    3. Chu C,
    4. et al
    . A review of screening mammography participation and utilization in Canada. Chronic Dis Inj Can 2011;31:152–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Canadian Cancer Society’s Steering Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian cancer statistics 2011. Toronto (ON): Canadian Cancer Society; 2011.
  4. ↵
    1. Berry DA,
    2. Cronin K,
    3. Plevritis S,
    4. et al
    . Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Duffy SW,
    2. Tabár L,
    3. Chen HH,
    4. et al
    . The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jonsson H,
    2. Nyström L,
    3. Törnberg S,
    4. et al
    . Service screening with mammography of women aged 50–69 years in Sweden: effects on mortality from breast cancer. J Med Screen 2001;8:152–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 184 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 184, Issue 8
15 May 2012
  • 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.
Breast cancer guidelines
(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
Breast cancer guidelines
Gregory Doyle
CMAJ May 2012, 184 (8) 921-922; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.112-2041

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Breast cancer guidelines
Gregory Doyle
CMAJ May 2012, 184 (8) 921-922; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.112-2041
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...

  • Breast cancer guidelines
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • An expanded role for blood donor emerging pathogens surveillance
  • Beyond wastewater surveillance: refining environmental pathogen detection in the built environment
  • Observational evidence in support of screening for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

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