Search

Objective Fluctuations in the incidence of breast cancer in Norway in the last three decades are partly explained by the use of hormone replacement therapy and mammography screening, but overdiagnosis has also been suggested as a cause. We assessed the trends in breast cancer incidence and overdiagnosis in Norway. Methods We calibrated our microsimulation model to Norwegian Cancer Registration data. The model takes into account the use of mammography (both within and outside the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme) and of hormone replacement therapy. We obtained a proper fit of breast cancer incidence in recent years, when assuming an increase in the background risk for breast cancer, and estimated overdiagnosis. Results We estimated a 2% overdiagnosis rate as a fraction of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 50–100, and a 3% overdiagnosis rate as a fraction of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 50–70 (i.e. screening age). If all of the increased incidence would be the result of the detection of slow growing tumours, these estimates were 7% and 11%, respectively. Conclusion Besides mammography and hormone replacement therapy use, additional risk factors contributed to the sudden increase in breast cancer incidence in Norway. Overdiagnosis estimates due to screening were within the range of international plausible estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that assesses the impact of screening of excess mortality in men with prostate cancer (PC). It outlines the method of the study which observes a total of 141,578 men aged 55-69 who have undergone randomized to systematic screening or usual care in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). It notes the result of the study which indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in ERSPC trial was not due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.

Objective To study psychosocial predictors of attendance at an organised breast cancer screening programme. Setting Finnish screening programme based on personal first round invitations in 1992–94, and with 90% attendance rate. Methods Attenders (n=946) belonged to a 10% random sample (n=1680 women, age 50, response rate 64%) of the target population (n=16 886), non-attenders (n=641, 38%) came from the whole target population. Predictors were measured one month before the screening invitation. Measures included items for social and behavioural factors, Breast Cancer Susceptibility Scale, Illness Attitude Scale, Health Locus of Control Scale, Anxiety Inventory, and Depression Inventory. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to predict attendance. Results Those most likely to attend were working, middle income, and averagely educated women, who had not had a mass mammogram recently, but who regularly visited gynaecologists, attended for Pap smear screening, practised breast self examination, and who did not smoke. Low confidence in their own capabilities in breast cancer prevention, overoptimism about the sensitivity of mammography, and perception of breast cancer risk as moderate were also predictive of attendance. Expectation of pain at mammography was predictive of non-attendance. Conclusion Mammography screening organised as a public health service was well accepted. A recent mammogram, high reliance on self control of breast cancer, and an expectation of pain at mammography deterred attendance at screening. Further information about these factors and health information on screening are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]