Search

Background: The efficacy of breast cancer screening in women age 40 to 49 years remains controversial.Objective: To compare breast cancer mortality in 40- to 49-year-old women who received either 1) screening with annual mammography, breast physical examination, and instruction on breast self-examination on 4 or 5 occasions or 2) community care after a single breast physical examination and instruction on breast self-examination.Design: Individually randomized, controlled trial.Setting: 15 Canadian centers.Participants: 50 430 volunteers age 40 to 49 years, recruited from January 1980 to March 1985, who were not pregnant, had no previous breast cancer diagnosis, and had not had mammography in the preceding 12 months.Interventions: Breast physical examination and instruction on breast self-examination preceded random assignment of 25 214 women to receive mammography and annual mammography, breast physical examination, and breast self-examination and 25 216 women to receive usual community care with annual follow-up.Measurements: Verified breast cancer incidence and cohort mortality through 31 December 1993 and deaths from breast cancer through 30 June 1996.Results: The 105 breast cancer deaths in the mammography group and 108 breast cancer deaths in the usual care group yielded a cumulative rate ratio, adjusted for mammography done outside the study, of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.40). A total of 592 cases of invasive breast cancer and 71 cases of in situ breast cancer were diagnosed by 31 December 1993 in the mammography group compared with 552 and 29 cases, respectively, in the usual care group. The expected proportions of nonpalpable and small invasive tumors were detected on mammography.Conclusion: After 11 to 16 years of follow-up, four or five annual screenings with mammography, breast physical examination, and breast self-examination had not reduced breast cancer mortality compared with usual community care after a single breast physical examination and instruction on breast self-examination. The study data show that true effects of 20% or greater are unlikely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical breast exam is an integral part of a complete breast cancer screening program. The essential elements of a thorough exam enable the detection of subtle changes in breast tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screening for breast cancer with mammography in women aged 50 years or more has been shown to reduce mortality from breast cancer. However, the extent to which mammography contributes to the reduction of mortality in women who also undergo physical examination of the breasts is not known. This study was designed to compare breast cancer mortality following annual screening consisting of two-view mammography and physical examination of the breasts with mortality following annual screening by physical examination only. Breast self-examination was taught to all participants.Methods: This trial randomly and individually assigned 39 405 women aged 50-59 years, recruited from January 1980 through March 1985, to one of the study arms. The women were followed by record linkage with the Canadian National Cancer Registry and National Mortality Database to December 31, 1993, and by active follow-up of breast cancer patients to June 30, 1996.Results: Randomization achieved virtually equal distribution of demographic and breast cancer risk variables. At the first annual screen, 21% of the cancers found by mammography alone (in the mammography plus physical examination group) were 20 mm or more in size compared with 46% of those found by physical examination in the mammography plus physical examination group and 56% in the physical examination-only group. The corresponding percentages for screens 2-5 were 10%, 42%, and 50%, respectively. Screening detected 267 invasive breast cancers in the mammography plus physical examination group compared with 148 in the physical examination-only group. By December 31, 1993, 622 invasive and 71 in situ breast carcinomas were ascertained in the mammography plus physical examination group, and 610 and 16 were ascertained in the physical examination-only group. At 13-year follow-up, with 107 and 105 deaths from breast cancer in the respective groups, the cumulative rate ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval = 0.78-1.33).Conclusion: In women aged 50-59 years, the addition of annual mammography screening to physical examination has no impact on breast cancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have re-estimated overdiagnosis of breast cancer from mammography screening by age group in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS), a randomized screening trial. In the CNBSS, participants were recruited in 15 centers. 89,835 women were randomized with informed consent, 50,430 age 40-49 and 39,405 age 50-59. Women aged 40-49 received annual mammography and physical examination (MA+PX) versus a single physical examination and usual care in the community (UC). Women aged 50-59 received (MA+PX) versus (PX-alone) annually. Individual randomization resulted in 44 almost identically distributed demographic and risk factors. Annual compliance over the five or four scheduled screens was 86-95%. The cumulative numbers of invasive and in situ breast cancers ascertained by year during screening and subsequent follow-up to 25 years post entry to the CNBSS in the mammography arm have been compared to those in the control arm. Estimates of overdiagnosis were derived using post-screening cessation cut-off points from 1 to 20years.⋯Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer at five years post cessation of screening for women aged 40-49 was estimated to be 32%, and 16% for women aged 50-59; 20years post cessation of screening 48% for women 40-49 and 5% for those 50-59. Including ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive cancer, estimates were 41%, 25%, 55% and 16%, respectively. We conclude that approximately 30% of invasive screen-detected breast cancers in women age 40-49 were overdiagnosed, and 20% of those screen-detected in women age 50-59. Including ductal carcinoma in situ, the estimates are 40% and 30%, respectively., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study measures the probability of development of invasive breast cancer (BC) following the diagnosis of carcinomas in situ (CIS). A 25-year prospective follow-up was conducted by linking the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS) to cancer registries and a national vital statistics database. Subsequent BC incidence was identified in CNBSS women who were diagnosed with CIS. CIS was classified into ductal (DCIS) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Cumulative cancer incidence probabilities were calculated and a 1:5 matched nested case control study was conducted to estimate the odds of BC development. Of the 146 women diagnosed with CIS, 26 developed invasive BC (17.8%) and 12 died of BC (8.2%). The average time from the diagnosis of CIS to invasive BC was 6.3 years (± 5.6). The 20-year cumulative incidence probabilities for DCIS and LCIS were 19.0% (95%CI: 11.2, 26.8) and 21.3% (95%CI: 7.1, 35.4) respectively. The odds of development of BC in CIS women was significantly elevated compared with controls (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5, 4.5). While women with CIS had a higher odds of development of BC compared to those without CIS, at 20-year post CIS diagnosis, more than 80% of them remained free of invasive BC. This low probability of developing invasive BC post CIS diagnosis does not support the notion that CIS of the breast is an obligate precursor lesion of invasive BC., (© 2014 UICC.)

Objective: To compare breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening., Design: Follow-up of randomised screening trial by centre coordinators, the study's central office, and linkage to cancer registries and vital statistics databases., Setting: 15 screening centres in six Canadian provinces,1980-85 (Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia)., Participants: 89,835 women, aged 40-59, randomly assigned to mammography (five annual mammography screens) or control (no mammography)., Interventions: Women aged 40-49 in the mammography arm and all women aged 50-59 in both arms received annual physical breast examinations. Women aged 40-49 in the control arm received a single examination followed by usual care in the community., Main Outcome Measure: Deaths from breast cancer., Results: During the five year screening period, 666 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the mammography arm (n=44,925 participants) and 524 in the controls (n=44,910), and of these, 180 women in the mammography arm and 171 women in the control arm died of breast cancer during the 25 year follow-up period. The overall hazard ratio for death from breast cancer diagnosed during the screening period associated with mammography was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.30). The findings for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 were almost identical. During the entire study period, 3250 women in the mammography arm and 3133 in the control arm had a diagnosis of breast cancer, and 500 and 505, respectively, died of breast cancer. Thus the cumulative mortality from breast cancer was similar between women in the mammography arm and in the control arm (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.12). After 15 years of follow-up a residual excess of 106 cancers was observed in the mammography arm, attributable to over-diagnosis., Conclusion: Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22% (106/484) of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.

The efficacy of screening by clinical breast examination (CBE) and/or breast self-examination (BSE) is reviewed using indirect evidence from randomized breast screening trials and that from observational studies. In countries where breast cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage, screening by CBE with the teaching of BSE as an integral component will probably be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. However, in technically advanced countries where adequate treatment is given, no screening modality is likely to be sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the harms of screening, especially false positives and over-diagnosis., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evidence on the efficacy of breast screening from randomized controlled trials conducted in the last decades of the 1900s is reviewed. For decades, controversy about their results has centered on the magnitude of benefit in terms of breast cancer mortality reduction that can be achieved. However more recently, several expert bodies have estimated the benefits to be smaller than initially expected and concerns have been raised about screening consequences such as over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. Trials with substantial mortality reduction have been lauded and others with null effects have been critiqued. Critiques of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study are refuted. Extreme responses by screening advocates to the United States Preventive Services Task Force 2009 guidelines are described. The role vested interests play in determining health policy is clearly revealed in the response to the guidelines and should be more generally known. A general reluctance to explore unexpected results or to accept new paradigms is briefly discussed.

Background: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has an estimated American prevalence of 15%, and no consistently abnormal laboratory tests are available to assist in its diagnosis. Some physicians treating MCS patients have observed changes in intra-erythrocytic minerals (IEMs). As co-factors, minerals could influence detoxication of xenobiotics., Aim: To test whether IEM differed comparing MCS cases with controls., Methods: A total of 408 women meeting validated inclusion and exclusion criteria for MCS participated in this case-control study., Results: No statistically significant differences were observed. However, for copper, chromium, magnesium, molybdenum, sulphur and zinc, mean detectable levels were all lower in cases. No dose-response relationships were found., Conclusion: IEM measurements do not appear to provide useful diagnostic markers for MCS.

Most Americans clearly believe that routine screening mammography is beneficial. Given its widespread acceptance, it is useful to consider what the downsides of mammography screening are so that patients are fully informed in the decisions they make. This article lists some less well-recognized risks of mammography, such as false negatives and their accompanying false reassurance, as well as the direct and indirect costs to women and society. Three important downsides-radiation hazard, overdiagnosis of breast cancer, and the paradoxical increase in breast cancer mortality observed in screened women compared to controls age 40-49 years-are addressed. The article also considers the reasons that women are poorly informed about the downsides of mammography. There is, however, agreement that early diagnosis and treatment are important, and that new methods to reduce breast cancer deaths must be sought.

Background: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), although poorly understood, is associated with considerable morbidity., Aim: To investigate potential biological mechanisms underlying MCS in a case-control study., Methods: Two hundred and twenty-three MCS cases and 194 controls (urban females, aged 30-64 years) fulfilled reproducible eligibility criteria with discriminant validity. Routine laboratory results and serum levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were compared. Dose-response relationships, a criterion for causality, were examined linking exposures to likelihood of case status., Results: Routine laboratory investigations revealed clinically unimportant case-control differences in means. Confounder-adjusted odds ratios (OR) showed MCS was negatively associated with lymphocyte count and total plasma homocysteine, positively associated with mean cell haemoglobin concentration, alanine aminotransferase and serum vitamin B6, and not associated with thyroid stimulating hormone, folate or serum vitamin B12. More cases than controls had detectable serum chloroform (P = 0.001) with the OR for detectability 2.78 (95% confidence interval = 1.73-4.48, P < 0.001). Chloroform levels were higher in cases. However, cases had significantly lower means of detectable serum levels of ethylbenzene, m&p-xylene, 3-methylpentane and hexane, and means of all serum levels of 1,3,5- and 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, 2- and 3-methylpentane, and m&p-xylene., Conclusions: Our findings are inconsistent with proposals that MCS is associated with vitamin deficiency or thyroid dysfunction, but the association of lower lymphocyte counts with an increased likelihood of MCS is consistent with theories of immune dysfunction in MCS. Whether avoidance of exposures or different metabolic pathways in cases explain the observed lower VOC levels or the higher chloroform levels should be investigated.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35-44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33-1.61, P<0.00001) for >/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver.

In this study, the authors used the University of Toronto's Health Survey self-administered questionnaire to determine discriminant validity of multiple chemical sensitivity definitions. The authors distributed a total of 4,126 questionnaires to adults who attended general, allergy, occupational, and environmental health practices. The authors then matched responses to features selected from existing case definitions posited by Thomson et al.; the National Research Council; Cullen; Ashford and Miller; Randolph; Nethercott et al.; and the 1999 Consensus (references 4-7, 2, 9, and 10, respectively, herein). The overall response rate was 61.7%. The prevalence of reported symptoms was lowest in general practices, was intermediate in occupational health and allergy practices, and was highest in environmental health practices. Features from the definitions presented by Nethercott et al. and the 1999 Consensus (references 9 and 10, respectively, herein) correctly identified more than 80% of environmental health practice patients and more than 70% of general practice patients. Combinations of 4 symptoms (i.e., having a stronger sense of smell than others, feeling dull/groggy, feeling "spacey," and having difficulty concentrating) also discriminated successfully. In summary, features from 2 of 7 case definitions assessed by the University of Toronto Health Survey achieved good discrimination and identified patients with an increased likelihood of multiple chemical sensitivity.

Environmental sensitivity patients report symptoms provoked by low-level exposure to a wide range of substances. Features of published case definitions include nature of onset, chronicity, symptom provocation by multiple substances, symptom provocation by an escalating number of exposures, involvement of multiple body systems including the nervous system, provocation by unrelated substances, and addictive behaviors. This study assessed the reproducibility of a Canadian self-administered questionnaire, the University of Toronto Health Survey, designed to determine the prevalence of the features described in these case definitions. A total of 191 eligible respondents aged 16-70 years who attended several types of medical practices in 1994 were invited to complete a second questionnaire 5-7 months after the first; 134 (70.2%) complied. Total agreement on whether patients satisfied each of seven case definitions ranged from 80% to 90%. After adjustment for chance, major agreement was observed for three of the seven case definitions (kappa = 0.69, 0.68, and 0.78). The survey achieved good reproducibility regarding self-report of symptoms described in published case definitions of environmental sensitivity.

In response to concerns about contamination of human breast milk from silicone gel-filled breast implants, and because silicon levels are assumed to be a proxy measurement for silicone, we compared silicon levels in milk from lactating women with and without implants. Two other sources of infant nutrition, cow's milk and infant formulas, were also analyzed for silicon. The survey took place at the Breast-feeding Clinic at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. A convenience sample of lactating women, 15 with bilateral silicone gel-filled implants and 34 with no implants, was selected. Women with foam-covered or saline implants or with medically related silicone exposures were ineligible. Collection of samples was scrupulously controlled to avoid contamination. Samples were prepared in a class 100 "ultraclean" laboratory and analyzed using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Silicon levels were analyzed in breast milk, whole blood, cow's milk, and 26 brands of infant formulas. Comparing implanted women to controls, mean silicon levels were not significantly different in breast milk (55.45 +/- 35 and 51.05 +/- 31 ng/ml, respectively) or in blood (79.29 +/- 87 and 103.76 +/- 112 ng/ml, respectively). Mean silicon level measured in store-bought cow's milk was 708.94 ng/ml, and that for 26 brands of commercially available infant formula was 4402.5 ng/ml (ng/ml = parts per billion). We concluded that lactating women with silicone implants are similar to control women with respect to levels of silicon in their breast milk and blood. Silicon levels are 10 times higher in cow's milk and even higher in infant formulas.

Objective: To measure the effect of breast self-examination (BSE) technique and frequency on the risk of death from breast cancer., Design: Case-control study nested within the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS)., Setting: The Canadian NBSS, a multicentre randomized controlled trial of screening for breast cancer in Canadian women., Subjects: The case subjects were 163 women who had died from breast cancer and 57 women with distant metastases. Ten control subjects matched by 5-year age group, screening centre, year of enrolment and random allocation group were randomly selected for each case subject., Exposure Measures: Self-reported BSE frequency before enrolment in the NBSS, annual self-reports of BSE frequency during the program and annual objective assessments of BSE technique., Outcome Measures: Odds ratios (ORs) associated with BSE practice were estimated by conditional multiple logistic regression modelling, which permitted control of covariates., Results: Relative to women who, when assessed 2 years before diagnosis, examined their breasts visually, used their finger pads for palpation and examined with their 3 middle fingers, the OR for death from breast cancer or distant metastatic disease for women who omitted 1, 2 or 3 of these components was 2.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 3.71, p = 0.003). The OR for women who omitted 1 of the 3 components was 1.82 (95% CI 1.00 to 3.29, p = 0.05), for those who omitted 2 of the 3 components, 2.84 (95% CI 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.003), and for those who omitted all 3 components, 2.95 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.30, p = 0.02). The results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounders., Conclusion: The results, obtained with the use of prospectively collected data, suggest that the performance of specific BSE components may reduce the risk of death from breast cancer.

Background: The efficacy of breast carcinoma screening should be enhanced if false-negative mammography were reduced. Prospectively collected data from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study were used to examine whether menstrual cycle phase was associated with false-negative outcomes for mammographic screening., Methods: Of 8887 women ages 40-44 years at the onset of screening, randomized to receive annual mammography and clinical breast examination, reporting menstruation no more than 28 days prior to their screening examination, and with a valid radiologic report, 1898 had never used oral contraceptives or replacement estrogen with or without progesterone. The remainder were past (6573) and current (416) estrogen users. Similar selection criteria were applied at subsequent screens. The distribution of false-negative and false-positive mammography in relation to true-negative and true-positive mammography was examined with respect to the follicular (Days 1 to 14) and luteal (Days 15-28) menstrual phases., Results: Comparing luteal with follicular mammograms in 6989 patients who ever used estrogen, the unadjusted odds ratio (2-sided P-values) for false-negatives versus true-negatives was 2.16 (0.05) and the adjusted odds ratio was 1.47 (0.05). In 1898 never-users, parallel odds ratios for luteal false-negatives were 0.55 (1.0) and 0.74 (1.0), respectively., Conclusions: These results suggest that menstruating women who have used hormones may have an increased risk of false-negative results for screening mammograms performed in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. An increased risk of false-negative mammography might adversely affect screening efficacy. The impact of menstrual phase on mammographic interpretation, especially for women who ever used hormones, requires further investigation.