Search

Background Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. Conclusions In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Objectives Mammography screening is generally accepted in women aged 50-69, but the balance between benefits and harms remains controversial in other age groups. This study systematically reviews these effects to inform the European Breast Cancer Guidelines. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of observational studies in the absence of RCTs comparing invitation to mammography screening to no invitation in women at average breast cancer (BC) risk. We extracted data for mortality, BC stage, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy provision, overdiagnosis and false-positive-related adverse effects. We performed a pooled analysis of relative risks, applying an inverse-variance random-effects model for three age groups (

Background Diagnostic mammography projections (DxMM) have been traditionally used in the assessment of women recalled after a suspicious screening mammogram. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reduces the tissue overlap effect, thus improving image assessment. Some studies have suggested DBT might replace DxMM with at least equivalent performance. Objective To evaluate the replacement of DxMM with DBT in women recalled at screening. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify diagnostic paired cohort studies or RCTs comparing DBT vs DxMM, published in English that: reported accuracy outcomes, recruited women recalled for assessment at mammography screening, and included a reference standard. Subgroup analysis was performed over lesion characteristics. We provided pooled accuracy estimates and differences between tests using a quadrivariate model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included ten studies that reported specificity and sensitivity. One study included 7060 women while the remaining included between 52 and 738 women. DBT compared with DxMM showed a pooled difference for the sensitivity of 2% (95% CI 1%-3%) and a pooled difference for the specificity of 6% (95%CI 2%-11%). Restricting the analysis to the six studies that included women with microcalcification lesions gave similar results. In the context of a prevalence of 21% of breast cancer (BC) in recalled women, DBT probably detects 4 (95% CI 2-6) more BC cases and has 47 (95%CI 16-87) fewer false-positive results per 1000 assessments. The certainty of the evidence was moderate due to risk of bias. Conclusion The evidence in the assessment of screen-recalled findings with DBT is sparse and of moderate certainty. DBT probably has higher sensitivity and specificity than DxMM. Women, health care providers and policymakers might value as relevant the reduction of false-positive results and related fewer invasive diagnostic procedures with DBT, without missing BC cases.

Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

Neither breast cancer prevention and early-detection programs, nor their outcomes, are uniform across Europe. This article describes the rationale, methods, and process for development of the European Commission ( EC) Initiative on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. To be consistent with standards set by the Institute of Medicine and others, the EC followed 6 general principles. First, the EC selected, via an open call, a panel with broad representation of areas of expertise. Second, it ensured that all recommendations were supported by systematic reviews. Third, the EC separately considered important subgroups of women, included patient advocates in the guidelines development group, and focused on good communication to inform women's decisions. Fourth, EC rules on conflicts of interest were followed and the GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests. Fifth, it focused its recommendations on outcomes that matter to women, and certainty of the evidence is rated for each. Sixth, the EC elicited stakeholder feedback to ensure that the recommendations remain up to date and relevant to practice. This article describes the approach and highlights ways of disseminating and adapting the recommendations both within and outside Europe, using innovative information technology tools.