Review quantifies benefits, harms of mammography

Review quantifies benefits, harms of mammography
The benefits and harms of screening mammography have been quantified in a special communication published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

(HealthDay)—The benefits and harms of screening mammography have been quantified in a special communication published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H., and Honor J. Passow, Ph.D., from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Hanover, N.H., provide a range of estimates for the absolute frequency of breast cancer deaths avoided, false alarms, and overdiagnosis associated with screening mammography. Data were used from nine and are specific to the United States.

The researchers found that, among 1,000 U.S. women aged 50 years who underwent annual screening for 10 years, 0.3 to 3.2 will avoid a death; 490 to 670 will experience one or more false alarms; and overdiagnosis and needless treatment will affect three to 14.

"We hope that these data are sufficient for some women to make the decision about whether or not to be screened," the authors conclude. "Some may choose to pursue screening, valuing any potential for benefit as warranting the accompanying harms. Others may choose not to pursue screening, valuing the plausible range for the magnitude of the harms as being too great to justify pursuing the relatively small benefit."

More information: Abstract
Full Text

Journal information: JAMA Internal Medicine

Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation: Review quantifies benefits, harms of mammography (2014, January 5) retrieved 25 April 2024 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-quantifies-benefits-mammography.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Benefit of breast cancer screening more consistent across studies than previously understood

 shares

Feedback to editors