Back

Screening for breast cancer: A systematic review update to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline

Bennett, A.; Shaver, N.; Vyas, N.; Almoli, F.; Pap, R.; Douglas, A.; Kibret, T.; Skidmore, B.; Yaffe, M.; Wilkinson, A.; Seely, J.; Little, J.; Moher, D.

2024-05-31 oncology
10.1101/2024.05.29.24308154 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis systematic review update synthesized recent evidence on the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in women aged [≥] 40 years and aims to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Cares (CTFPHC) guideline update. MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, Embase Classic+Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to update our searches to July 8, 2023. Search results for observational studies were limited to publication dates from 2014 to capture more relevant studies. Screening was performed independently and in duplicate by the review team. To expedite the screening process, machine learning was used to prioritize relevant references. Critical health outcomes, as outlined by the CTFPHC, included breast cancer and all-cause mortality, treatment-related morbidity, and overdiagnosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non/quasi RCTs, and observational studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for non-randomized and observational studies. When deemed appropriate, studies were pooled via random-effects models. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed following GRADE guidance. ResultsThree new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status. For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29% to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 70 to 74. For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1,000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality. For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1,000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1,000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1,000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1,000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1,000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1,000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1,000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1,000 in those aged 50 to 69. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review. ConclusionsThis systematic review update did not identify any new trials comparing breast cancer screening to no screening. Although 26 new observational studies were identified, the overall quality of evidence remains generally low or very low. Future research initiatives should prioritize studying screening in higher risk populations such as those from different ages, racial or ethnic groups, with dense breasts, or family history. RegistrationProtocol available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xngsu/

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.9%
2
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.6%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.8%
5
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
7
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.4%
8
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
9
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.1%
10
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
12
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
13
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
14
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
15
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
18
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.1%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
22
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Annals of Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
JAMA
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%