Back

Breast cancer over-diagnosis due to mammography screening - A long-term follow-up population study of BreastScreen Norway

Heggland, T.; Vatten, L. J.; Opdahl, S.; Weedon-Fekjaer, H.

2026-06-03 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354696 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives Estimates of breast cancer over-diagnosis related to mammography screening varies substantially. Over-diagnosis is commonly defined as cases that would not have been detected during the persons remaining lifetime in the absence of screening. We here aim to quantify over-diagnosis in the population-based BreastScreen Norway mammography screening program using long-term follow-up and more detailed modeling than previous studies. Setting We applied data on Norwegian screening patterns and breast carcinoma incidence for the period 1987-2019, covering women aged 49-84 years, leveraging the gradual implementation of the organized biennial BreastScreen Norway screening program for women aged 50-69 during 1995-2005. Methods Using an extended age-period-cohort model, we estimated excess lifetime risk of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in the presence of program screening, as an indicator of over-diagnosis among screen-detected cases. Results Lifetime risk of breast carcinomas was 6.6% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 10.7%) higher for invited than for non-invited women. This indicates that 18% (95% confidence interval 7.3% to 28.0%) of screen-detected cases may be over-diagnosed, and that approximately one in 86 (95% confidence interval 54 to 210) screened women were over-diagnosed during their screening period. Using effect estimates from previous studies, we estimated that approximately three women are over-diagnosed for every breast cancer death prevented by screening, and that 87% of over-diagnosed tumors might grow extremely slowly. Conclusions Over-diagnosis related to mammography screening is a considerable problem, but its extent may be smaller than reported in some previous studies. Most over-diagnosed tumors likely grow very slowly.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.0%
2
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
4
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 25%
3.6%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
3.1%
8
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
12
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
16
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
17
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%
26
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%