Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society | Breast Cancer | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Torre  LA, Bray  F, Siegel  RL,  et al.  Global cancer statistics, 2012.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87-108.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Siegel  RL, Miller  KD, Jemal  A.  Cancer statistics, 2015.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5-29.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Howlander  N, Noone  A, Krapcho  M,  et al.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2012. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015.
4.
Berry  DA, Cronin  KA, Plevritis  SK,  et al; Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784-1792.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Smith  RA, Saslow  D, Sawyer  KA,  et al; American Cancer Society High-Risk Work Group; American Cancer Society Screening Older Women Work Group; American Cancer Society Mammography Work Group; American Cancer Society Physical Examination Work Group; American Cancer Society New Technologies Work Group; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53(3):141-169.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Institute of Medicine.  Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
7.
Institute of Medicine.  Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
8.
Brawley  O, Byers  T, Chen  A,  et al.  New American Cancer Society process for creating trustworthy cancer screening guidelines.  JAMA. 2011;306(22):2495-2499.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Samson  D, Schoelles  KM. Developing the topic and structuring systematic reviews of medical tests: utility of PICOTS, analytic frameworks, decision trees, and other frameworks. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. AHRQ publication 12-EHC017. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. Accessed September 24, 2015.
10.
Guyatt  G, Oxman  AD, Akl  EA,  et al.  GRADE guidelines: 1, Introduction: GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Atkins  D, Best  D, Briss  PA,  et al; GRADE Working Group.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.  BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Andrews  J, Guyatt  G, Oxman  AD,  et al.  GRADE guidelines: 14, Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719-725.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Andrews  JC, Schünemann  HJ, Oxman  AD,  et al.  GRADE guidelines: 15, Going from evidence to recommendations: determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726-735.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
DeSantis  CE, Lin  CC, Mariotto  AB,  et al.  Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252-271.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Sprague  BL, Trentham-Dietz  A.  Prevalence of breast carcinoma in situ in the United States.  JAMA. 2009;302(8):846-848.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Nelson  HD, Pappas  M, Zakher  B,  et al.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):255-266.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Ozanne  EM, Drohan  B, Bosinoff  P,  et al.  Which risk model to use? clinical implications of the ACS MRI screening guidelines.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(1):146-149.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Henderson  TO, Amsterdam  A, Bhatia  S,  et al.  Systematic review: surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):444-455,W144-454. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Holm  J, Humphreys  K, Li  J,  et al.  Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density.  J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1030-1037.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Hartmann  LC, Degnim  AC, Santen  RJ, Dupont  WD, Ghosh  K.  Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: risk assessment and management options.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):78-89.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Boyd  NF, Guo  H, Martin  LJ,  et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227-236.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Saslow  D, Boetes  C, Burke  W,  et al; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75-89.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Systematic review of cancer screening literature for updating American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines. Duke Evidence Synthesis Group. http://www.cancer.org/breastcancerevidencereport. Accessed September 28, 2015.
24.
Hackshaw  A.  The benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer: building the evidence base using service screening programmes.  J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):1-2.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Myers  ER, Moorman  P, Gierisch  JM,  et al.  Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review.  JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13183.Google Scholar
26.
White  E, Miglioretti  DL, Yankaskas  BC,  et al.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(24):1832-1839.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Wilson  J, Jungner  G.  Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1968.
28.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Deaths: Final Data for 2011.Vol 63. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2014.
29.
Broeders  M, Moss  S, Nyström  L,  et al; EUROSCREEN Working Group.  The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies.  J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):14-25.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Gøtzsche  PC, Jørgensen  KJ.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.  Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778-1786.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Tonelli  M, Connor Gorber  S, Joffres  M,  et al; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.  CMAJ. 2011;183(17):1991-2001.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Tabar  L, Vitak  B, Yen  MF,  et al.  Number needed to screen: lives saved over 20 years of follow-up in mammographic screening.  J Med Screen. 2004;11(3):126-129.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Duffy  SW, Chen  TH, Smith  RA,  et al.  Real and artificial controversies in breast cancer screening: a perspective article.  Breast Cancer Manag. 2013;2(6):519-528.Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Nelson  HD, Tyne  K, Naik  A,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727-737.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Tabár  L, Vitak  B, Chen  TH,  et al.  Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades.  Radiology. 2011;260(3):658-663.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Hubbard  RA, Kerlikowske  K, Flowers  CI,  et al.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):481-492.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Kerlikowske  K, Zhu  W, Hubbard  RA,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.  JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):807-816.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Olsen  AH, Agbaje  OF, Myles  JP, Lynge  E, Duffy  SW.  Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program.  Breast J. 2006;12(4):338-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Paci  E, Miccinesi  G, Puliti  D,  et al.  Estimate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography after adjustment for lead time.  Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(6):R68.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Duffy  SW, Agbaje  O, Tabar  L,  et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer.  Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7(6):258-265.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Puliti  D, Duffy  SW, Miccinesi  G,  et al; EUROSCREEN Working Group.  Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.  J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):42-56.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Jørgensen  KJ, Gøtzsche  PC.  Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.  BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Zahl  PH, Strand  BH, Maehlen  J.  Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study.  BMJ. 2004;328(7445):921-924.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
de Gelder  R, Heijnsdijk  EA, van Ravesteyn  NT,  et al.  Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.  Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):111-121.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Biesheuvel  C, Barratt  A, Howard  K,  et al.  Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review.  Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(12):1129-1138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Etzioni  R, Gulati  R, Mallinger  L, Mandelblatt  J.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.  Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):831-838.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Duffy  SW, Parmar  D.  Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time.  Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(3):R41.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Bleyer  A, Welch  HG.  Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.  N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Helvie  MA, Chang  JT, Hendrick  RE, Banerjee  M.  Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer.  Cancer. 2014;120(17):2649-2656.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Carles  M, Vilaprinyo  E, Cots  F,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of early detection of breast cancer in Catalonia (Spain).  BMC Cancer. 2011;11:192.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Stout  NK, Rosenberg  MA, Trentham-Dietz  A,  et al.  Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(11):774-782.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Pataky  R, Ismail  Z, Coldman  AJ,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density.  J Med Screen. 2014;21(4):180-188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Souza  FH, Polanczyk  CA.  Is age-targeted full-field digital mammography screening cost-effective in emerging countries? a micro simulation model.  Springerplus. 2013;2:366.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
de Gelder  R, Bulliard  JL, de Wolf  C,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland.  Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(1):127-138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Lee  CI, Cevik  M, Alagoz  O,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.  Radiology. 2015;274(3):772-780.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Stout  NK, Lee  SJ, Schechter  CB,  et al.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(6):dju092.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Raftery  J, Chorozoglou  M.  Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report.  BMJ. 2011;343:d7627.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
de Haes  JC, de Koning  HJ, van Oortmarssen  GJ,  et al.  The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years.  Int J Cancer. 1991;49(4):538-544.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Tosteson  AN, Fryback  DG, Hammond  CS,  et al.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.  JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):954-961.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Shapiro  S, Venet  W, Strax  P, Venet  L.  Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and Its Sequelae. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press; 1988.
62.
Nelson  HD, Fu  R, Griffin  JC,  et al.  Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):703-715, W-226-W-235.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Coldman  A, Phillips  N, Wilson  C,  et al.  Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):dju261.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group.  Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1, further confirmation with extended data.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(1):45-51.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Nelson  HD, Cantor  A, Humphrey  L,  et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review to Update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015.
66.
de Koning  HJ, Boer  R, Warmerdam  PG,  et al.  Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(16):1217-1223.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Tabár  L, Duffy  SW, Chen  HH.  Re: Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish Breast Cancer-Screening Trials.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(1):52-55.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Hellquist  BN, Duffy  SW, Abdsaleh  S,  et al.  Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort.  Cancer. 2011;117(4):714-722.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Mandelblatt  JS, Cronin  KA, Bailey  S,  et al; Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738-747.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Tabár  L, Faberberg  G, Day  NE, Holmberg  L.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? an analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.  Br J Cancer. 1987;55(5):547-551.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Michaelson  J, Satija  S, Moore  R,  et al.  The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences.  Cancer. 2002;94(1):37-43.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Michaelson  JS, Satija  S, Kopans  D,  et al.  Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate.  Cancer. 2003;98(10):2114-2124.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Blanchard  K, Colbert  JA, Puri  D,  et al.  Mammographic screening: patterns of use and estimated impact on breast carcinoma survival.  Cancer. 2004;101(3):495-507.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Miglioretti  D, Zhu  W, Kerlikowske  K,  et al.  Breast tumor prognostic characteristics and biennial vs annual mammography, age, and menopausal status.  JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084.Google Scholar
75.
Kerlikowske  K, Hubbard  RA, Miglioretti  DL,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):493-502.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Gold  EB, Crawford  SL, Avis  NE,  et al.  Factors related to age at natural menopause: longitudinal analyses from SWAN.  Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178(1):70-83.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Performance measures for 1,838,372 screening mammography examinations from 2004 to 2008 by age: based on BCSC data through 2009. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/statistics/performance/screening/2009/perf_age.html. Accessed July 15, 2015.
78.
Jonsson  H, Bordás  P, Wallin  H,  et al.  Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality: an update.  J Med Screen. 2007;14(2):87-93.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Roder  D, Houssami  N, Farshid  G,  et al.  Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(3):409-416.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Braithwaite  D, Zhu  W, Hubbard  RA,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(5):334-341.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Sima  CS, Panageas  KS, Schrag  D.  Cancer screening among patients with advanced cancer.  JAMA. 2010;304(14):1584-1591.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Tan  A, Kuo  YF, Goodwin  JS.  Potential overuse of screening mammography and its association with access to primary care.  Med Care. 2014;52(6):490-495.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Walter  LC, Eng  C, Covinsky  KE.  Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens?  J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(11):779-784.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
84.
Sox  HC.  Screening for disease in older people.  J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(6):424-425.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Raik  BL, Miller  FG, Fins  JJ.  Screening and cognitive impairment: ethics of forgoing mammography in older women.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(3):440-444.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
86.
de Glas  NA, Kiderlen  M, Bastiaannet  E,  et al.  Postoperative complications and survival of elderly breast cancer patients: a FOCUS study analysis.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138(2):561-569.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Hurria  A, Browner  IS, Cohen  HJ,  et al.  Senior adult oncology.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(2):162-209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
88.
Dijkstra  JB, Houx  PJ, Jolles  J.  Cognition after major surgery in the elderly: test performance and complaints.  Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(6):867-874.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Walter  LC, Schonberg  MA.  Screening mammography in older women: a review.  JAMA. 2014;311(13):1336-1347.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Walter  LC, Covinsky  KE.  Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making.  JAMA. 2001;285(21):2750-2756.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Yourman  LC, Lee  SJ, Schonberg  MA, Widera  EW, Smith  AK.  Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review.  JAMA.2012;307(2):182-192. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Lee  SJ, Smith  AK, Widera  EW, Yourman  LC, Schonberg  MA, Ahalt  C. Eprognosis: Estimating prognosis for elders. http://www.eprognosis.org. Accessed September 29, 2015.
93.
Bobo  J, Lee  N.  Factors associated with accurate cancer detection during a clinical breast examination.  Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10(7):463.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
McDonald  S, Saslow  D, Alciati  MH.  Performance and reporting of clinical breast examination: a review of the literature.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(6):345-361.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Bancej  C, Decker  K, Chiarelli  A,  et al.  Contribution of clinical breast examination to mammography screening in the early detection of breast cancer.  J Med Screen. 2003;10(1):16-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Habbema  JD, Wilt  TJ, Etzioni  R,  et al.  Models in the development of clinical practice guidelines.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):812-818.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
97.
Tabár  L, Yen  AM, Wu  WY,  et al.  Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs.  Breast J. 2015;21(1):13-20.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
98.
Guyatt  GH, Oxman  AD, Vist  G,  et al.  GRADE guidelines: 4, rating the quality of evidence: study limitations (risk of bias).  J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-415.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
99.
Moss  SM, Nyström  L, Jonsson  H,  et al; Euroscreen Working Group.  The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies.  J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):26-32.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
100.
Verbeek  AL, van Dijck  JA, Broeders  MJ.  The effect of cancer screening on mortality: the case-control study as evaluation method [in Dutch].  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2014;158(0):A7047.PubMedGoogle Scholar
101.
Welch  HG.  Screening mammography: a long run for a short slide?  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(13):1276-1278.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
102.
Otto  SJ, Fracheboud  J, Looman  CW,  et al; National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening.  Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review.  Lancet. 2003;361(9367):1411-1417.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
103.
Vervoort  MM, Draisma  G, Fracheboud  J, van de Poll-Franse  LV, de Koning  HJ.  Trends in the usage of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in the Netherlands and its effect on mortality.  Br J Cancer. 2004;91(2):242-247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
104.
Friedewald  SM, Rafferty  EA, Rose  SL,  et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.  JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-2507.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
105.
Pisano  ED, Hendrick  RE, Yaffe  MJ,  et al; DMIST Investigators Group.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.  Radiology. 2008;246(2):376-383.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
106.
Mulder  RL, Kremer  LC, Hudson  MM,  et al; International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.  Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(13):e621-e629.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
107.
Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis (version 1.2015) [login required]. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2015.
108.
Houssami  N, Abraham  LA, Kerlikowske  K,  et al.  Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(5):946-961.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
109.
Chiu  SY, Duffy  S, Yen  AM, Tabár  L, Smith  RA, Chen  HH.  Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(5):1219-1228.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
110.
Boyd  NF, Huszti  E, Melnichouk  O,  et al.  Mammographic features associated with interval breast cancers in screening programs.  Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(4):417.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
111.
Marmot  MG, Altman  DG, Cameron  DA, Dewar  JA, Thompson  SG, Wilcox  M.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.  Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205-2240.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
112.
Narod  SA, Iqbal  J, Giannakeas  V, Sopik  V, Sun  P.  Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ [published online August 20, 2015].  JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
113.
Esserman  L, Yau  C.  Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment [published online August 20, 2015].  JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2607.PubMedGoogle Scholar
114.
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Sox  HC, Fischhoff  B, Welch  HG.  US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.  BMJ. 2000;320(7250):1635-1640.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
115.
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Fowler  FJ  Jr, Welch  HG.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.  JAMA. 2004;291(1):71-78.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
116.
Allen  JD, Bluethmann  SM, Sheets  M,  et al.  Women’s responses to changes in US Preventive Task Force’s mammography screening guidelines: results of focus groups with ethnically diverse women.  BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1169.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
117.
Thomson  MD, Siminoff  LA.  Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.  Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(2):128-133.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
118.
Buist  DS, Anderson  ML, Smith  RA,  et al.  Effect of radiologists’ diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.  Radiology. 2014;273(2):351-364.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
119.
Assessing and improving imaging interpretation in breast cancer screening. Institute of Medicine. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Activities/Disease/NCPF/2015-MAY-12.aspx#sthash.BiDFaY5P.dpuf. Accessed August 10, 2015.
120.
Anderson  RT, Yang  TC, Matthews  SA,  et al.  Breast cancer screening, area deprivation, and later-stage breast cancer in Appalachia: does geography matter?  Health Serv Res. 2014;49(2):546-567.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
121.
Brown  ML, Klabunde  CN, Cronin  KA,  et al.  Challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 objectives for cancer-related preventive services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E29.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
122.
Elkin  EB, Paige Nobles  J, Pinheiro  LC, Atoria  CL, Schrag  D.  Changes in access to screening mammography, 2008-2011.  Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(5):1057-1059.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Special Communication
October 20, 2015

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society

Author Affiliations
  • 1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • 2Louisiana State University School of Public Health, New Orleans
  • 3University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
  • 4Patient advocate, Troy, New York
  • 5Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston
  • 6University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 7University of California, San Francisco, and San Francisco VA Medical Center
  • 8Masonic Cancer Center and the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • 9Emory University School of Medicine and Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 10Independent retired physician and patient advocate
  • 11University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville
  • 12American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599-1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783
Abstract

Importance  Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

Objective  To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer.

Process  The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms.

Evidence Synthesis  Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk.

Recommendations  The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

Conclusions and Relevance  These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

×