Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Across US Counties | Breast Cancer | JAMA Internal Medicine | 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 34.239.177.24. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
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
2.
Carter  JL, Coletti  RJ, Harris  RP.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.  BMJ. 2015;350:g7773.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Barratt  A.  Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality.  BMJ. 2015;350:h867.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Nelson  HD, Tyne  K, Naik  A, Bougatsos  C, Chan  BK, Humphrey  L; 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, W237-42.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Humphrey  LL, Helfand  M, Chan  BKS, Woolf  SH.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5, part 1):347-360.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Biller-Andorno  N, Jüni  P.  Abolishing mammography screening programs? a view from the Swiss Medical Board.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):1965-1967.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.  SEER*Stat databases: SEER 18 registries, November 2012 submission.http://seer.cancer.gov/data/seerstat/nov2012/. Accessed October 10, 2014.
8.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.  SEER*Stat software, version 8.1.2.http://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat. October 10, 2014.
9.
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
10.
Greenlee  RT, Murray  T, Bolden  S, Wingo  PA.  Cancer statistics, 2000.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50(1):7-33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Raghunathan  TE, Xie  D, Schenker  N,  et al.  Combining information from two surveys to estimate county-level prevalence rates of cancer risk factors and screening.  J Am Stat Assoc. 2007;102(478):474-486. doi:10.1198/016214506000001293.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Statistical Methodology & Applications Branch.  Small area estimates for cancer risk factors & screening behaviors.http://sae.cancer.gov. Released May 2010. Accessed October 10, 2014.
13.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, National Cancer Institute.  Distribution of key variables.http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/variables/. Accessed February 23, 2015.
14.
Chu  KC, Miller  BA, Feuer  EJ, Hankey  BF.  A method for partitioning cancer mortality trends by factors associated with diagnosis: an application to female breast cancer.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(12):1451-1461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Kalager  M, Zelen  M, Langmark  F, Adami  H-O.  Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(13):1203-1210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Singletary  SE, Allred  C, Ashley  P,  et al.  Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.  Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83(4):803-819.Google ScholarCrossref
17.
Carlson  RW, Anderson  BO, Bensinger  W,  et al; National Comprehensive Cancer Network.  NCCN practice guidelines for breast cancer.  Oncology (Williston Park). 2000;14(11A):33-49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Fritz  A, Ries  L, eds.  SEER Extent of Disease 1998, Codes and Coding Instructions (No. T-899; Pub. No. 98-4354). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1998.
19.
Seiffert  JE, ed.  SEER Program: Comparative Staging Guide for Cancer, Version 1.1. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1993.
20.
Wood  SN.  Thin plate regression splines.  J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2003;65(1):95-114. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00374.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Greenland  S, Robins  J.  Invited commentary: ecologic studies—biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples.  Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139(8):747-760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Wood  S.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction With R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006.
23.
Wood  SN.  Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models.  J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2011;73(1):3-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x.Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Wood  S.  mgcv: Mixed GAM computation vehicle with GCV/AIC/REML smoothness estimation. R package, version 1.7. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mgcv/index.html. Accessed September 1, 2014.
25.
Marra  G, Wood  SN.  Coverage properties of confidence intervals for generalized additive model components.  Scand J Stat. 2012;39(1):53-74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9469.2011.00760.x.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Pasek  J, Tahk  A, Culter  G, Schwemmle  M.  Weights: Weighting and Weighted Statistics. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/weights/index.html. Accessed February 20, 2015.
27.
Rodgers  JL, Nicewander  WA.  Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient.  Am Stat. 1988;42(1):59-66. doi:10.1080/00031305.1988.10475524.Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Taylor  R.  Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review.  J Diagn Med Sonogr. 1990;6(1):35-39. doi:10.1177/875647939000600106.Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Esserman  L, Shieh  Y, Thompson  I.  Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.  JAMA. 2009;302(15):1685-1692.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
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
31.
Anderson  WF, Jatoi  I, Devesa  SS.  Assessing the impact of screening mammography: breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in Connecticut (1943-2002).  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(3):333-340.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Greenland  S, Morgenstern  H.  Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification.  Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(1):269-274.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Wakefield  J.  Ecologic studies revisited.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:75-90.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
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
35.
Njor  S, Nyström  L, Moss  S,  et al; Euroscreen Working Group.  Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies.  J Med Screen. 2012;19(suppl 1):33-41.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Jonsson  H, Johansson  R, Lenner  P.  Increased incidence of invasive breast cancer after the introduction of service screening with mammography in Sweden.  Int J Cancer. 2005;117(5):842-847.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Esserman  LJ, Thompson  IM, Reid  B,  et al.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.  Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):e234-e242.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    3 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Age and Screening
    Rabeb Khlifi | CRCHUM, Université de Montréal (UdeM), Montreal, Quebec,Canada
    This is a very interesting study examining the association between the mammography screening rates at the county level and breast cancer incidence and mortality. Given the considerably controversy surrounding the optimal age at which women should be screened, it would be interesting to present separately the analysis for women 50 and over and those under 50 years of age.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    Suppose Another Conclusion is Possible?
    Marybeth Lambe MD FAAFP | Watergrass Hill
    This will sound rash & foolish in contrast with this brilliant and rather heroic research, but I am holding out hope to know further imagined data. Especially since this has set off such a boisterous clamor against screening mammograms in my community. Previous discussion has touched overtreatment but always centered around false positives & harm vs benefit so this was hugely surprising. I am just a lowly local physician, yet I was thinking of how carefully I send women for screening & just to whom & where I send them. I wondered if there was any chance this lovely analysis could be dissected down very small. If tiny subsets could be pulled out & examined—is there any chance to look at centers of excellence to know, well, if excellence matters in this? Are we still left with the uncomfortable truth of no correlation between screening and breast cancer mortality change?

    In my practice & then in reading the research, I worry about who is reading the mammogram, or who then the ultrasound, how very experienced will be the patient’s cautious, wise breast specialist next. Even here in Seattle, I use much caution--many sites, many readers, many surgeons would be hopeless and overcall, over biopsy—so I never send them there. Multiple this by a million...
    Is there any way of parceling out the data gathered & sorting it by excellence of the mammogram site, mammogram reader, sagacity of breast specialists used ? Would that alter the data; worse—would it not?

    Frankly, the inequity, the unevenness of health care, of health prevention, in this country is appalling & quite well known. I know this research appears in a series of “Less is More” but I am old & I was taught to always first brainstorm all the possible diagnoses. Sometimes, there is more before we can clinch the case as less. Would we find instead a need for cloning the very few GOOD mammogram centers, the thoughtful mammogram radiology readers, the cautious breast surgeons, & caring referral people? Or worse, still to be wrong—for all the best & attentive specialists to make no difference. What I wonder, if the data could be pulled apart like that, the large US cohort, whirled down to small intersections; likely impossible. But, oh the value of knowing would make all the difference! Does great care alter these results?
    Should the epilogue be instead? Be Careful Where, & with Whom, You Trust Your Breasts
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    increased screening=increased detection
    leong | private practice, former prof dartmouth
    as expected, the study showed that increased screening results in increased incidence of breast cancer detection, particularly small cancer. unfortunately, the study was retrospective and was not specific regarding how frequently these patients were screened, other than to state that screening was done within 2 years. to claim that increased screening results in over diagnosis is a stretch unless there is a vertical study or prospective study where all patients are followed long term. since this is cross sectional study, it is expected that each year, new cancer diagnoses will occur with fewer large cancers than small. a yearly cross section for 10 years may not be enough to tease out any effect screening has on the diagnosis of larger cancers since the screening rate is not 100% and the population is not stable.
    breast cancer mortality rates are due to a number of factors, of which size of tumor at time of diagnosis is only a part of the equation. tumor biology and receptor status plays a very important role and is not detectable via screening.
    the study does raise interesting issues about the utility of screening mammography in mortality, but until we can obtain 100% screening rates, we cannot be certain that it is not effective.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Less Is More
    September 2015

    Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Across US Counties

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Currently in private practice, Seattle, Washington
    • 2Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    • 3Department of Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, New Hampshire
    • 4Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1483-1489. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3043
    Abstract

    Importance  Screening mammography rates vary considerably by location in the United States, providing a natural opportunity to investigate the associations of screening with breast cancer incidence and mortality, which are subjects of debate.

    Objective  To examine the associations between rates of modern screening mammography and the incidence of breast cancer, mortality from breast cancer, and tumor size.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  An ecological study of 16 million women 40 years or older who resided in 547 counties reporting to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries during the year 2000. Of these women, 53 207 were diagnosed with breast cancer that year and followed up for the next 10 years. The study covered the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2010, and the analysis was performed between April 2013 and March 2015.

    Exposures  Extent of screening in each county, assessed as the percentage of included women who received a screening mammogram in the prior 2 years.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Breast cancer incidence in 2000 and incidence-based breast cancer mortality during the 10-year follow-up. Incidence and mortality were calculated for each county and age adjusted to the US population.

    Results  Across US counties, there was a positive correlation between the extent of screening and breast cancer incidence (weighted r = 0.54; P < .001) but not with breast cancer mortality (weighted r = 0.00; P = .98). An absolute increase of 10 percentage points in the extent of screening was accompanied by 16% more breast cancer diagnoses (relative rate [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19) but no significant change in breast cancer deaths (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06). In an analysis stratified by tumor size, we found that more screening was strongly associated with an increased incidence of small breast cancers (≤2 cm) but not with a decreased incidence of larger breast cancers (>2 cm). An increase of 10 percentage points in screening was associated with a 25% increase in the incidence of small breast cancers (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18-1.32) and a 7% increase in the incidence of larger breast cancers (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12).

    Conclusions and Relevance  When analyzed at the county level, the clearest result of mammography screening is the diagnosis of additional small cancers. Furthermore, there is no concomitant decline in the detection of larger cancers, which might explain the absence of any significant difference in the overall rate of death from the disease. Together, these findings suggest widespread overdiagnosis.

    ×