0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Ideas and Opinions |

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: A Perspective on Criticisms

Cornelia J. Baines, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From the Central Office, National Breast Screening Study at the University of Toronto, Ontario. Requests for Reprints: Cornelia J. Baines, MD, 12 Queen's Park Crescent West, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8. Acknowledgments: The author thanks Dr. Howard Seiden, who identified the origin of the claims that cancer detection was delayed 2 to 5 years, Dr. Andrew D. Baines, who designed Table 7 and who, along with Professor Gail McKeown-Eyssen, read and improved many drafts. Grant Support: By the Canadian Cancer Society, Health and Welfare Canada, Heritage Fund Alberta, Manitoba Health Services Commission, Medical Research Council of Canada, Le Minister des Affaires Sociales du Quebec, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Nova Scotia Department of Health, and the Ontario Ministry of Health. The author received partial salary support from the National Cancer Institute of Canada.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(4):326-334. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-120-4-199402150-00011
Text Size: A A A

Recently published 7-year results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS) generated much controversy and criticism. In women aged 40 to 49 years at entry, no reduction in breast cancer mortality was observed when screened women were compared with virtually unscreened women. In women aged 50 to 59 years, breast cancer mortality was similar when annual screening with mammography and physical examination was compared with annual screening with physical examination alone. Although NBSS results in 40- to 49-year-old women are similar to those from previously published screening studies, critics have attacked the study's design, randomization, execution, mammography, follow-up procedures, contamination of controls, and analysis. The absence of benefit observed in mammographically screened women who were 50 to 59 years old has been used to support criticism of mammography. Important facts have been ignored. The NBSS controls, aged 50 to 59 years, unlike in other studies, received thorough annual physical examinations. Cancer detection rates in both age groups were higher in the mammography than the comparison groups. Screen and interval cancer detection rates, sensitivity and specificity estimates, and prevalence to incidence ratios at first screen met or exceeded standards established by other screening studies. Claims that randomization was flawed, in particular, that more symptomatic women were assigned to mammography, are not supported by the distribution of descriptive variables collected before randomization was done. As for the “contamination” of 26% of controls aged 40 to 49 years, who reported receiving mammography, it is improbable that single or occasional diagnostic mammograms in one quarter of the control group could obliterate the benefit of four or five annual mammograms in almost 100% of the mammography group. Much remains unknown about the efficacy of breast screening.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Flow chart of follow-up procedures.[1]

Breast cancer ascertainment was achieved by screening centers (in operation from 1980 to 1988) during each woman's screening schedule, linkage to provincial cancer registries yielding unknown cancer cases in program dropouts and in participants after schedule completion, and linkage to the National Mortality Database where breast cancer mentioned as a cause of death led to review of diagnostic and other records. Pathologic review verified breast cancer diagnoses. After verification, annual follow-up enabled ascertainment of death. The cause of death was reviewed externally .

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)